i had no expectations about this film and i knew very little about it. all i knew of it was that it was a slow-paced melodrama about a cross-country journey. so with that in mind, the end result was quite pleasing as the film is actually a good quality film. even though there are some areas of the film that can be worked on- the beginning being a tad bit fast, the end being a bit slow, and the fact that some scenes weren't developed enough to make you fully comprehend the characters' emotions- the film itself worked well enough to draw you in. this is a pretty sad film that has a great message behind it. it kind of hits you and makes you think about life and enjoying it while you can. also, the acting was pretty good. believe it or not, mariah carey actually made the film a lot more interesting to watch, and she proved she can act in some way. put behind her 'glitter' debacle and you'll see some pretty good performances from her. overall, i liked it better than it thought i would, and i would watch it again.
Reviews
15 Reviews
Gran Torino
(2008)
horrible acting and awful screenplay makes worst Eastwood movie ever...
7 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
with all the positive reviews and massive gross income this movie received at the box office, i thought this movie was going to be good... i would have settled for decent. but this movie is straight-out bad. fans who responded well to this film must be major Eastwood fans because i seriously cannot believe anyone would rate this movie so high.
let me just say that this movie didn't get nominated for any academy awards for a reason. looking at its award accomplishments, this film did not garner much attention, only being nominated for small categories. the only one notable was the national board of review, and to think it honored Clint Eastwood as best actor and Nick Schenk for best screenplay is beyond my comprehension.
what truly ruined this movie was the horrible acting! i truly cannot believe that Clint as a director could allow such amateurs to star in his movie that had so much potential. i'm pretty sure if you read others' comments, you would get a feel of how bad i'm talking about. but for an Eastwood movie? WHY CLINT, WHY? i mean even Clint himself was forced and stiff, trying way too hard to be a tough and macho racist that it didn't work at times. THE worst actors to me are the two main Hmong characters, Thao and his sister. oh my goodness. what happened to them? as an Asian-American watching this movie, i was truly shocked at their utterly poor acting skills, as if Clint picked them at random off the street or as if they were part of his family or something. i know for a fact that i would have done a better job playing these characters, and i'm not joking either. in a nutshell, the acting was so unbelievable.... the way they delivered their lines and their lack of facial expression.
another horrible factor to this film is the awful screen writing. Nick Schenk tries way too hard to make this movie bad-ass that every single line from a character contains some derogatory name-calling. honestly, people don't call each other names as often as this. and to have Eastwood's character sacrifice his life at the end all because the Hmong family didn't want to tell the police that Thao's sister got raped is just plain dumb. what made it worse was that supposedly, Hmong keep things very private but yet witnesses who saw the murder blabbed to the police faster than the speed of light. and you would think those gangsters who shot him would run away or try to hide his body but instead they stay there at the scene of the crime, pretty much waiting to be arrested by the police. let's get real here people.
all in all, lack of character development from 99% of the characters and crappy screen writing made this film clearly Eastwood's worst and most forgettable movie, period.
let me just say that this movie didn't get nominated for any academy awards for a reason. looking at its award accomplishments, this film did not garner much attention, only being nominated for small categories. the only one notable was the national board of review, and to think it honored Clint Eastwood as best actor and Nick Schenk for best screenplay is beyond my comprehension.
what truly ruined this movie was the horrible acting! i truly cannot believe that Clint as a director could allow such amateurs to star in his movie that had so much potential. i'm pretty sure if you read others' comments, you would get a feel of how bad i'm talking about. but for an Eastwood movie? WHY CLINT, WHY? i mean even Clint himself was forced and stiff, trying way too hard to be a tough and macho racist that it didn't work at times. THE worst actors to me are the two main Hmong characters, Thao and his sister. oh my goodness. what happened to them? as an Asian-American watching this movie, i was truly shocked at their utterly poor acting skills, as if Clint picked them at random off the street or as if they were part of his family or something. i know for a fact that i would have done a better job playing these characters, and i'm not joking either. in a nutshell, the acting was so unbelievable.... the way they delivered their lines and their lack of facial expression.
another horrible factor to this film is the awful screen writing. Nick Schenk tries way too hard to make this movie bad-ass that every single line from a character contains some derogatory name-calling. honestly, people don't call each other names as often as this. and to have Eastwood's character sacrifice his life at the end all because the Hmong family didn't want to tell the police that Thao's sister got raped is just plain dumb. what made it worse was that supposedly, Hmong keep things very private but yet witnesses who saw the murder blabbed to the police faster than the speed of light. and you would think those gangsters who shot him would run away or try to hide his body but instead they stay there at the scene of the crime, pretty much waiting to be arrested by the police. let's get real here people.
all in all, lack of character development from 99% of the characters and crappy screen writing made this film clearly Eastwood's worst and most forgettable movie, period.
The Edge of Love
(2008)
what a total waste of 2 hours!! periodical romance drama has no storyline..
23 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
i can't believe how dumb this movie truly is. the storyline (written by keira knightley's mother) is what ruins the movie to the extreme. it is straight out dull, absurd, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...
this movie lagged so bad for most of it, especially at the beginning. the story just kept going on and on about their everyday flirts with each other, often times seeming like a threesome. in this movie, you have an annoying deadbeat couple (the poet and his wife) who are complete total drunks from the start. the wife sleeps around with other men to make ends meet, while the poet is a pervert who thrives on cheap boos and women. the wife, who waaayyyyyy too quickly becomes friends with his former childhood lover (played by keira) suddenly gets jealous, knowing full well that the two were lovers since they were kids. something doesn't seem right here....i mean, come on... get with the program lady! what'd you expect.
bottom line is: former lovers meet again with new wife embracing it, then gets jealous, then former woman lover gets married and her husband gets jealous, bombards the crazy drunk couple's home, crazy husband calls police, and they end up going to court for the man's attempted murder charges. that's it summed up in a nutshell...
this movie had it's moments such as the quality and good acting by cillian murphy, but other than that, i cannot believe i watched it... i complained about it during the movie and some family members watching it with me fell asleep. i decided to give it a chance and i should have stuck to my first instincts.
this movie lagged so bad for most of it, especially at the beginning. the story just kept going on and on about their everyday flirts with each other, often times seeming like a threesome. in this movie, you have an annoying deadbeat couple (the poet and his wife) who are complete total drunks from the start. the wife sleeps around with other men to make ends meet, while the poet is a pervert who thrives on cheap boos and women. the wife, who waaayyyyyy too quickly becomes friends with his former childhood lover (played by keira) suddenly gets jealous, knowing full well that the two were lovers since they were kids. something doesn't seem right here....i mean, come on... get with the program lady! what'd you expect.
bottom line is: former lovers meet again with new wife embracing it, then gets jealous, then former woman lover gets married and her husband gets jealous, bombards the crazy drunk couple's home, crazy husband calls police, and they end up going to court for the man's attempted murder charges. that's it summed up in a nutshell...
this movie had it's moments such as the quality and good acting by cillian murphy, but other than that, i cannot believe i watched it... i complained about it during the movie and some family members watching it with me fell asleep. i decided to give it a chance and i should have stuck to my first instincts.
Havoc
(2005)
this movie is so fake, it hurts...
4 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
i just saw this movie on ifc, and let me tell you what a piece of trash it is. never has a film tried so hard to be realistic that it ends up being the complete opposite. the way the film depicts east l.a. is beyond forced. (reality: you're not gonna see people getting blow jobs at a bus stop in l.a.) and what's more? annoying white teenage kids trying to act black to the fullest intent. (here, you will see anne hathaway reciting rhymes from popular rap songs on radio).
another negative pointer? anne hathaway's performance. she clearly does not cut it as a spoiled rich girl. one cannot watch this film but see the little girl from 'princess diaries.' what i found disturbing is how inconsistent she is in her role. first, she tries to act and sound black, being super tough by fighting girls in a parking lot. then, she goes from sweet daughter with no use of ebonic language. then, she act completely white from then on......
after watching this film, i understand perfectly why it never made it to the big screen. and i am truly astonished by the fact that Oscar-winners are the people behind this film. this just goes to show how little knowledge of the real world can ruin an entire film to the point where it hurts to watch.
another negative pointer? anne hathaway's performance. she clearly does not cut it as a spoiled rich girl. one cannot watch this film but see the little girl from 'princess diaries.' what i found disturbing is how inconsistent she is in her role. first, she tries to act and sound black, being super tough by fighting girls in a parking lot. then, she goes from sweet daughter with no use of ebonic language. then, she act completely white from then on......
after watching this film, i understand perfectly why it never made it to the big screen. and i am truly astonished by the fact that Oscar-winners are the people behind this film. this just goes to show how little knowledge of the real world can ruin an entire film to the point where it hurts to watch.
Hollywoodland
(2006)
"Hollywoodland" is not so Hollywood after all.....
3 February 2007
I don't know about everyone else but after watching this movie, I didn't seem to find Hollywood life represented to its fullest. When I think of Hollywood, I think about the glamour and of course, the film industry. And while this film does show all the aspects, it truly misses the deeper side of Hollywood.
How did the film industry play a major part in George Reeve's life? How depressed or inhumane did Reeves really feel? Obviously by watching this film, you won't get too much into that. What the film showed most was the detective's personal life and the affair that Reeve's had with wife of the General Manager of MGM. It failed to show his emotional side when being turned down for roles and his depression in becoming a nobody. Anyone who doesn't know the life of George Reeves will automatically see this film and think to themselves that Reeves was a happy man- always going to parties and having laughs. But this wasn't the case. In reality, Reeves was extremely distraught, drank like crazy, and was dead broke with only a few hundred in the bank. Here, he's a happy-go-lucky guy with barely any sadness. And you will never see any kind of anger shown besides just one small scene. That's it.
Had this role been given to someone else who was able to handle the character better than Ben Affleck, things would have changed. Another actor who could meet up to par with Reeves' character would have made the difference in the quality of the film in being more credible and most importantly, believable. Affleck does not fit the part of Reeves in any way, shape or form and his dialect is completely dissimilar. Diane Lane plays the same way in previous roles like "Under the Tuscan Sun." These characters lacked substance and development.
Overall, the storyline and characters are flat and not deep nor detailed. the film lags completely in which it seemed more like five hours then two. 1950s Hollywood is not so true to form in this movie.
How did the film industry play a major part in George Reeve's life? How depressed or inhumane did Reeves really feel? Obviously by watching this film, you won't get too much into that. What the film showed most was the detective's personal life and the affair that Reeve's had with wife of the General Manager of MGM. It failed to show his emotional side when being turned down for roles and his depression in becoming a nobody. Anyone who doesn't know the life of George Reeves will automatically see this film and think to themselves that Reeves was a happy man- always going to parties and having laughs. But this wasn't the case. In reality, Reeves was extremely distraught, drank like crazy, and was dead broke with only a few hundred in the bank. Here, he's a happy-go-lucky guy with barely any sadness. And you will never see any kind of anger shown besides just one small scene. That's it.
Had this role been given to someone else who was able to handle the character better than Ben Affleck, things would have changed. Another actor who could meet up to par with Reeves' character would have made the difference in the quality of the film in being more credible and most importantly, believable. Affleck does not fit the part of Reeves in any way, shape or form and his dialect is completely dissimilar. Diane Lane plays the same way in previous roles like "Under the Tuscan Sun." These characters lacked substance and development.
Overall, the storyline and characters are flat and not deep nor detailed. the film lags completely in which it seemed more like five hours then two. 1950s Hollywood is not so true to form in this movie.
Lured
(1947)
very intriguing mystery thriller and film noir
16 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
i've always wanted to watch this film and finally got the opportunity to see it recently. i have to say that it was worth seeing because it's not often you see lucille ball in a mystery thriller. she does a great job playing the lead role as a tough, independent, and brave dancer who tries to 'lure' the killer in. it's a wonder why she didn't do more films like this. her other great performance in a mystery thriller comes from 'the dark corner' which is also a must-see, although her role is not as big.
this noir film is entertaining with the quality of 1940s. it emphasizes greatly on shadow and light, and it only becomes better with the London setting, using dark alleys and one source of light from a street lamp. adding to that "jack-the-ripper" mysterious setting is the plot, which tries to confuse you by showcasing different characters that you might suspect as the serial killer. the film is serious yet comical at some points such as when the investigator finds answers to his crossword puzzles through ball's random spoken words.
overall, great film but some character development may be needed to prevent flatness and give more depth to the story. if this film was adapted for today's market where more emphasis was placed on the serial killer and killing and less on the G-rating, it could be awesome.
this noir film is entertaining with the quality of 1940s. it emphasizes greatly on shadow and light, and it only becomes better with the London setting, using dark alleys and one source of light from a street lamp. adding to that "jack-the-ripper" mysterious setting is the plot, which tries to confuse you by showcasing different characters that you might suspect as the serial killer. the film is serious yet comical at some points such as when the investigator finds answers to his crossword puzzles through ball's random spoken words.
overall, great film but some character development may be needed to prevent flatness and give more depth to the story. if this film was adapted for today's market where more emphasis was placed on the serial killer and killing and less on the G-rating, it could be awesome.
WiseGirls
(2002)
Mariah Carey is Awesome!!!!!
2 August 2003
Many of you are right. This movie should have been Mariah Carey's debut movie performance. If this movie were to be released in theaters, people would definitely appreciate Mariah Carey even more. When I first heard about this movie, I was really anxious to see it. I wanted to see Mariah in a movie that was actually a crime drama. This movie actually exceeded my expectations because it was really entertaining, with great performances by everyone. Mira Sorvino is a great actress as the lead role, but I think Mariah Carey's performance really stole the movie. She enlightened the movie, providing comedy and drama simultaneously. Definitely worth watching.
Lucy
(2003 TV Movie)
The worst representation of a truly classic legend
11 May 2003
When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.
To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.
Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.
To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.
Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.
Jesus of Nazareth
(1977)
amazing movie and outstanding performance!!
20 April 2003
Jesus of Nazareth is such an incredible movie. Robert Powell, who plays the role of Jesus Christ, is a remarkable actor. He plays Jesus so well that you feel it is really Jesus at times. His performance as well as his looks are so realistic and sensational that it's unbelievable. Powell is such a gifted actor that if he were to do films in Hollywood, he would most likely win an Oscar. I recommend this movie to anybody who would love to truly understand what Jesus Christ went through from his birth to resurrection. Not to mention, an amazing cast of Academy Award winners of the time. Overall, 10 out of 10!!!!
A Girl, a Guy, and a Gob
(1941)
a comedy Lucille Ball movie!
9 September 2002
If you're a Lucille Ball fan, you would definitely want to see this movie. As a Lucille Ball fan, I have seen many of her movies, but this one would probably stand as one of the tops. In this movie, Lucille Ball plays as an average girl rather than a self-absorbed lady like in her other films. This movie also features her more than her other works, being seen in most of the scenes. I thought that the movie was great throughout except for the ending. The ending could have been better. Overall, it's a good movie to watch, especially with Lucile Ball in it.
The Dark Corner
(1946)
A good classic movie with Lucille Ball
16 March 2002
"The Dark Corner" is a good classic crime-drama film. The film has a dark and mysterious surrounding of a film-noir, and it is very interesting to watch if your into that type of film. The movie is good, very tricky, and mysterious. But the film was quite slow throughout, except for the ending. The ending could have been done better and more dramatic for such an intriguing plot.
This film might not be Lucille Ball's biggest acting role compared to her other movie roles, but it is a true delight to see Lucille Ball on the big screens. The film is quite different for Lucille Ball because she usually didn't star in crime-dramas. She should have acted more into this type of film because she was good at it, and "The Dark Corner" proves that. Lucille Ball has the first name in this movie, but she didn't have that much of a role to play. Most of the movie is toward Mark Stevens as a private investigator, and Lucille Ball plays as his secretary. Although the film plot was about a secretary who helps out her boss caught in a frame-up, the film did not center on Lucille Ball as much as it should have been.
Regardless of how big her role was in this movie, Lucille Ball still gets attention from viewers who've seen her in this classic film. I would say that this movie is probably one of her best movies and she plays a positive role, unlike her other films like "The Big Street."
Overall, this movie is great to watch because of the good setting, good storyline, and best of all, seeing Lucille Ball.
This film might not be Lucille Ball's biggest acting role compared to her other movie roles, but it is a true delight to see Lucille Ball on the big screens. The film is quite different for Lucille Ball because she usually didn't star in crime-dramas. She should have acted more into this type of film because she was good at it, and "The Dark Corner" proves that. Lucille Ball has the first name in this movie, but she didn't have that much of a role to play. Most of the movie is toward Mark Stevens as a private investigator, and Lucille Ball plays as his secretary. Although the film plot was about a secretary who helps out her boss caught in a frame-up, the film did not center on Lucille Ball as much as it should have been.
Regardless of how big her role was in this movie, Lucille Ball still gets attention from viewers who've seen her in this classic film. I would say that this movie is probably one of her best movies and she plays a positive role, unlike her other films like "The Big Street."
Overall, this movie is great to watch because of the good setting, good storyline, and best of all, seeing Lucille Ball.
Five Came Back
(1939)
not for big lucy fans
16 March 2002
If you're a big Lucille Ball fan, this movie might not work for you. Although Lucille Ball has a role, it is definitely not one of her biggest compared to her other movie roles like in "The Big Street." She has about the same character roles as other actors do, and she really doesn't have an important part in the movie.
This movie is quite interesting at first, but the ending doesn't really end like it should. The movie starts out very mysterious, not knowing what's going to happen. Later on in the film, the ending turns out not to be as dramatic as it should. If it was, the movie would have been better and would definitely be worth watching.
This movie is quite interesting at first, but the ending doesn't really end like it should. The movie starts out very mysterious, not knowing what's going to happen. Later on in the film, the ending turns out not to be as dramatic as it should. If it was, the movie would have been better and would definitely be worth watching.
Dance, Girl, Dance
(1940)
Lucille Ball is great in this movie!
19 January 2002
Considering the fact that Lucille Ball has the third name in this movie, she has a very noticeable role that proves she is a great actress. Of course, everybody knows that Lucille Ball is best known for her character in "I Love Lucy," but watching this movie would really surprise you. She does a terrific job as a vain and conceited girl who wants to be on top of everyone. Not to mention, she is very attractive and alluring in this movie. I personally believe that this movie focuses a great deal on Lucille Ball, and that's the best part. "Dance, Girl, Dance" would probably be one of the few movies, where Lucille Ball fans can actually see her terrific talent as an actress on the big screens and on television.
The Big Street
(1942)
A New Side of Lucille Ball
6 December 2001
The Big Street is one movie that you'll notice Lucille Ball's true acting ability. In this movie, she plays a very bitter and uncaring singer who only thinks about herself as the "heiress." If you watch this movie, you'll probably think she acts quite snobby and self-centered. Although it might get on your nerves, it proves that a true actress can really make you hate her on the big screens, and that's what Lucille Ball has proved.
If you're also a big "I Love Lucy" fan, you'll see a different view of Lucy when she actually cries with real tears- which is a sad version, rather than the crying she does in "I Love Lucy"- which is the funny version. Lucille Ball does a terrific job in the snobby role. The movie is also mainly centered on her as well.
The bad thing about this movie is that the storyline is a little unreal and seems to have been written beyond the normal imagination. If the minor problems would have been done right, this movie, otherwise, is great and a true classic to watch.
If you're also a big "I Love Lucy" fan, you'll see a different view of Lucy when she actually cries with real tears- which is a sad version, rather than the crying she does in "I Love Lucy"- which is the funny version. Lucille Ball does a terrific job in the snobby role. The movie is also mainly centered on her as well.
The bad thing about this movie is that the storyline is a little unreal and seems to have been written beyond the normal imagination. If the minor problems would have been done right, this movie, otherwise, is great and a true classic to watch.
I Love Lucy's 50th Anniversary Special
(2001 TV Special)
Tribute to the greatest show of all time!
5 December 2001
The I Love Lucy 50th Anniversary Special was a special presentation to show a tribute to the greatest and best show of all time. This special showed many attributes to Desi Arnaz and how he was a very important role in the start of I Love Lucy. Lucille Ball was not mentioned as wonderfully as she is usually considered, which is a shame. Considering that she is the main star of the show and the best comedienne of all time, she wasn't approached the way I would have hoped. The special does a great job with celebrities appearing and showing their gratitude toward Lucille Ball. Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not mentioned as much as I would have anticipated. The ending of the special is very touching and sentimental to I Love Lucy lovers and leaves a life-long imprint of how special the show really is.
Tell Your Friends