Reviews

Now here is a director with talent and arguably the best cast one can imagine, and yet again, this story is told utterly and unnecessarily complicated. The only way of dealing with the subject of Oppenheimer and his complicated genius, is to tell his story as straight as possible without jumping back and forth, the occasional jump to the side, the additional jump over a hurdle and the extra jump across the timelines. It worked for Memento and it didn't work for Tenet, but it definitely didn't work here. This movie was neither enjoyable nor interesting, unlike the subject matter.

I should have been suspicious to find that movie so soon and for free on Amazon Prime.

You could compare this movie to Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Citizen Kane or, even better, with the original Solaris ( not the american version), but still, this is not just a movie, it's a broadside attack on your standard perceptions executed with great intelligence and sensitivity. And: the more you know about movies and literature, the more you will understand the countless allegories. Also: the cinematography puts any other movie of the last few decades to shame.

I watched the movie after I listened to the Dark Horse podcast where the hosts (Heather and Bret) were both disgusted with Cuties. Since this movie was already the topic du jour, I watched it and was amazed how well directed and acted it was. I grew up with Fassbinder and Schloendorff, and Tarkovski and Kubrik, and they made some controversial movies, but Cuties is not even that. It deals with the topic of over-sexed teenagers, the influence of social media and different cultures. And if you watch the movie, watch it to the very end: the last minute of the movie is crucial to the development of it's main character.

I am not a black person! Here you go, I said it first thing and probably not the best of opening sentences. And as a not-black- person, I cannot relate to where black people shop for their clothes because a young boy wearing the same trousers and white t-shirt all day, from being in school, being chased over rough terrain, climbed through fences, had food twice and slept in these very clothes and they still look brand new. I would love to know where these clothes were purchased, because I will get me some. And some of these women, boy-o-boy. No matter how much crack they smoke, it somehow makes them look more attractive. The crack sold here in Canada is different, you can usually tell if someone is using it, not just by their teeth. Yup, lots of attractive women in this show, also a tad different up here in Canada. And now a few words to the plot: there is no plot. It is not going anywhere. If you would like to watch a show that gives you a somewhat realistic display of what it feels like to grow up with people doing and dealing drugs, watch Training Day: completely different premise, but yet, you can feel the tension, the fear, the agony of having to grow up among people whose lives center around drugs. Not in this movie however. And to be absolutely honest: I grew up in a very suburban and 100% white neighborhood and I had friends that had a much shittier live growing up than that portrayed in Moonlight. And yes, numerous movies have been made already, This Boy's Life comes to mind, but none are so pointless or contrived as this. When I started my little rant I used sarcasm, but seriously, not every movie needs a plot, we have Lynch and vonTrier doing movies like that already and maybe there is room for more. And if you would like to specifically target 13% of the population that is fine by me as well, but please pay attention to details.

This is an absolutely stunning-to-watch and well crafted animation. I was so intrigued by how it was done, I had to watch it again just to follow the story, never mind the incredible music by Tool ( song is from "10,000 Days"). This show reminded me of watching the Wizard of Oz, muted, while listening simultaneously to Pink Floyd's Dark side of the Moon. Fantastic!

I mainly write this review since I've read so many negative comments about the movie. Well, I think the movie is just fine, the acting is very solid and the story quite interesting to say the least. I believe that van Sant has demonstrated great respect for Hitchcock and picked a great soundtrack. Regarding my verdict: I'd rather watch a show like Clay Pigeon, a comparable movie, then Titanic. Hands down.

It might be a bad habit of mine but I like to compare a movie to other movies I have seen. And I compare Blue Ruin to Child of God, another fabulous albeit very upsetting movie. Both movies have rather unknown actors in it, they were done using very little money, they have interesting stories and they are directed by people who have skills, so in this way they are the complete opposite of Nocturnal Animals. Without giving the plot away, Blue Ruin starts really slow with the main character appearing to be almost unlikable, sort of like the characters in a L.F.Celine story, but then the plot starts to develop and lucky for me, I went to the washroom before the movie started, because there was no way I would have missed even a minute of that splendid movie or Odin forbid, pause it.

I know it is a far stretch but I will compare this movie to Blowup since you don't really have a story line in either movie. But while Blowup was a stylish cult movie, Nocturnal Animals is not. And I really don't have to have a story line that is logical or a linear plot-line for in order to enjoy a movie, that's why I like directors like Lynch or van Trier, but there is nothing here. Also: the plot in Blowup relies entirely on one character brilliantly portrayed by the then nearly unknown D. Hemmings, while in Nocturnal Animals you have three absolutely brilliant actors and neither of them can save the movie. If it wouldn't have been for Michael Shannon, I would have quit watching. And thus I finished to the bitter end without any reward or satisfaction. Heck, if you would ask me what the movie was about, I couldn't tell you; I think the Amy Adams character was dreaming while reading a book, but I'm not sure. This movie appeared to be directed by a computer using algorithms.

An absolute stellar cast, a plot-line that has been successfully used in the past and a very skilled camera man. And yet, there is no continuous story and while a director like Lynch can pull this off, Anderson fails. And it's not just the nonlinearity but the complete lack of any character development. I have never seen a movie where a private investigator does nothing, other than taking bizarre notes, that resembles the work of a detective. Or a policeman that acts randomly utterly violent without any cause or reason. To describe this movie I will use an analogy. Question: How many surrealist painters does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: Fish! Now, while this might pass as a joke, there is nothing funny about this movie. There is also nothing serious about this movie. It's not even entertaining. I deeply regret watching it.

Considering the long history of french movie making, this is only an OK movie. The topic/ story is very interesting and not to forget, current. The script should be a director's wet dream, but yet, the focus of the movie is too much on the central character, the way he interacts with his wife, his children and how he constantly drives a car using a cell phone. It almost seemed like the director tried to distract the viewer. The much better movie on a similar subject is "99 Homes". If you can forgive the current french movie makers that seemingly ignore their own history and the existences of Godard, Truffaut, Malle and Bresson, this is a watchable movie, but it could have been a lot better.

Spielberg never was a really great director, not when compared to Bunuel, Tykwer, Truffaut, Peckinpah, Tarkovskiy, Kurosawa, Fassbender or Wenders, just to name a few, but he's done the odd good movie. "Lincoln" is not one of them. It is an extremely boring movie, boring because Spielberg has white- washed history ( and that's what he always does), and by that I mean: anybody that studied history and preferable not in the US, knows that Lincoln was not a good president. He had no real concern for the black people, this war was all about giving the North an economic edge and pounding the South into never ending submission. So when you know that you are watching an unfolding lie, the monologues become torture. And torture it was since D.D.Lewis was pretty much all you saw, telling one anecdote after the other. I am a big fan of D.D.Lewis, but his part could have been played by many actors. No, this was definitely not an Oscar worthy performance, "There will be blood" was. I turned the movie off 20 minutes before the ending, and yes, that wasn't very smart of me since I should have done it after 20 minutes of watching, but like in countless American movies one should know that most ( not all) American directors know how to f.ck up a movie in the last 20 or even 10 minutes. And for all the brainwashed Americans reading my comment and getting upset, read James W.Loewen "Lies my teacher told me" and "Lies across America" ( that is, if you don't have a basic understanding of American history, like Spielberg). Oh, I just realised that I might have forgotten to mention something: obviously Lincoln is portrayed as a good man/ father/ president, yup, he really was such an exceptional human being and the director must have seen a need to point that out. If Spielberg would have used the script to point out that Lincoln actually was a racist and that his true interest in "freeing the slaves" was driven by the North to become more competitive ( and that is putting it mildly), then he would have had my attention and interest. With movies like that it is no wonder that many non-Americans look towards the US, and the way they deal with their own history, and just shake their heads. If you want "honest" movies, watch Australian or Spanish films.

I hesitated to leave a review at first, because it might make certain people curious to watch that show, which is not what I would like you to do. Oliver Stone doesn't deserve making any more money by you renting his movie. I am not an American and I also never was a fan of Bush, jr. or senior. But I rented that movie because of some of the misleading comments on IMDb, which shows how gullible I can be, I know. I lived for 30 years in Europe and now reside in Canada, and you can take my word for it when I state the fact that most people outside of the U.S. think the Americans as an arrogant and ignorant bunch of bible wielding Joe six-packs. And many of the comments on this forum only prove it. George W. is not a moron, that's just how he came across. He graduated from Yale and passed the exam to get into Harvard Business, so how stupid can he possibly be. But Mr. Stone portrays him as such, because he is riding the anti-Bush wave. He is cashing in on the fact, that many people have a low opinion about their former president and he is using Michael- Moore- tactics by aiming low. And be it as it may, my main criticism with this movie is: would Oliver also make a movie about Mr. Clinton and portray him as a lying, cheating, warmongering, cunning, unethical and greedy non-individual? Of course not, so where is the artistic integrity? Because Clinton belongs to a group of politicians Oliver Stone obviously relates to. And if this political colouring leaks through a movie, the director is bad. I don't care what Stone votes when the elections come, so why does he need to tell me. Mr. Stone should concentrate on making documentaries, but he is not of the caliber of a Werner Herzog; Hell, they are not even in the same league. Stone is like Moore, with maybe a tad more talent. But the talent is waning. And I follow up with an apology to anybody who feels offended by certain comments I made, I am not anti-American. To conclude my opinion about Oliver Stone: he is a very biased film maker that lacks the skill of a Tom Tykwer, Martin Scorcese, Coppola or even Sam Peckingpah. And when it comes to bias, I have similar issues with Lars von Trier, who started out as a promising talent and now only demonstrates what a racist he really is. And "emotions" like that are better kept in and not transmitted onto the screen. Whatever happened with the director that made a movie like U-Turn?

Sci-Fi is my preferred genre, be it literature or movies. And while I adore movies like Soylent Green, Fahrenheit 451, Solaris ( the Russian version of course) and Terminator 1&2, District 9 takes the proverbial cake. It works on all levels: great plot, great acting and great black humour. Splendid! OK, I wanted to leave a short summary and I've been just informed that it doesn't contain enough lines of text, so here is my advise if you like sci-fi: you've got to see it. The opening scene is so realistic, that some of my friends that saw the trailer called me up and asked if I had seen the news, because there are strange things happening in South-Africa.

I would have never bothered watching it,since I don't care for Oliver Stone movies since U-Turn, which I think is his best work. But the opinions here on IMDb were so polarized, I couldn't resist. So I did watch it. And what a waste of time it was. Oliver Stone is like Michael Moore without humour. They both know how to lie and I can't figure out why. The acting is mediocre, the Irish accents make no sense and Hopkins goes on your nerves. I also don't understand why Directors chose narration, which is usually considered a faux pas in film-making and hardly ever works. At least with Gladiator you knew it to be fictitious. Here, you don't know what to believe ( like JFK ), so why bother if it's not entertaining.

A price winning movie?? What is going on in the film industry? This a depressing story with no point to it. A miserable and unhappy Russian bride, that should have no worry in the world since she lives like a princess, is unhappy in her relationship with a music producer. When she mets his son, she is slowly falling for him. Now that alone would be very strange enough, but we don't really find out what's the fascination with the son Michael. He is educated in the English language beyond the norm, even we are a tad confused if he is just a teacher or a professor, but we have no evidence for either, since the guy is not capable of holding any intelligent dialogues, be it for the lack of available words or him being simply stupid. After torturing myself through the movie, I was totally let down by the ending, where the main character is back to square one. Researching the lead actress on IMDb I found the following: She has been called the Russian Julia Roberts because of her stunning beauty. Wow! It never occurred to me that Mrs. Roberts has any kind of beauty, except of course one likes crooked legs, no hips and lips pumped with botox, but this Russian actress is definitely much uglier, if that is possible. If these women are considered attractive by some, how would one describe Juliet Binoche, Jessica Biel or Rosamund Pike? OK, sorry, I am getting of topic, but I never understood why recent directors take on topics like that. John Cassavetes has dealt with similar topics in the past and has done a fantastic job. But if one is not on that intellectual level, why bother.

I will make it short: Tarantino is a very sick individual, no doubt. He has no sense for timing, he steals of other ( better) directors like it would be virtuous, and he absolutely knows nothing about WWII. Brad Pitt, who is one of my favourite actors, simply stank. His accent was awful and he overacted like an amateur. The scene where his bluff of being an Italian should have been called, but for some weird reason is not, is absolutely laughable, but nevertheless not funny.

We were a bunch of guys watching that movie and none, seriously none liked it. I firmly believe that Tarantino is in love with himself and that shows what bad taste he has.

I used to be the biggest Lynch fan, Firewalk with me and Lost Highway are amongst my favourite movies. David's last two movies however showed a deterioration and when you watched the commentaries on his last flick, you cannot help but notice that he is a very ill person. So now I am watching this movie by his daughter and right from the start you can witness familiar settings: the music sounds familiar, the actors look familiar, the lack of coherence seems familiar. So here goes the artistic merit. And the plot: a whole bunch of absolute loser people commit bizarre crimes that are so violent and superfluous, you just have to shake your head. The "surprise" transmogrification by the FBI agents is laughable at best. David Lynch started out as a genius and ended up a nut, but it seems his daughter does it backwards. I am sorry for what happened to her, but get a job as a social worker, you are not an artist but a creep.

The acting: Russel Crowe is still on top of his game, Helen Mirren is stereotypical and Ben Affleck cannot act for the heck of it. He simply stinks. The script: flawed and biased towards journalism. The plot: dissatisfying. My take on it: the Americans have been known to pump out movies for mob control. For example: when they decide to go to war again - they produce more war movies, to stimulate gambling - they produce movies depicting gamblers, and now, with journalism being in an absolute slump - they promote dedicated journalists. Pretty much anything you read in a news paper is either censored, edited to death or simply false. Characters portrayed by Mr.Crowe simply don't exist anymore. But some people might still believe otherwise. Heck, I bet Glenn Beck has a large following too.

I am a big fan of Tykwer, he could be the new Scorcese and so far I have not seen a bad flick starring Clive Owen. And yet, this movie is a complete let-down: a pathetic story about an obscure bank dealing in the arm trade ( what is the surprise here or the story for a plot?), a useless female lead ( Watts' part could have been played by a large number of actresses) and a waste of Stahl's talent. This movie is so deeply flawed, that the plot holes are the size of the Guggenheim museum. The final shootout in the before mentioned building is laughable and could have been directed much better with a director like Stallone at the helm. For a guy to direct movies like Run Lola Run and Winterland, The International is a complete waste of talent and money. And again: there is no plot.

This is one of the most intelligent Shows I have ever seen. It would be comparable to the first season of "Six feet under" which was very good and "Deadwood", which was simply stellar. But this epic story is much deeper and digs into the very complex world of certain individuals in a very honest and very realistic way. This was, and sadly enough still is, the very world of Advertising. A world where thousands of people are hired to sell us crap we don't really need. This very American principle is and always was as shallow, as shallow can be. And naturally it involves greed, dishonesty, backstabbing and gender-bashing at it's finest. And now, in 2008, this house of cards will hopefully collapse. Maybe that is the reason why so many people posting here on IMDb don't like the show: because it is hitting home. I love it.

And for the gents that don't appreciate the main character's "flat acting": you are missing the point. Don Draper is a man like many of us ( maybe I should say: like some of us), he has to succeed in a world of sharks, he is driven and ambitious and intelligent, but yet with a secret past that he tries to suppress and therefore put's on a facade, which is palatable to the untrained eye, but fools most of us. So his performances seem strained. A task well executed and rarely seen nowadays amongst white, north-American actors, which in general cannot hold a candle when compared to Guy Pearce, Christian Bale or Clive Owen. But in a world where Tom Cruise or George Clooney are considered good actors I am not surprised to find "Mad Men" misunderstood.