Reviews

It was in English but I still wanted subtitles. What were those lines that were mumbled under very loud music. This left many unanswered questions but the wild intensity of both the child and adult Dina character kept it interesting and watchable.

The opening scene was amazing. Subsequent scenes were beautifully cinematic but some of the logistics of the story really didn't make a lot o sense. Why would you need to boil lye on a swimming pool scale? Maybe that's the way they did it in 1860 but they could try to explain it a little better. Why was the wife of the rich man working with the peasant workers?

The violence was brutal and may stay with you so be forewarned. Several other oddities occurred but I guess you can always fall back on mental illness from a traumatized childhood. The whole spy subplot made no sense but then again maybe I missed important dialog because of the incomprehensible soundtrack.

To all of the reviewers saying "mysterious and complex" and giving it a high rating... Translation It's a senseless story that leads to no resolve and alienates the viewer. It's not that the viewer isn't smart enough to follow the story, it's that the writer/director has failed to communicate the story. If the written story makes sense then the director failed but if what we see is the actual way the story was written then the writer failed. No matter what happened this is not a good film.

To all of the reviewers saying, "Great acting!" and giving it a high rating... It's not really great acting. Did the actors fill you with joy one moment then move you to tears the next? Did the actors stun you with wisdom did you completely relate to and understand their character? Phil, Rose and Peter all had senseless character changes by the end of the film, there was no explanation as to why and it wasn't revealed at all in the acting.

Considering the hundreds of brilliant filmmakers and brilliant writers out there that will never get a chance to make it to the big screen, that this 'thing' was made instead, is a tragedy.

What happens when a bunch of young filmmakers get drunk and stoned and party during the production then do their best to edit the mess together. When it simply doesn't work call it an 'art' film.

All reviewers that rave about great acting and a great surprise plot twist are exposing themselves to be as shallow as this film is.

Great Acting? Aubrey is pretty and she stares a lot. She can deliver lines like anyone. Acting drunk or throwing a fit does not automatically mean great acting.

Great Plot Twist? Completely senseless change in direction with no explanation. We're supposed to feel like we're not smart enough to get this artistic 'leveraged synergy' but oh we better praise it or it'll look like we're not 'with' it.

It would have been nice learn about Charles Darwin's inspiration and breakthroughs rather than watch him used as a crutch to support a painfully slow drama. When one considers how much information is contained in Origin of Species there must be enough material on Darwin to fill a series of films. Instead we are treated to extend shots of faces staring into the wilderness so cast and crew can shoot for their Oscar.

The story and the excellent cinematography alone make for agood film. For some reason they forced in elements that had the effect of pandering to the weak minded. The film would have been much improved if these elements were left out.

It's enough to see a fellowship develop in the prep school and the visual scenes of WWI without CG of dragon silhouettes and ghosts in gas clouds. We audience members can make connections on our own and guess at what inspired him. I doubt he was thinking about dragons while seeing an actual flamethrower used in warfare.

The real story was in the details and they were good.

You can mix comedy with a serious story if you are an excellent writer/director but I think Tim Robbins has failed in both areas. This film is a total mess which is a shame because Tim Robbins has to be better than this. He probably wanted all his favorite people stuck in one film and it didn't work.

Many of the characters are acting like prima-donnas not taking their roles seriously and, as described in the title, as though they're drunk acting at some trivial theme party. This is supposed to be at the height of the depression and only Emily Watson and John Tuturro seem to get this.

Paul Giamatti's character is so disastrous it will forever be a stain on his career. Every appearance of Cary Elwes should be extracted from the film and those clips of film should be immediately destroyed. Cherry Jones takes her role seriously but also has to play along with some screwball antics that should have been cut from the film. Her acting is like a bandaid on an otherwise terrible scene making it somewhat bearable. Bill Murray must be thinking, "I'll do what I can, It's a paycheck."

The climax of the film is a twisted montage of different scenes cut into each other for no sensible reason. To make matters worse there's a whole scene of a mock funeral for a puppet that is utterly senseless. So maybe it's supposed to be a metaphor? Or maybe we in the audience are supposed to feel this is possibly some highbrow humor over our heads. Should we pretend like it's funny so others will perceive us as smart enough to "get it"? No... It's just very poor film-making.

It's the kind of thing that gives neoconservatives a foundation to stand on when referring to liberals as pretentious and aloof in an attempt to denigrate liberal thinking in mainstream America.

Not sure this film deserves 8 stars. I'm not sure I've seen a more docile war film. The actors seemed empty and without much to say despite what they are supposedly experiencing. The scene with men in a sinking boat considering throwing someone out to reduce the weight is nonsense. The boat is metal with a dozen geysering holes, they're waste deep in water. The film was resolved very quickly with no clear explanation.

I found "The Cut" to be quite an amazing film. The story is epic almost biblical and unforgettable. Through the horrors of the Armenian genocide a few acts of humanity make all the difference. It's probably not the best film for the flapjack eating simpleton but if you can handle subtitles, respect other cultures and appreciate profound human experience, pick this one up. It certainly beats the prepackaged, formula, market tested, predictable hogwash vomited out of Hollywood year after year.

The End of the Tour is NOT "Brilliant", NOT "Top Notch", NOT "Superb", NOT "Near-Perfect. It IS kind of boring.

The End of the Tour appears to have been filmed as cheaply and quickly as possible. The characters, dialog and story are dull and contrived but try to sound deep and intellectual. They're not. The writing seems to have nothing to say so they throw in some highbrow vocabulary to make the viewer feel like they're not smart enough to get it. "So he must've said something really smart, right?" Not really. If you pause the film and look up a word you quickly realize the statement was not enlightening or thought provoking at all (even though Jesse Eisenberg gave that subtle shake of the head as though he was just blown away).

So why did it get so much praise? It's a vehicle for pretentious posers to rave about on their quest to appear like social butterflies of the intellectual world.

It's truly shameful that society has sunk to this level. By that I mean that people we all know get their opinions from watching others on TV instead of using their own critical thinking skills. The talking heads on TV generally are speaking out opinions written for them by skewed producers or film industry marketers. This happens because the producer or critic doesn't have time to write a review on their own. They're looking for a quick way to be done with the work. Along comes the film marketeer who has taken the time to write a glowing review of the film they're trying to sell.

This happens of course on the political scene as well, when organizations like ALEC write legislation for senators to pass off as their own idea.

So if you decide to see this after all, do yourself the favor of making a note of who raved about it and stop taking advice from them. Also read up on the fine art of critical thinking. Calling out phonies and shaming them is the best thing we can do to change this trend of social corrosion.

Unbelievably arrogant, rude, offensive, irresponsible, self-centered, American dick-bag goes to Copenhagen expecting everyone to fall over themselves to help him find his estranged grandpa as he throws tantrums, litters the streets and canal. The writer/director seem to want to normalize this obscene behavior while encouraging pedophilia. This is an embarrassment to independent filmmakers and shows what happens when talent-less spoiled brats get funding. The actors and cinematic crew are the only talent here. It's hard to imagine why this film was made and what possible message they were going for. Five minutes into the film and I was hoping the main character would be hit by a bus. By the end of the film my feelings hadn't changed.

In the film "Gravity," oxygen wasn't the only thing in short supply. Acting skill, personality, rational physics and a sensible plot were sorely lacking. To nominate Sandra Bullock for Best Actress is to slap the face of every actress. To give the director an Oscar derides the Hollywood establishment as a whole. Take a long look at the last shots in the film then scratch your head and say the words,"Best Director". The only thing that stood out in this film were special technical effects. They make the film worth watching but don't expect the plot to be as sophisticated as the effects. Consider the plot to be on the level of a Saturday morning cartoon.

Awful! However I have to admit that I only watched about 10 minutes of it and it's possible it got better. Maybe it's for children or they figure our society is so ignorant they might just enjoy it. There was something about the scripted-ness of the opening scene that was so tedious I was blushing with embarrassment for the film-makers. I really tried to watch but I was hurting myself by slapping my forehead and cheeks so hard while wincing with disgust. Fortunately I had other films to watch. My girlfriend didn't want to watch it either (thank you)! If you know the story of the Emperor's New Clothes it seems to apply here. Maybe there were too many enthusiastic relatives used as a test audience. I consider it damaging to other mock-umentary films. This brings the whole genre down a notch.

Not a bad film but really the point was kind of strange and seemed to promote statistical marketing which has really limited our selection of restaurants, stores etc... It also demonstrates that budget isn't everything to the game either.

Production-wise this film must've been on some kind of budget where they couldn't afford to do a lot of lighting. Over-all the cinematography is very dark, flat and uncomplimentary to the story. This includes outdoor shots. Compare it to the cinematography of "The Natural" or "Field of Dreams". This seems like a strange place to cut from when your film is on a budget.

From the very beginning there is an imbalance to the overall color of the film. Perhaps this is to give the film a dated look but it was not done correctly. The colors in many of the opening shots are over-saturated. Occasionally one shot will have very nice color in contrast to the rest. The technical term for this production role is color grading and I would say they left it to an intern.

The story is painfully flawed and Owen Wilson is miscast in the lead role. Michael Sheen on the other hand is very believable and funny. It can be pleasing to enjoy the scenes in Paris, some of the historic characters and events can capture the imagination but over all it doesn't work and isn't a solid film.

First of all I recommend anyone reading this (especially Ken Burns) to pick up a copy of "Tesla" by Tad Wise. Tesla is one of the most brilliant and fascinating inventors of all time.

Without Tesla we would not have radio! We would also not have television, alternating current, electric motors, fluorescent light, remote controls and the list goes on and on. He has around 300 patents and phony Marconi infringed on more than one. But he's not the only one to cheat Tesla, give Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse their due.

So what happened Ken Burns? Were you getting your funding from Republicans that forced you to manipulate history? Wasn't Tesla enough of a money grubbing cheating capitalist for you? Well you lost a lot of credibility with this and it's a shame.

I suggest you change the title slightly. Let's call this pretend documentary, "The Men Who Made-Off With Radio"

To think that children trying to learn about the history of radio may as a result of your abomination never hear the name Nikola Tesla. This reflects so poorly on PBS and Ken Burns the thing should be retracted. At the very least Ken should appear at the beginning of the film apologizing and saying we really blew it with this one. We didn't do our research on something as basic as who invented radio.

This is a low budget film with mediocre everything. I would say that it's watchable but just barely. The story, while not great, moves along. If you're interested in Maine then see it but expect some awkward timing, poor character development, poor sound quality, poor camera work, poor acting and a story that's somewhat hard to swallow. You never know if it's the director, script or actors but the dialog doesn't flow, there's little in the way of chemistry among the actors. The mother's inflections are over the top and just don't seem real. It might be one to watch with your parents except for an oddly shot sex scene early on. In short, to enjoy this, you have to cut them a lot of slack and not be a hard nosed critic.

A bunch of amateurs ran around with camcorders as hundreds of weekend warriors (possibly after a beer-fest) put on uniforms and tried to play act. The audio is so poor it should have subtitles. Many scenes include soldiers standing around waiting for direction while white plumes of smoke appear here and there. The cameramen can't seem to hold a shot or let go of the cheap power zoom.

Quick summary of Scene 7: A group of Union soldiers are running. The General waving his sword in the air gets shot and falls. Two men drop their guns, come to his aid and try to help him run again. One gets shot. The General taps the shoulder of the other heavy guy (wearing light blue SWEAT pants) like he wants to be released. The heavy guy lets him go, forgets his gun, runs a few more steps then walks like the scene is over. In the mean time the General gets shot again and throws his arms back exactly like the first time. No shot effects... just acting. The General sweating on the ground looks like a binge drinker with heat stroke. The Union soldiers have all gone back the way they came. From this same direction a group of Confederate soldiers arrive.

They shouldn't tout this like it's a big budget epic drama. This looks like a no budget unplanned weekend shoot. Ken Burns does a much better job with still photos.