Change Your Image
Dalydalo
Reviews
The Sting (1973)
How does someone not rank this AT LEAST 9 Stars
I understand how some people have an issue for rating something a perfect 10. HOWEVER, this is an absolute classic film. While today we are inundated with absurd special effects (which to be honest are so "special" they seem incredible fake), the concept of a good story has been lost. There have been plenty of films that have the twists and turns but the first time you see "The Sting", you truly see how so many other films had stolen for this one.
This movie is a "period piece" and that can't be forgotten. The scenery really gives the film a 1920/30's feel to it, right down to the train ride and train stations. I do hope more young people check out and see this film. I mean Newman and Redford in there prime to boot. I have to tell you, these 2 guys are great - there is a reason they were the super-stars of the time and to be honest. Between "The Sting" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", I don't think anyone don't get attached to Newman and Redford - all time duo.
Waterworld (1995)
This was a good movie!!
I have no idea why everyone came down so hard on this flick. You know what, it's a pretty decent action flick. I'm not sure about most of you but has anyone else noticed the utter crap that Hollywood has put out in the last 5 years? I mean compared to something like "We Are Marshall" or "Apocalypto" this movie is freaking "Citizen Kane".
I asked a fried of mine (who loves movies) if he had ever seen Waterworld. This was about 5 months ago - he responded to me laughing "no". I asked him why - I mean this is a dude who has seen every crappy movie that has been on cable for the last 25 years. He told me because he had heard it was terrible from reviews. Then I said, it's on tonight on AMC, you should watch it. So at 8PM, I called him at home and I said - watch it and call me when it was over. At the end of the movie I spoke to him and said "well, what do you think" - he said - "it was pretty good, it wasn't at all what the reviewers claimed it was." I think most people who haven't seen this movie but were around when it came out will say after they've seen it.
I'm not a huge movie fan, but I was really entertained. Sure the concept of these people living on the ocean is sort of strange but it is a fantasy action movie. I think this movie got the critics wrath because of the time and money that went into making it. As I recall back in 1995/1996, reports about this film was it was taking forever to film, was way over budget AND the Costner was coming off a big hit with "Dances with Wolves". I do find the typical liberal political overtones a but tiring (references to the Enola Gay (first plane to drop the A-Bomb) and the Exxon Valdez - but what do you expect - it's Hollywierd.
So if you find yourself home channel surfing and you see "Waterworld" on and you've never seen it. Take the leap, I bet you will surprised.
We Are Marshall (2006)
Terrible Movie
This movie could of been really good because of the subject matter. This was a slow moving, brutal movie to watch. Every cliché you could come up was in this movie. The acting was brutal. Anyone who says this movie was good is on the movie studio's payroll.
It's on cable now - so at least I didn't get suckered into paying for it. You want a good sports movie - get your old DVD of VHS of Rudi. This movie couldn't shine Rudi's shoes. Gut awful.
I'd rather go watch my old high school football team up in northwest New Jersey then watch this movie again. I can't really think of anything good to say about this movie. I love sports and inspirational movies - this movie leaves a lot on the table for both.
Control Room (2004)
The Irony in on Al Jazeera
A few things I found interesting with Al Jazerra that this film brought out. One was a scene where one of the Al Jazerra reporters see's an old colleague from the BBC and then the BBC employee asked the Al Jazerra reported who he was working for, he indicated Al Jazerra - the BBC reported responded "Of Course you are". We find out most of Al Jazeera are former BBC employees. Why is that interesting, well if one has ever seen BBC reporting and it's tainted way in delivering facts, one can see where Al Jazeera learned it's style. Unfortunately, the reporters for Al Jazeera and it's editorial/management was like listening to sophomore journalist majors in college. Now, I can't give a proper assessment of the intellect of the average Arab, but the people in this film representing Al Jazeera were not impressive with there arguments. They were clearly against US policy with Iraq War, however they never addressed the real problems in the Middle East Region. Al Jazerra unknowingly became a mouthpiece and support of corrupt Muslim leaders.
The second scene was near the end of the file where the female producer was in shock of the reaction of the Iraqi's in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam. She (then later the senior editor and another person who I was not able to identify but was a employee of Al Jazeera) were quick with conspiracy theories. That the people bringing down Saddam statue were actors and that the people celebrating were Kurds - as if Arabs couldn't be happy with the removal of Saddam. Ironically, which news agency was the first to report from a Saddam Hussein rally - Al Jazeera. Talk about a staged event - I believe any protest or rally in the Arab world is staged but Al Jazeera has no problem reporting them with seriousness of any news event.
I came away with the idea Al Jezeera is not a bad thing but was run by people that simply not qualified or "bright enough" to do a good fair job. However, it is worth watching to get another view and help understand how others think. I think most people who watch this file will see that Al Jezeera does preach a double standard but will never own up to it. I don't think they come close to reaching the journalistic standards of most western world.
Liberia: An Uncivil War (2004)
Lacking Full Understanding
The problem with the documentary was it really didn't address the human rights issues and corruption of the Liberian Government. At some points of the film you almost feel sorry for Charles Taylor - perhaps if we knew the whole picture we wouldn't. The film did have a lot of anti-American tint to it, and some of it may have been deserved.
However, if the filmmakers were going to be critical of the US Government, they seemed to forget to put any real criticism on there brothers in the American Media. The absence of Liberia being anywhere in the news media in the US was a contributing factor of the lack of US involvement. One that should not be overlooked, which other then one line in the film wasn't even mentioned. Funny how that always seems to happen - the media very rarely critizes themselves.
It wasn't fair to really point out the lack of American involvement-without pointing out the lack of Western involvement as a whole. Liberia may be the one country that has some real history with the US. The rest of Africa and it's poverty, corruption and instability as a whole is more a direct link to Europe and it's failure with former colonies.