Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Dirty Wars (2013)
1/10
Most Dishonest Documentary Ever Made... Spoilers (if that's possible)
5 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This was supposed to be an expose on JSOC until the gov't outed themselves after they killed Osama in the middle of the making of the doc. Then filmmaker changes the story line, and while it's sad to see innocents die, in every war there is collateral damage. Filmmaker tries to garner sympathy - but what I don't understand is, the movie mid-flight changes focus to the assassination of Al-Awlaki, who was arguably the most evil terrorist, in the history of mankind. You, as a viewer, are supposed to be outraged with the American gov't because an American hiding out with Al-Qaeda in the mountains of Yemen was targeted for assassination. That might outrage me if he wasn't on a level with a guy like, I don't know... Osama Bin Laden? I was pretty offended to be honest as the film went on, however what kept me incredibly interested was the filmmakers obsession with seeming, looking, and acting balls-out cool. This guys ego is the size of Texas and you can tell that in every frame his appearance was paramount to the actual story. The perfectly manicured 2 day beard, the sunglasses, I mean this guy must have the women lined up. I don't knock him for that.

Now, they make this Awlaki out to be a guy who merely criticizes the American gov't. They even make a point to show him denounce the 9/11 attacks shortly thereafter, however don't show when he told some Muslim kids in a school the next day to never trust a non-Muslim and Americans are out to destroy Islam. He also fails to mention that when his teenage son was killed two weeks after him, his "innocent" son was with high ranking Al-Qaeda officials. Nor is there any mention that when Awlaki was killed, he was in fact with many high value targets, including the editor of Al-Qaeda's propaganda machine.

Filmmaker's whole argument (I guess) is that Awlaki was an American citizen, therefor it was unconstitutional without a fair trial. He points out that "even" the "American Taliban" received a trial. However, filmmaker omits the fact that Awlaki fled the country while wanted, had a long criminal record including everything from prostitution to massive fraud. He lied about his birthplace to get foreign scholarships and had phony passports. His number was found in 3 of the 9/11 hijackers phonebooks, he also exclusively counseled the Fort Hood shooter in the 6 weeks prior to the deadly attack. He was involved in pretty much every major terror attack in the last 15 years.

I knew about this Awlaki for many years, so watching this documentary wouldn't have been so sickening if it weren't quite funny in its desperation. In the end, filmmaker is the real star, constantly looking like a secret agent, always trying to look and act cool. The fact this was nominated for any award let alone an Oscar is pure insanity.

Bottom line - does the U.S. gov't cover up mistakes and botched missions? Of course. They always have and guess what - so does every gov't because no gov't is perfect and politicians don't like to be embarrassed. It is terrible that innocent people die in war, but the fact is NATO's success rate in these type of attacks is quite high. If the killing of innocents is what you want to make a film about, you should be applauded but anyone who sympathizes with Al-Qaeda is worthless.
29 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Girlfriend (2010)
10/10
Couldn't take my eyes off of it
25 September 2012
First - for the people who go straight to the bad reviews: Click on each of the ID's of those 4 negative reviews done within a few days of each other. They have names like "MovieBuff" etc. Not a single one of those reviewers have had ANY other activity on IMDb aside from panning this movie. Zilch. All the bad reviews are the same one regurgitated. Which leads me to believe someone has a problem w/the film makers. It is insane this movie has such a low rating, and pretty sad that IMDb would allow something so obvious to go on unnoticed.

Now on to the movie. I won't go into specifics because it is sort of difficult to go that far into the details without spoiling - since part of the allure is in the flow of the movie. On the movie box, it says "mesmerizing". I felt the same way - I was waiting for it to happen - it being quite a few things. Some I guessed right, some I guessed wrong, some I didn't see coming at all. Some that I saw coming that did, didn't come at the time. It's an unpredictable movie, which I find appealing. The plot is pretty straight forward, it's more about the direction. Where is this movie going - like waiting for a train wreck you KNOW is coming.

The acting was great for the most part. I thought the diner manager was awful, I could have read better lines and I have zero experience acting! He had like 2 lines in the movie and they stick out because they were so insincere. Maybe that was by design, but I doubt it.

The female lead does well, she is conflicted and it shows and it is believable. All of the characters in this movie are flawed, save for the child, who, from what I took away from the movie, played a bigger role than it would seem.

The lead actor, with Down Syndrome, does a fantastic job. I wouldn't say he had to "act" much. He was obviously very believable, never did I feel he was being coached. It was a sincere performance, one he clearly understood, and at times his sincerity was touching. His reaction to situations, no matter how tragic or good were very even - as a parent of a high functioning autistic, it was dead on.

Character development was acceptable. Not enough to where you care so deeply about one or two characters - I was more interested in seeing what was going to happen. Who is going to get what they deserve, etc. I didn't get emotional at all, and maybe that was the intention of the film maker. He could have easily gone that route.

In the end, there is a moral to the story, certainly there is an innocence to it, and it explores the vulnerabilities and imperfections in all of us - disabled or 'typical' we all have them. It also leaves you hopeful, that beneath those flaws, there is a natural good in all of us, just as well.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Pretty Darn Funny
12 February 2012
I voted 10 to bring the average up. It's current rating is way too low. If you are a fan of immature goofy movies, (Corky Romano, Dodgeball, Freddy Got Fingered, The Rocker etc.) or the Jerky Boys tapes, you will get a lot of laughs. Let's talk about some of the actors. Nick Swardson's character, Bucky Larson, really relies on others for laughs and it's a unique character so it is hard to critique. The supporting cast does well to compliment him. He puts on a great Minnesotan accent a la 'Fargo' only exaggerated to the 10th power. Christina Ricci as always puts on a great performance as the romantic lead - very sincere and believable. Stephen Dorff, who I actually can't stand, was absolutely perfect for the villain role. He did a fantastic job and came off almost likable as a complete douche. There were some good characters who did well and added a lot to the movie, but it was Don Johnson who stole the show. I cracked up at nearly every line he had. His delivery was flawless. I am really surprised at how funny he was. You can compare his role to that of the legendary Rip Torn in Dodgeball and Freddy Got Fingered. I really can't stress how great Don Johnson was. The movie is light, there is no real drama in it that you have to deal with, it's just about getting some good laughs and forgetting about everything else for an hour and a half. Don't go in expecting Meet the Parents or some cerebral comedy. It's a goof flick, I would definitely recommend it for anyone who is immature like me. The movie bombed in theaters and I am not surprised. It should do well on PPV and DVD with people like me who don't go to theaters anymore. Just rented it from Redbox and it was a dollar well spent.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This Parent Approves
30 August 2011
Before seeing this, I really had no clue as to what Justin Bieber was all about. My wife rented this on DVD for my 6 year old daughter so I ended up watching it over and over one weekend. I was pleasantly surprised. The 'documentary' or whatever you want to call it was informative and shows Justin from when he was a baby and how he showed musical prowess even as a toddler. It really is an amazing story and shows how with hard work dreams are attainable. As for the music, some of the songs are actually great. I knew the 'baby oh' song (which I never liked), but there are a few other songs that I heard that got me watching, particularly "you smile". Listen to his phrasing, he just has impeccable timing and his intonation during live performances is stunning. Not to mention the dude plays guitar really well, as a lefty too, and he's an incredible drummer. My own musical tastes are vast, but my favorites are progressive rock, especially Yes, Floyd, and old Genesis, as well as the Cure and Smiths/Morrissey. I was surprised that I actually was singing and playing along on guitar and piano to a lot of the songs because I've never been into pop. Overall it's a good watch for parents, obviously if you rented or watched this and you aren't a fan or parent you have serious problems - I have read some of the reviews here by twenty-something males & the fact you are not only rating but reviewing this movie is pathetic. I understand there are haters - Back in my day a lot of people joked about NKOTB, but I think at least we acknowledged well these dudes are traveling the world, making millions and banging every girl in site. Kids today seem a lot more angry, hateful and jealous, content sitting in their house playing video games. The kid has serious talent, how some of the most respected musicians in the industry think so but you don't, maybe just maybe you are the one with the bad ear here? Just a possibility I am throwing out there. Peace
12 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Cinema For The Ages
24 October 2007
Who's Your Caddy? is rightly considered an American classic. Don Michael Paul directs wonderfully, in the vision of a modern day Harper Lee. The story is easy to follow and the humor is fresh and original. While all these characteristics would qualify Who's Your Caddy? as genius cinema, they do not necessarily indicate a classic. What moves Who's Your Caddy? to classic status is its morality and ability to draw sympathy out of viewers as much today as when it was written in 2005. Who's Your Daddy deals with heavy and vital issues - racism, oppression, injustice. Amazingly, it is able to handle these deep and sensitive areas without feeling depressing or preachy. Michael Paul accomplishes this by making the viewer feel like a child and allowing us to learn along with him. Big Boi's (C-Note) acting makes it is easy to enter the world of modern day Atlanta. Despite all the flaws of the city, it is also easy to love many things about the place and many of the characters. If you have not yet seen Who's Your Caddy?, you will not regret picking it up at your local video store. If you saw it in the theater, it may be time to visit this world again. Wait, I've changed my mind, this movie sucks monkey testicles.
29 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible Movie
23 October 2006
This was the worst movie i've ever rented in my life. my biggest problem with this movie was the acting. i mean, they weren't given much in the dialog department, but still. the lead in the movie, Conrad, played by Joe egender, had his moments. but in the end, you can call him a poor man's Giovanni ribisi. a very poor man's. in the beginning of the movie, there's a part where one of Conrad's roommates, Frankie (a female), offers to make Danny breakfast. Conrad asks 'what about us?' and she replies, 'no but i can make you a glass of shut the ---- up". right there i knew it was going to be a disaster. this movie was so cliché in so many ways. the time-line seemed like a ripoff of 'clerks'. i was wishing the movie would end at 12:00AM but it drags on for 7+ more hours. Conrad is turning 30 and his friends are throwing him a party. he manages to run into 2 of his ex girlfriends in one night, one who has 2 kids, one named Conrad(!). she's walking out of a bar alone, yeah that's believable, and ends up macing Conrad, then having him over her house. believable again. his friends hire 2 strippers, and when the hot one offers Conrad a BJ, Conrad refuses. she berates him and leaves, only to return 3 hours later to 'check out the party'. they hook up. again, very believable! one big thing missing from this movie is a climax. if there was one, i didn't notice it. the movie dragged on at the end, and it was predictable anyway. the movie looked like it was filmed on a $300 digital camera. it was bad. the audio was OK, i didn't have a problem hearing the characters for the most part. the music was very good, but that's about it. but even that was misused in most parts. i could never figure out where the movie took place. one of his friends worked in 'the city', and NYC is mentioned a few times, however, the neighborhood itself did not look like long island, Westchester, or any parts of new jersey. it could have been Rockland county, i don't know. most of the characters went to college, but none were mentioned except 'state'. the only character i liked was the Mexican landlord who doesn't say a word of English in the movie. perhaps he should have landed the lead here.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed