Reviews

Jonah Hill gives a great performance as an endearing well/meaning guy who carried the movie. And the banter between him and Mo was entertaining. As for the rest, what seems to be an attempt to exploit racial stereotypes though exaggeration (a la South Park) fell flat and seemingly unrealistic. Eddie Murphy's character was so cringeworthy stereotypical that he just wasn't funny. And what educated person would go to a Jewish person's house and glorify Lewis Farrakhan? And what Jewish person wouldn't have shown their guest the door? While I agree there are racial tensions in America, but geez. This movie does nothing to calm the flames.

This is as much a story about American history as it is about the Holocaust. As with another Burns' documentary The Vietnam War, the director masterfully places the personal stories in the forefront while at the same time explains the complexities of the politics and public mood at the time. Why it was plausible that FDR didn't do as much as he could have given the implications for negotiating with a Congress that represented the mood of the country at the time. You can agree or not whether FDR did the right thing but by interjecting the narrative with interviewed with historians, Burns leaves it up to the viewer to decide.

He also explains the upper crust Ivy League culture at the State Department that stymied opportunities to help people immigrate, the pervasive acceptance of eugenics and the popularity of the isolationist movement.

I take issue with the reviewers on this forum who criticized this series for not focusing as much attention on the plight of the homosexuals or Romanies. The focus of this series is the historical context in America which was also the history of the Jews in America. And it was the Jewish population of Europe that had the largest connection to America, as opposed to other groups who were met with the same fate. Each of those groups has its own unique history that would take another documentary to explore. Many Holocaust memorials actually do this because the point of remembering this horrific event is to learn how pervasive genocide is and how vulnerable we all are.

I was a fan I'd SOC as an American coming of age in the 90's, and I still am. I'd like to first clarify that her downward spiral in America was as much about her refusal to have the national anthem play before her concerts as ripping up a photo of the pope. The former exhibited an overwhelming display of immature arrogance toward a country that only served her well, which might explain why Prince's estate refused to allow footage of SOC performing the song he wrote.

That said, I felt the film was entertaining although I would have enjoyed seeing more of her process, like how she composes her songs. And more about how her career bounced back. She is a very talented artist with a great story, and a lot has happened in the past 30 years.

I wanted to like this film because I'm a huge fan of the Queen of Soul but, ironically it felt like it lacked soul. The movie didn't show her singing much until she starts to produce hits, which is about halfway into the movie, so I didn't get a sense of how Aretha built her craft. One of the best moments was when she created her song "I Never Loved a Man" but the scene ended too short and moments like those felt few and far between. The rest was the same story we've seen before - troubled childhood, rise to fame, downfall, redemption.

I gave it five stars only because it was worth seeing Jennifer Hudson. Although nobody can replicate Aretha, Hudson came as close as anyone could have.

Wright took a formulaic plot (man vs nature, goes it alone) and added a true sense of humanity. A great actor can convey dialogue through feelings and emotions, with a script containing few words, and Wright pulls this off beautifully. You sense her anguish and grief but know little about her past. The movie is about her and not how her tragedy defines her. Which is the whole point.

The classic Woody Allen formula of NYC intellectual-meets-middle America girl is a bit tired and dated. No Gen Z kid would be caught dead staying at the Pierre and having drinks at the Carlyle. Instead it would be a boutique hotel downtown or Brooklyn where there are plenty of funky bars and eateries. And what's with the tweed blazer? Other than that it was entertaining and Elle Fanning was fabulous.

This is not supposed to be a deep film! If you liked the first one, you'll enjoy this second. It's like a class reunion with silly gags, good music and cameo appearances by the likes of Gladys Knight. Tracy Morgan and Lesley Jones (who plays her prototypical crazy "in your face" character) add a few dashes of comic relief.

So grab your pizza, put your brain on hold and enjoy.

The film does an excellent job of drawing the viewers into the characters who are brave to share their horrific stories. That said the movie left me feeling short - what happened to the characters? where do we go from here?

Also, the film only depicts the Satmar Chassidic sects, one of many and the most insular. Some such as the Lubavitch value community outreach and sponsor Chabad as a house of worship that welcomes all Jews.

To the gentleman reviewer who said that Chassidic customs date back to Moses is plain wrong. The Chassidic movement started in 18th century Europe and the outfits the men wore (and still do) were designed to mock the European nobility of that time. Many of the customs such as women shaving their hair have nothing to do with Jewish law, and American Reform/Conservative Judaic practices do not erase "99%" of Jewish observances. Furthermore, not all Orthodox are Chassidic and most Jews are not orthodox...and so it goes.

We Jews come in different shapes, sizes and have varying degrees of observance. It is unfortunate that there are some awfully bad eggs.

As someone who works on Wall Street I can say this is spot on. The movie doesn't get sanctimonious - it doesn't judge its characters that way. Anna Gumm gives an extraordinary and spot-on performance as a female investment banker - not a stereotypical "greed-is-good" corporate bitch, rather a descent woman Wall Street "edge" who's trying to compete in this dog-eat-dog industry. And the only character with any shred of ethics. The main character's romantic relationship does seem gratuitous tho I can understand how it contributes to the storyline. In reality many of these women are married. The film is fast paced and absorbing. Other films about Wall Street I recommend are Margin Call and Too Big to Fail.

As someone who had a front row seat to the crisis I can say that this film got many things right bit didn't delve into explaining "why".

(1) There were legitimate business reasons why derivatives existed - for companies to hedge their exposures to commodities, currency fluctuations and a host of other things.

(2) Glass-Steagall was an antiquated depression-era law that outstayed its welcome as financial markets became more global (also banks were engaging in these activities before the repeal via loopholes so that they could compete w global banks)

(3) the movie conspicuously omitted the impact of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and the (mostly Democrat) politicians who supported these institutions by voting to allow them to purchase junky mortgages supposedly to support the housing market. Oh and their executives were indicted

(4) the government charged the banks hefty interest for the bailout money and made billions.

(5) enough with blaming Goldman Sachs for everything! What about the other banks that contributed, like Citi? Who had to pay billions in fines for fraudulent mortgages. Besides you want a Treasury Secretary who understands markets and the people at Goldman happen to be pretty good at that.

(6) having Eliot Spitzer opine is like having David Hinkley discuss gun control