The Marley Movement was bad for business in Jamacia. His Survival album caused big trouble to the tourest industry. PPL were beginning to want a piece of the action and stopped catering to the rich who came to vacation there...After Marlys death a campaign was launched to repair the damage to the tourest industry by his "rebelious" music...Remember " Come Back to Jamacia" with the old black man with the stick on the beach The black woman in the Aunt Jemamia out fiT...very effective indeed. I had a friend who was married to a lady whos Father owned a resort there. He would vacation and golf there. I remember him telling me about the tension during those times and how he loved throwing nickles on the ground to watch the lil kids fight for them...hmmmmm
I agree Harry:”Barry is too haphazard a character to believe” and therein lies the major fault in the movie. The comedy does seem to be an inside joke, but acting silly can be funny on set, so I can understand that. I am just glad that I didn’t see it in the theater but rather on HBO in HD, which my employer, DISH gave me free for three months recently. Actually, despite being an employee, I along with millions have HD free for life when we got new service. That makes watching TV more worthwhile when I have over two-hundred HD channels. I even watched this movie twice, just to give it a second chance, which helped some, but the uncomfortable vibe was difficult to get over.
You said it ... "kids killing kids". I think there's enough of that going on in real life each night on the news. I'll pass on this one. No Thanks.
I just watched Friends With Kids at filmswoop.com. It's free and in pretty good quality. Check it out!
(Yonebayashi is a protégé of famed anime director Hayao Miyazaki, who wrote the screenplay and helped produce the film before his death.)
Miyazaki might beg to differ.
That was probably the most horrendous review of a movie I've ever read, perhaps you should consider a change in careers if the subtlety and majesty of a movie like this eludes you.......
I have a filling that your every post is most popular. I think your work is amazing and i like it every time.
I need some of informetion of the topic that you allways write. I will must come to you for the further informetion.
Do as you are doing and i think your work is the best. thanks for your nice post that had given me sone of lthe new
informetion. It will be very bad if i don't say thanks to you. this is entertainmetn today saing good bye and the best for
the next post.
Yes, it's predictable, but still a pleasant, though somewhat disappointing flick. The beginning was ho, hum but seems to become more dramatic and satisfying toward the end. Elicits some emotion, with good acting at the end. Overall, I would recommend it to older folks. Teens and younger adults will be disappointed. I still love seeing Julia and Tom on the screen.
Haters, dislikers, and maybe even fans (although I doubt it) of Rand and Atlas might find this amusing:
I just knew when I seen the previews on cable and saw the list of cast members that this would more than likely be one I just had to see. Low and behold Iwas definetly not disappointed. Should be one of this years standouts.
Iam still waiting for True Grit to be released on DVD, was disappointed to see it's not due to be released until June. I have heard younger people who have seen it say it was good, but most of them probably have never seen the original with the Duke (John Wayne) or were even born when it was originally at the theaters. Ihope I can watch it without comparing it to the Duke's performance in the original.
I found this movie to be "dispicable" and will be protesting it like many other minority americans. In a story based in asian culture, the only asians we see are for the "evil" fire nation and backround actors. I can't believe that there weren't suitable asian child actors of some kind to portray the characters in this story.
The actual casting notes for this movie are outrageous...alluding to the fact that caucasian leads were preferable...but "authentic" asians were more desirable for the extras. The only reason there were any asians in lead roles is because the first choice actors bowed out of the roles...ie. originally a blonde haired-blue eyed Zuko.
when is the world premiere of this movie?
This movie is superb. I have watched it last week. It's really amazing movie. I have now started download No One Knows About Persian Cats movie yesterday from http://crushurl.com/acci . I was really impressed by this movie when I watched this movie..
The link to Pitt is broken, and should be:
Mr. Kloman, I found your review to be less informative and more of an exposure of your obvious issues with the "change of race" that this remake decided to go with. Before you roll your eyes, let me explain.
For a movie that, as you mentioned, only mentions race one time, your review chooses to bring race up eleven times, and in troubling ways. Your apparent preoccupation with the fact that this is a remake with a black cast makes this an uncomfortable read.
I don't even want to think about your intentions with the first graph and the last sentence, "The difference is barely skin deep." Really? This is how you choose to begin to discuss a piece of novel American entertainment for folks to have a laugh on a weekend? This blatant, odd jab at race is amazingly transparent and troubling for me given the movie has no preoccupation with race. It's a non factor in the movie, but it's the underpinning of your review.
First, black people speak "English", not "black English". The proper term is the "black slang" used in the movie. The slang is no different than the slang of white guys in the North Hills saying "fuckin right, dude". But for you to invent this concept of black English is just ridiculous.
The R.Kelly joke was unnecessary.
Why do you care that James Marsden's character is white (you mentioned that in the review), when the movie never even mentions anyone had an issue with his race. It was a non story in the movie. Then you throw in "white stockbroker" as if again, anyone in the movie ever even cared. African Americans have had white family members and white people dating their family members long enough to get past dwelling on it before you were born. You took half of a long graph to dwell on it for no apparent reason. The story was she was dating a new guy, and the old guy-who was her father's favorite-was at the wedding. NO ONE BUT YOU CARED that the guys were white. It happens in real life, but apparently not in your social circle.
Finally, you punctuate your obsession with a unnecessary joke about James Cameron doing a remake with two prominent Asian actors. Harry, this is a movie for Americans. A simple comedy to get people to laugh. They happened to have believed that in America, maybe, we can do a remake with an all black cast and it will be funnier than dry ass English humor, which is an acquired taste.
For you to write 8 graphs before mentioning the fact that the audience was "howling" at the comedy in this film is irresponsible. This movie is hilarious. To "blacken up" the film when the film makes no attempt to be "black" (the people just want to be themselves), is to me blatant obsession with the composition of the actors in this film. You even mentioned that you were trying to discern if a white or black cast would have made a difference. Who the fuck cares, Harry? The director LaBute did not hold a press conference and say, "We want to try something incredible here and make this film all black cast. It's ground breaking and we want you to see how amazing changing the racial component is."
You write as if most Americans even know there is an English version. They don't. It was just a movie to them. Your pondering of this subject would be more relevant if this was an all-black remake of something deeply familiar to Americans like, "American Pie".
A review is not your chance to write an essay on the differences and merits of English/American and black/white humor. It's a fucking comedy movie. There's no stage. There's no cheese and crackers. This is not broadway. Was the comedy funny, Harry? That's what I wanted to know from a film critic. You slip it in at the end when its the most important thing to share with a reader. But first, you had to write your essay.
I'll repeat, 11 mentions of race in your review for a movie that mentions it once. Any they say blacks are sensitive to race. Would you review Elvis' music and harp on the fact that most of his songs were written by blacks and stolen by record companies? You know the answer to that question. A response would be wonderful. - Don
I agree upon everything you have wrote. They both are remarkable actors and very appreciative. I would watch this movie millions of times just to have that fabulous feeling. The movie was fantastic and I would recommend it to anyone possible.
What's wrong with a summer movie that doesn't have some big political statement?I'm not mindless,but don't go to movies for"cultural enlightenment"...I go for fun.
Buckshot isn't a rifle round. There are no rifle rounds that contain buckshot. You mean "shotgun-toting." It's also not a "clip", it's a "magazine." Just in case you make THAT mistake sometime in the future.
I would like to say that I read both the book and saw the movie before I read this review and I agree that one reviewer doesn't do a whole lot especially with websites like rotten tomatoes in existence.
I do however think you should have just left the movie to interpretation for everyone to enjoy like the author did and like the movie did. That is my opinion I'm really not here to argue with you on that.
I do think that the nuclear scenario is extremely unlikely and for my reasons mentioned early. I've also found a hypothesis that satisfies everything that happens in the movie it is called the a Pole Shift. A pole shift is when axis rotation of earth is changed. In short it would cause tremendous amounts of damage to the planet.
Here is a link to the wiki entry on it you should check it out.
"you have then not allowed the viewers to form their own thoughts which is what you yourself took away from the book/movie"
>>>> That's ascribing a lot of power to a single movie review. You obviously were able to form your own thoughts about this question; why shouldn't everyone else be able to? Besides, if I had to worry about short-circuiting other people's response to the movie by sharing my own thoughts about it, how could I -- or any reviewer -- say ANYTHING about a film? I make a lot of other contentions about the film ... about how it subtly alters the book's theological outlook, for example. (In fact, I think some of those aspects of the film are a lot more interesting.) Should I have not written any of that stuff either, for fear of closing off people's ability to come to their own conclusions about it?
I've already noted that the earthquakes don't necessarily fit into a post-nuclear scenario. (Though they don't contradict it, either: I don't know that radioactivity has any effect on plate tectonics.) I'm not saying that a nuclear war explains everything that takes place in the book. I'm saying that I've yet to hear any other potential description or explanation of the event that comes close to describing the scope of the catastrophe.
The argument here, I guess is that McCarthy doesn't WANT us try to come up with a description or explanation for it. We're just supposed to accept it as a given and not think about it too much. But if you buy into that argument ... who is trying to stop viewers from forming their own thoughts NOW?
Pittsburgh City Paper
Website powered by Foundation
National Advertising by VMG Advertising