Reviews

Watched this in 2021 and found it well made-- the dialogue is snappy, the characters and actors engaging and the direction innovative. The chaplain scene felt strikes a chord in our current climate. "There's a great lesson in this. Those of us who've learned it the hard way aren't going to forget it. We must never again let any force dedicated to a super-race... or a super-idea, or super-anything... become strong enough to impose itself upon a free world. We must be smart enough and tough enough in the beginning... to put out the fire before it starts spreading." chills!

This was really well done. We all know the stories of how Ailes was taken down for harassment, but this doc shined a light on his notable (if somewhat horrific) contributions to media as we know it now. I was surprised to learn that his first cable channel eventually became MSNBC (which most likely pushed him to further extremism) and that he bought up a small town paper in his town for reasons that are slightly unclear here. I would have liked to have learned more about the other ex-wives (and the "assistant" who seems to fall off the radar once Ailes marries his third and final wife.... Liz stood by her man until the bitter end). I feel sorry for these strong shouty newswomen who continue to be used by Fox News but hopefully the climate of harassment has changed to allow them a safe workspace. I believe in their right to say it, but not how they say it. (also magical is the fact that "gender queer monster drag" actor Babette Bombshell portrayed Ailes in reenactments.)

I can see how if you just love the Broadway genre, you might just love this. But for those of us who think the heavy handed dramatics are too much, this felt a little thin. I wish there was a little bit more about Michael Bennett (the creator of the show) and why he personally felt driven to make the show, rather than staring at the casting team again. Their descriptions of the parts didn't bring audience members who don't know much about the show into their world. It was a nice reminder of the music from the show, but overall the doc seemed a bit too cliche for me.

Kind of hilarious to watch almost 30 years later… I mean who considers Poison a metal band? (answer no: Pop Hair Band is more accurate) I would love for her to do a where are they now version---especially because London, Odin, Seduce went nowhere and Alice Cooper now golfs and is an upstanding member of the community (watching his interviews you can tell his persona is just an act... while Steven Tyler's interview you can guess he's high AF.) The whole thing seemed ridiculously tame (unless the metal scene really was this uneventful) and everyone was just trying too hard to be impressive. I didn't like the staged shots (especially Paul Stanley), it seemed too contrived.

Mapplethorpe was definitely a unique and fascinating character and regardless of how you feel about his more graphic photographs, you cannot dismiss that he had an amazing eye. He crammed a considerable amount of life into his 42 short years. Even if you can't look at every picture, this was a lovingly shot look at a complex artist.

I was slightly bummed when I realized this was not about Maine lobster men, and instead about Nicaraguan spiny lobster divers and the hazards they face. Pleasantly surprised, it was a well crafted doc with good interviews that made me realize what these men put themselves through to provide for their families (and for those who just want all you can eat at Red Lobster).

I want to be diplomatic and not call this garbage but…Ellie Kemper's less talented hipster cousin embarks on preparation of a role for a film that does not seem to exist (there is no record of it on IMDb and the news stories about the doc do not mention where it went. Did Greene set out to make the movie and then realize how awful all of his actors were and then change direction to salvage the footage by turning it into this "documentary"?) She looks nothing like the real Christine and any amount of spray tan and colored contacts aren't convincing enough to make us believe it. (The wig is the worst "performer" in this doc...as I'm typing this there's a scene where she TAKES IT SWIMMING. Girl, you want to be a real actress, don't be that much of a dumbass.) I'm confused why this got so much praise, I found it to be a frustrating watch.

I'm not sure what the theory behind this doc was supposed to be (as in, why was this made other than a rehashing of the facts)... I'm so jaded after watching so many documentaries that I believed that it was going to be a turn of events and the husband was going to have something to do with it, but no... It's just a straight retelling of a horrible horrible crime—nothing but the facts, ma'am. Was it to show that the Cheshire police were so inept that they should be held accountable? Was it to advocate for right-to-die laws? Who knows. Neither was presented with enough impact to make the viewer feel like that was their intention. The narrative was all over the place and all I got from this doc was a feeling of hopelessness.

I am in no way a fan of bull riding—or really any sport where concussions are a foregone conclusion. I was hoping this doc would humanize the sport a bit more. I really enjoy a good documentary where they are able to take a subject I have no interest in and show me why the participants need to be doing it... but this documentary didn't do that. The audience is left feeling this is a sad sport (classic imagery is the shot of 4 pieces of confetti falling after the winner is crowned. Or all the empty seats in the stands. Or the fact that none of the men in the stands react to anything. Or the announcer who speaks like a Baptist preacher, begging the fans to pray for an injured rider who's being taken out of the ring on a backboard.) Was this doc sponsored by Smokeless tobacco? There were an inordinate number of cutaways of the logo, the product and people using snuff that you wonder if it was contractually obligated. I was hoping there would be something to connect the riders to the animals who essentially create their livelihood—but there is no respect between rider and bull. Overall watchable, but not a lot of insight into what makes these men risk their lives for sport.

OOOOO--WHEE! There are just some very passionate reviewers around here. I gave this one a good 24 hours to simmer before writing this. First off, I'm going to review the documentary, not do what most of the 1-star reviewers do and spout off about how GMO fears are all a hoax. My rating of GMO OMG is low because I felt our friendly narrator here exploited his children to tell his story. Seifert is new to making documentaries and while he creates some pretty pictures, they're a little too sentimental for his narrative. He's brave for taking on this subject and one can wonder if all these 1-star reviews are not part of some corporate public relations department's retaliation.

My soap box is: that if GMOs are so safe, then what's the big deal about labeling them? Labels give people the CHOICE to decide what they put in their bodies. (Though now labels don't really even matter because GMOs are in everything, so, moving on…)

Whitey is a horrible and fascinating character, but this doc moves away from Whitey the terror and poses the question: did the FBI and Boston authorities knowingly allow him to kill, extort and never be charged with so much as a misdemeanor during the 80s and 90s? My issue with this doc was since there are so many players in this saga, Berlinger did his best to remind you who they all were (doesn't help that they're all named Steve or John or Tommy or Debra) but even with Bulger he was James, Jimmy, Jim, or Whitey. I had a difficult time staying focused and I wish he kept a more linear narrative. The most powerful moment of the film is where Steve Davis learns (on camera) the fate of his friend Rakes—but what was such a huge moment fell kinda flat in where it was placed in the documentary. Berlinger overdid the sweeping helicopter shots (I think he was guilty of this in the Paradise Lost series as well). All in all, still very watchable though.

I had high hopes, being that I'm a Mainer (who can relate to the quirky Mainer personality types) and a long-time user of Burt's Bees products. My aesthetic is similar—I like graphic design that is simple, yet slightly old-fashioned looking; I like products that are all-natural. But this documentary left me with more questions than I came in with (not knowing anything about the history of the company, I wanted to learn why they felt Burt warranted his own documentary). First, I think it suffered from the narrative thread—I wish it was told more linearly (start with early days of the company rather than hitting the audience with Burt's Taiwanese groupies in the first 2 minutes). Burt is quirky, but this doc doesn't give you enough—there is no coda, there is no real mention of the current company's owners (Clorox), there is no mention of why Roxanne declined to participate (or if they even asked her to), Burt's manservant (or "majordomo" as he is credited) who is he, who pays him and why is he there? There are themes I wish they explored deeper: how does Burt feel about his image being on all these products, products that no longer follow his original vision. What does the son really feel about the situation (he seems to be doing the most diplomatic of answers to all his questions). here are some heart-warming moments: Burt and his dog singing together over Skype, Burt telling Taiwanese investors "we need to separate our needs from our wants", but overall this doc needs more.

This was a good attempt at making a documentary about the Appalachian trail, but it needed a bit more focus and definitely better camera work. As it stands, it's more of "let's take the camcorder out and see who we meet today". The subjects were interesting and the premise held my attention but the stories became repetitive. I wish they delved a little more into why people were out there. The box for the DVD mentions that they were inspired by Bill Bryson's "A Walk in the Woods" (one of my favorite books), but the doc doesn't reference it once. Think they could have made a much better film if they went out with a plan to get the real stories of the trail.

I was intrigued by the premise, but lost my enthusiasm about 30 minutes in. For Act I, the clips he chose were from such obscure movies that I started to drift. To keep myself entertained, I started making a list of all the notable LA movies I knew and just waited to see if he was able to secure clearance rights to use them. (I was also confused, thinking the filmmaker was the narrator, but he wasn't and both of them work in the industry—which the voice-over rails against the public's conception that "everyone who lives in LA obviously works for Hollywood". So confused.) My list of movies that he missed (in favor of such gems as: The Glitter Dome, The Howling II, and The Adventures of Ford Fairlane) Speed, 2 Days in the Valley, Boogie Nights, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Beverly Hills Cop, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, City of Angels, Colors, Pulp Fiction, Training Day, Shampoo... I could go on...and on. I was angered by the random clip of Paris from "Armageddon" which netted :30 of random screen time and a clip from a Jerry Lewis movie in a grocery store that literally didn't have anything to do with Los Angeles. I was glad that he self-censored and didn't give away the ending to Chinatown...but not thirty seconds later he blew the ending of Sunset Blvd. (And then more damning, the ending of L.A. Confidential). Act III seems tacked on and overblown (why do some movies get :10 of commentary and "The Exiles" gets 8 minutes?) Overall, this whole thing seems like a college dissertation project.

Yes, it's almost 3 hours long. Yes, it's just 4 chemically altered characters alternating between yelling at each other and doing pages-long soliloquies. Yes, they never leave the single set. And you know what? It's amazing. This is literally master class in acting. Eugene O'Neill is a tough slog, but it was totally worth it to see these 4 inhabit the roles. I've forgotten how good an actor Peter Gallagher is and it's no small feat holding your own against Jack Lemmon. Don't try to compare it to the 1962 Katharine Hepburn film version... this one is like going to the theater, without having to leave your couch.

I'm on a roll this week watching bad docs with subjects that should have made them much more interesting. I'm still trying to figure this one out. Obviously the interviewees think this is an amazing story, but the viewer is left wondering why—the doc takes this amazing story and tries to tell it using old movie clips whose only connection is that they were about WWII. I didn't like the fact that we are not introduced to these interviewees until midway through the film, that there are long pauses of silence (where it seems narration should have been placed but wasn't) and the music was disconcerting (to be diplomatic... to be rude, it was awful). I could see how this story would make a great Hollywood movie, but the way it was presented here, I had a hard time believing any of it was true.

All the synopses of this movie stress the rivalry between Shaun White and Kevin Pearce but I felt this documentary had very little to do with White (and the actual "rivalry" seemed very one sided). The footage (quality and volume) is admirable, but I wish the narrative was a little more focused. Is it a documentary about Kevin's struggle? Or about the snowboarding community? Or about the danger of extreme sports? If it's trying to be all three, I really wish they pointed the lens at the real culprit: events like the X-Games that celebrate and instigate athletes to do bigger, faster and more dangerous tricks in pursuit of glory. I appreciated the patience of this documentary, compiling footage over 4 years to follow Kevin's personal arc from desperate to return to what he believes makes him whole, to an understanding that he is not (and never will be) the person he was before the accident. He's an endearing protagonist, so this was a very watchable film.

Watching it (finally!) after it arrived on DVD, I was very confused as to the title... kept thinking its logic would be revealed, but alas. Film was great except for the 'holes'—Hitchcock dipping to black, where modern audiences would expect an explanation. Sorry, felt a bit like Swiss cheese to me.

WOW. I can't believe that IMDb is forcing me to type more critique! I thought I was being succinct, but apparently it is not good enough. Oh IMDb, I thought we were friends. I loved you since the mid-90s, and this is how you repay me!??!

So I will go on typing until I hit enough words to validate this service. How funny! Whoever thought that being economical with your words would be a failure!

BTW, thank you IMDb for choosing the 1-10 rating system... 1-5 stars leaves WAY too many sinkholes!!!

I thought this film was great. It was provocative and risque, and I

think it held up remarkably well over the last 40 years. It's

refreshing to watch a film made in the 50's that actually shows

characters kissing- not just pressing their faces up against each

other. The themes are still current, and it's easy to see how this

could be remade and updated for today- but it would be hard to top

Simone Signoret's performance. It's an interesting concept (one

that's rarely explored in films these days)- what happens when you

convince yourself that you love someone, only to find out you love

someone else, what are the repercussions, once the first person

you loved, finally loves you back?

I saw this movie because someone had recommended it, and within about 15 minutes, began to wonder why I had been so gullible. The acting is deplorable, and the story is ridiculous and pointless. I have never been a fan of Genevieve Bujold's and here she is just confusing. I can't understand how anyone could give this movie a positive review.

This is a fabulous movie! It seems as if no one knows about it anymore (even though it was listed on the AFI's list of 100 greatest comedies of all time) which is a shame, because it is wonderful. Somewhat risque by 1937 standards, if you allow yourself to get immersed in the story, the sexual tension still is effective today. Cary Grant is hilarious with physical comedy, especially because you don't usually expect it from him, and Mr. Smith (the dog) is adorable. Don't let this one go unseen.

The version of this documentary I saw did not contain any of the celebrity "bridges" that Maltin mentioned in his review. The version I saw, ran only 103 minutes (as to the 185 of Maltin's version) and contained only archival footage of Dr. King's career from 1955 to 1968. This version is a pure video diary of King's speeches and marches. It contains amazingly powerful footage of the nonviolent protests and the final moments of King's life.

I thought I should drop my 2 cents in considering all the other reviews were lauding the exemplary talents of Branagh and Bonham-Carter. No doubt these two are fabulously wonderful actors, and I'd rather watch them in schlock than Jennifer Love-Hewitt in anything, but am I the only one just a little skeeved out by this story? I guess this is a true story, though I can't seem to find any evidence to the truth, except for that last tribute page at the end of the film. I guess this would have to be true, because you would have to be pretty twisted to make this stuff up. Robbing a bank to pay for a prostitute so that your friend could lose her virginity? Um, gross.