Reviews

Okay so I'm sitting here with a re-edited version of this movie on DVD entitled "Catherine's Pain." It should be, "Viewer's Pain." This is a movie entirely void of any enjoyment. If not for the nudity it would be a 45-second youtube video.

My copy is autographed by Bill Zebub himself, no less. If I trash the DVD and rip out the autographed box shell liner, the box will be the only thing valuable here.

The acting reminds me of grade-school plays where the children's' acting is stiff and yet in development, and the teacher is backstage, whispering lines to the children.

If you're planning to watch this for the nudity, there are two females, and between them there is one attractive face and one attractive body-- unfortunately not on the same body.

The plot-- plot?!?! There is no real plot. It's a sexploitation flick. Bill Zebub says that it's "experimental." Experiments are required by nature to state a goal. I'm not sure what the goal is here, if any-- self-indulgent ill-talented trash? There's some excuse for a vague message here about "what goes around comes around." Heck I just accomplished that by typing those words-- and far more successfully than Bill Zebub or the 'actresses.' There is absolutely no redeeming value in this re-edited, re-hashed movie or its variant evolutions. Nothing. Watching a blank DVD would be more fulfilling, honestly.

This is History Channel?!?!? This is nothing but a modern sports-venue of skilled shooters competing in a pseudo "reality show." The show has nothing to do with History. Sure, they use some vintage weapons at times but they're only a minor trapping, and briefly mentioned. The show has no significance to the general population, other than those who would wish to watch a contemporary "reality show" (and definitely not history-oriented) using a format of shooting contests between marksmen and markswomen.

The show tries to make some intensity and suspense out of itself in its commercials. But in true reality, it's an insignificant and mediocre hype-reality attempt at a show which tries to elevate current marksmanship into a historically insignificant level.

It doesn't even properly qualify as a sports show, either, when team members get to pick who to send home, based as much on personal politics as any shooting abilities. If "real" sports events included this ridiculous and subjective feature, there would be massive outcries.

When I first started watching this show a few years ago, I thought that it was pretty interesting. Most of the tests seemed to show some empirical, scientific thought.

Unfortunately, in the past few years the trend has drifted far toward the "woo-hoo we blew it up" subjective experience while showing greatly flawed design or well-thought design in their "tests." I really can't put much weight in their conclusions or results, or invest my trust in their findings, any longer.

It would be nice to see more focus on scientific and empirical (repeatable result) experiments, but unfortunately I expect that the expense and serious thought versus the current ratings-grabbing thrills would be financially counter-productive for the current production's aspirations.

Basically, I no longer can consider this show to be serious experimentation or valid evidence of whatever conclusions are reached. I also note that the show has increasingly shown inconclusive or flawed-design results in its attempts.

Chip Foose is a very creative and sensitive artist. I've watched many dozens of these shows. I saw the one in which Chip's own truck project was "Foose'd" with his father in charge.

The problem is that Chip Foose is at times a rather self-indulgent and self-impressed artist, taking great liberty with his creativity. In at least 3 episodes I've seen his gleaming smiling face beam as he decides to chop off the body top (roof, uprights, windows) of a vehicle. They exist for a purpose, Chip-- rain! And I'm sure some of the people don't live in houses with garages, either.

In one episode the "victim" expressly stated that his hope and plans for the vehicle was "I just want to restore it to how it originally looked." Chip, however, decided to chop the top off that 1956 Chevy Bel Air 4-door. If it had been me, I'd be screaming and demanding, "Where the Foose is my roof?!?!?!?" I probably would sue Chip Foose, the show and everyone involved in this self-indulgent liberty of creativity after (illegally) stealing my vehicle. It doesn't matter who was the set-up person-- spouse, child, parent, best friend-- they don't have legal rights to MY vehicle.

On the positive side, it's cool to see that these people get all sorts of goodies and candy in the work that's done-- the sup ed-up engines, the incredible sound systems (despite the fact that they frequently waste all the trunk storage space with massive speaker systems), air conditioning in vehicles that predated that invention, and many other bonuses. But if I were the owner and had my heart set on restoring my PERSONAL PROPERTY to my OWN SPECIFICATIONS, I'd be screaming mad.

At times Chip Foose is highly creative. At times Chip's extravagant and self-indulgent "artistic liberties" give us a new phrase, "I was Foosed over."

This is a spectacular movie. The script, the plot, the directing, the production, the acting. I'm saddened to see such mediocre review ratings for it.

I ran across this title while checking for movies starring the tragically shortened life of Brittany Murphy. This one is exemplary of her talents. Her acting is superb in character. And she dances spectacularly! The movie is fast-paced, with many twists and turns in the plot, and well-done interruptions which change and alter the characters' understandings or misunderstandings in a delightful way. Very well done and not awkwardly so as with many fast paced movies.

Highly recommended, whether you're a Brittany Murphy fan or just a fan of insanely twisting plots and great comedy-romance.

This is a masterfully done movie, and very intriguing.

I happened upon it after watching another Korean movie on Netflix and this movie popped up as a recommendation. I'm glad that it did.

It's a story of innocence lost and stolen, hard-won reconstruction and reconciliation, and finally justice won.

If you are not Korean-literate and can bear with the subtitles, they're fairly well done and the movie flows well. The emotional ties of the viewer to the primary figure become increasingly sympathetic as the viewer gradually becomes informed of the earlier history as well as coming to know the gradually emerging persona of the actress. It masterfully unfolds both as a personal character study and thematic evolution, with quite a few twists and turns in the unpredictable plot which gradually leads from sin and punishment to retribution and salvation.

To begin with, the script is an amateur attempt at a movie. The directing is a bit stiff and mediocre. The attempt at a mystery ending fails lamely.

The production is poorly done, especially the audio which frequently over-peaks and causes voice distortion especially during outdoor verbal interactions. There is constant background "music" which amounts to pretty much noise and annoyance. Most of the dialog is fraught with echo from poorly placed audio microphones.

If the plot was at all intriguing or with proper development, this movie might have been fair to tolerable. But unfortunately for one of my favorites, Piper Perabo, the effort fails miserably.

I loved seeing the actual facts and photos in this movie, and hearing the narratives read. It's an important part of American history that was preserved for us by the researchers back around 1930.

What annoys me is the production. There is far too much extra baggage, scenes showing the actors discussing and prepping for their readings. In at least one early reading, the actress seemed to know nothing about the person or the life of the person who they were just about to portray. That lack of preparation by the actors, plus the footage showing this, really detracted from the flow of the production. It also made their actual portrayals come across as less true and heart-felt, and merely some actor playing some role that they hadn't even researched adequately beforehand.

I would love to see this again in an edited version which removed all of the behind the scene prepping which seemed to glorify the actors to the detraction of the movie's intent, which is the focus on these painful and yet enlightening biographical treasures of American history.

But aside from going to Library of Congress for weeks in order to read the original narratives and view the accompanying photos, this is definitely a great opportunity to learn about slavery days from first-hand witnesses.

I watched this on Netflix streaming video with English subtitles because I was bored one night and the premise of the movie's description sounded intriguing. It is far more than I could have known! This movie is an amazing exploration into truths, relationships, and various layers thereof, and it gradually unfolds like layers of an onion.

The movie first begins with the couple in the throes of lovemaking resulting from mutual attraction at a party. They begin to dialog and note how they don't even know each other. As their personal life stories begin to unfold, so do layers of truths, jealousies, distrust, anger and all of the other emotions which tend to play out during many months, not hours, of relationships.

The movie fascinates if you enjoy the study of humanity and interpersonal relationships. The movie didn't simply end-- I'm still enjoying the food for thought which it left for me to ponder.

I enjoy this show but Tony Shalhoub, the alleged "star" of the show seems to be more of a supporting actor to the many "supporting actors" who are more greatly featured in the various vignette scenes.

It's a quirky show, funny and yes Tony Shalhoub's character is a funny obsessive-compulsive and at times babbling feature. But it's the various supporting actors and actresses in each show's sub-plots that seem to carry the show.

I would love to have rated this show higher (as many seem to do) but the confusion created by "who's the featured character" in scene to scene left me feeling that this show's writing was a bit un-balanced.

This is a movie which carries largely upon the viewer's connection to the main character (played by Sally Hawkins), a giddy young woman who lacks much else in redeeming qualities to bond the viewer to the character other than lame giddiness. Even her attempted portrayal of a giddy woman falls flat with me as a bit lifeless in reality.

I love great Brit humor (Python, Absolutely Fabulous) but there is little more here than the leading character being giddy, giddy and more giddy. I suppose that some viewers will find that funny. I simply find it to be shallow in plot and lacking depth of character, direction and plot. Giddiness in itself is not enough in the way of comedy or humor to make me laugh. Maybe a few lame but pitying smiles were emitted by me.

Even during the attempts at more serious moments, the primary character seems rather flat and lifeless, more an observer of the moment rather than a leading presence. Sally Hawkins seems unable to convey or interject anything in the way of true compassion, concern or emotions in her role.

Her encounter with a homeless man seems flat. And the actor's portrayal of a homeless man is very unrealistic, lacking sensitivity or awareness of the usual despair and frequent mental health issues of a homeless man. The actor's failure further causes the movie to fall flat.

Eddie Marsan as the actor playing the driving instructor is annoying. Eddie Marsan in any comedy role fails for me, his portrayal seems always to be of an angry, annoying and non-funny persona despite his attempts at quirkyness. He falls far short of the depth shown by stellar actors such as Joe Pesci or Bob Hoskins playing similar roles.

For viewers hoping for some sort of definition of character and depth of plot and acting, they'll be rather disappointed-- as I've been. I kept having to check the movie status on my player to see how much longer I had to endure. Surely, I thought, it will redeem itself. But I could have had far more enjoyment watching the Life of Iguanas on television's Animal Planet, unfortunately.

Christina Lindberg was already selling herself in nude pinups and movies several years before this movie. This movie is yet just another "social issue" excuse for selling Christina Lindberg and soft-core porn.

The movie pretends to explore the true life of a teenage sex-addict but in reality it's just an excuse for the nude and sexual content matter of the movie. There are of course the pompous analyses by her psychologist but they're simply a vehicle to deepen the chaotic and kinky erotic state of the character, played by Christina Lindberg.

Overall, the movie lacks depth, the acting is poor and 70's-cliche' in its settings and seems to have no real purpose other than to sensationalize popular Christina Lindberg in yet one more sexually exploitative movie.

Rape and more rape, while capitalizing on the over-developed (and heavy-cellulite) body of the leading lady.

If you want to watch a post-60's genre flick of Swedish culture in the early 70's this movie is probably a fair example. But most likely it's the near X-rated skin and sex that will draw most curious viewers.

As far as seeing nude females and some sex action, it's disgusting that much of it results from rape, and the plot has almost no sensitivity to the character's feelings or trauma.

As far as the acting, the plot is very thin and the actors as well. There is little depth or purpose for this movie aside from being a vehicle for nudity and sex.

If you enjoyed movies such as Candy (Ewa Aulin) and enjoy seeing a character repeatedly sexually abused, then you will probably enjoy this movie, unfortunately.

This movie is basically sexploitation.

The movie is at times a bit slow, and the actress' acting a bit flat but that is part of the whole intriguing plot, which as you suspected at the beginning, is true.

If you're hoping to see porn in the movie just because the descriptions seem to want to tell you that the woman is a porn addict, think differently. The only skin that you'll see is her naked back a few times.

Although the plot unfolds very slowly, that's the point. There are some mental health and abuse issues here, and in real-time most similar interactions would never progress as far as this movie does by the end, and most likely far less successfully as the eventual turnout of the plot.

Interesting, intriguing, not Oscar-candidate but a strong entry especially considering the topic(s) involved.

Incredibly realistic, including all of the tentative hesitancies and uncertainties of those with gender dysphoria (transsexuals). I spent a good number of years counseling people who were suffering from this issue, and this movie is the most realistic of all that I've seen regarding the issue.

The older male-borns who suffer from gender dysphoria have the most difficult time, because their bodies have endured decades of testosterone shaping and effects. This movie only mildly touches upon that issue. But it's obvious from the plot that this "man born in a woman's body" isn't ready to become a swimsuit-model or a sex-idol. He or she has gender issues which have aged beyond the ability of his/her body to satisfactorily recover from. But the character of the wife, played by Jessica Lange, is done extraordinarily well. The wives of male-born transsexuals struggle not only with the loss of a lifelong sexual partner but their own identity and sexual worth among society, at a time they probably did not expect to have it forced upon them.

Very well-done and realistic.

Very poorly developed, the movie simply jumps into poker and fails to ever develop its characters or any interest in them.

If you're a poker fan you'll probably enjoy watching this fictional version of World Tournament of Poker et al.

But again, it's fictional, and apparently an opportunity for several big-name washed-out actors (Burt Reynolds, Jennifer Tilly) to get a job.

But since it's fictional and the characters are simply pretend, there's nothing in this movie that causes your empathy or excitement to root for them, unfortunately.

What a bum-deal.

I found nothing redeeming in watching a movie which flaunts the passive-aggressive and sociopathic behaviors of campy intelligent and pseudo-polite individuals.

Michael Pitt recreates his nearly stereotype polite-psycho role as in The Village et al. The acting by the senior actors Naomi Watts and Tim Roth is top-notch. Unfortunately, they are stuck in a movie with no redeeming qualities.

The entire movie is simply a frustrating, mostly slow-moving and overly-deliberate progression of polite and manipulative psychopathology. What's so fun about watching that in a movie? One can simply see the same mental-disorders in interpersonal daily life encounters, although without the fruition of what happens when such ill and twisted individuals have their full reign.

After all of the high marks and positive reviews for this movie, we're puzzled. This movie is simply lame and ridiculous.

It's a waste of some fine acting talents. For the most part, the acting is fairly decent. But in those "severe distress" moments, even the decent actors' gestures are so staged and fake-emotional.

Laura Ramsey provides the soft-tease skin role. Jonathan Tucker provides the cool-witted brains character.

Most of the movie is modestly predictable, or at least lacking in sheer orginality and shock-factor, compared to most "decent" horror/thriller genre movies.

Honestly, I spent more time laughing or chuckling over this awkwardly-structured and overly-staged movie than feeling any sense of actual suspense, most of the time. There's simply not enough of anything to make this movie anywhere close to its ratings on IMDb and elsewhere-- maybe I'm just clueless.

Overall, the movie is extremely well-acted, somewhat interesting despite its relativity and abstract approach, and probably worth the watch.

Unfortunately, what we had assumed and expected was a powerful and interesting bio-drama of the life of legendary songwriter/singer Bob Dylan. What we quickly discovered was a confusing semi-clone of "Across the Universe." The person thought of as Bob Dylan is scattered into the lives of 4 different characters. Various real-life world events and persons are renamed, so there's little true continuity to the actual events and persons attached with this period in history known as the '60's and '70's.

Instead of simply dealing with facts and realities and a person well-known as Bob Dylan, the writers and producers give their scrapbook-cut interpretation of his life while attributing their views to fictional characters--- thereby sidestepping direct accountability while spicing it up in an aura of surreal abstract.

Dichotomy-- great acting, interesting movie (great if you're not expecting anything); huge disappointment if you were hoping for anything of a semblance of Bob Dylan reality.

Childish and immature. for DVD-viewers. In five years, people will laugh at this "vintage technology," turning what would have been a great real-life cast into semi-anime' figures with unreal appearance and motions.

The movie starts with no introduction or development of the characters, no apparent explanation for the sudden evolution of this monster-esquire creature and no plot. It doesn't seem to progress much, from there.

When will Hollywood directors and producers wake up and realize that not everyone is infatuated with currently-high-tech anime'? Or was this an excuse for "we couldn't actually make a good movie out of this so we anime'd the heck out of it?" If you're a fan of Hopkins or any of the actors, save the embarrassment and avoid this movie.

The viewer is immediately dropped into a world of psychotic abstract-reality. Apparently the production team thought that viewers would be so committed that they would want to continue the experience. Honestly, it's quite annoying.

Yes if you are bored and wish to simply let the movie run and not invest much emotional empathy or care, eventually the experience might become meaningful. But-- why?!?!? Why would we the viewers have that expectation put upon us? The characters start with no introduction, no character-development, and some vague stuttered-effect hint of what is happening and what is to come. Make us care. They do not.

It's actually an angry drama, mis-billed as comedy, just because it has a good number of humorous little tidbits of quirky incidents, and snide comments. Jack Black plays an interesting "typical Jack Black" persona, his usual mix of cute-loser humor and trashy character. The main actresses played good drama roles, but their drama-esquire skills are kept largely restrained by their characters. The constant switching between anger, slightly suspenseful moments and quirky personal moments just doesn't mix well with either actress' superb drama-talents.

In essence-- it's a water/oil mix of a movie. The plot would have flowed well if the characters of the primary actresses had been cast otherwise. The movie seems a restrained waste of their outstanding skills, and a confusing frequently-changing and disjointed mixed-thread of sub-plots, emotions and interpersonal conflicts-- with little coherence.

This movie was absolutely Horrible. Even for me, someone who played their songs in my early teen's in a rock-band, and who saw the Monkees perform live during the first year of their television show-- it's simply a horrible mishmash of garbage.

Horrible movie! The writing was very self-indulgent and greatly lacking creativity or originality. What was Jack Nicholson smoking at the time? The band members appear in many scenes where they are just doing abstract, silly things with no real purpose. There is a lot of abstract junk-buffer thrown into the movie, I suppose to add to its length, which are so lengthy and out of place that one loses total interest to the point of frustration.

Even the soundtrack is lackluster, apparently filled with songs created for this movie-- almost all of them boring, lacking creativity and none memorable.

If you're a die-hard Monkees fan, watch this movie-- but only out of diligent duty.

The topic is very interesting, and somewhat important in the face of the post-9/11 terrorist attack, resulting in a backlash of suspicion by many US citizens toward people of middle-eastern descent or culture.

This paranoid-episode focuses on a down and out man, and the suspicions he experiences when a new neighbor of apparent middle-eastern background moves into a nearby apartment. Various pre-existing marital tensions in his marriage contribute to fuel his determination.

All of the acting is well-done. Most everything is well-done. But it's just plain depressing and down-mood, from beginning to end, so don't plan on watching it for weekend escape-entertainment.

If you were hoping for action, there's almost none of it here. Even on suspense, there's very little. It's more of a drama with a slight edge at a few points in the latter third of the movie. The last minute or two of the movie's ending left me unclear on what had happened and what was implied. I felt that it could be interpreted at least two different ways.

Overall, it's a worthwhile movie with food for thought. But I wouldn't think of it as invigorating or thought-provoking-- it was more frustrating, from my point of view.

Sorry to see so many negative ratings for this movie. We loved it! Laff a minute! Of COURSE it's silly lame comedy. And it meets its objective well! There are so many funny lines and quips in this movie that we had to keep pausing to finish laughing.

Just watch the movie, if you enjoy silly lame comedy. It's not even all that lame, actually. It's rather creative, in fact. The actors chosen were perfect for their parts. They all played their parts well. Despite the offbeat plot and events, they all work out. Despite the lame humor, the production in all respects is rather fairly well-done, given its intent.