I liked this film because it represents the better techniques of ...
348447
My gen, older now, had to use our imaginations to see horror!  This film relies on the older method, which to me is more imaginative and provocative.  Young reviewers want the gore and guts up on the screen.  They are jaded and can't appreciate the theatre of the mind!  I liked this film because it represents the better techniques of the radio age.  It requires a part of the brain, which people of later gens don't apparently have, and that accounts for the preponderance of negative ratings.!
676918
Even as a non-wrestler, I enjoyed this film.  It has a compelling father-son story that elevates it above being a sports movie.  That being said, the wrestling was some of the best sports action that I have seen on film in its raw but technical feel.  The photography in this film was good, but the movie does feel at time like a good effort from film school, especially in the pacing.  I was not expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised and moved by the story.  It is far better than most big studio productions, despite a few imperfections.
2112610
I enjoyed this film despite the fact it was criticized adversely by film critics. The plot is complex and requires the viewer to follow five different stories that are related in the past, present, and future.  The separate stories are not presented in chronological sequence of time; they are conveyed as events unfold in their respective time; which is the present time of each. The stories are tied across time to the end of the film.

Life is three doors; the past, the present, and future. No matter which door opens or closes; another closes and opens perceptually as time has no beginning and no ending along the course of the human epoch.
3958013
I was less interested in the horror aspects of the film (although I find that PG-13 level thrillers can be fun) than in the characterization of giftedness.  As with countless films, people's fear of "evil genius" gets exploited (and reinforced) yet again.  But in this case, there was a lot of extra care taken in providing a more creditable presentation.  The film turned out to be just as good as I'd been hoping for, in which the horror elements actually become existential - - the title character, and some surprisingly strong additional characters, all question in different ways what leads people to care for each other, and whether such feelings and compulsions are defensible and worthwhile.  Since this is obviously a very unsettling line of thought, treating it in terms of a thriller is one tangent that allows such a subject to be explored in a new manner.  The bases for human trust are shown as destabilized when a youngster who one would normally think is too helpless and innocent to harm anyone turns out instead to be capable of dedicated efforts to out-think those around him.  One interesting problem is that the chracter ***is*** too young to understand that his family are indeed far better people, despite their flaws, than most strangers would be.  If Joshua had been more fully exposed to the heartlessness of strangers, he might have been more appreciative and less eager to rile things up by exploring dark things.  For all that we know, the origin of his feelings of this type had started with the birth of a sibling, at the start of the film.  The piano rhapsody on "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" (originally a theme by Mozart - a fact that Joshua would know even if most adults wouldn't) was BRILLIANT!  It suggests that the problem may have partially been rooted in an inability for others to sufficiently relate to and engage Joshua's genius, causing it to go into warped directions that I think would untimately be self-destructive.  Instead of lurid horror, what we have here is actually a very solid character-based drama.  I cannot fully endorse the immoral aspects within the plot, but for adult viewers, I feel that this is a solid and challenging work that pushes strongly at the limitations that the horror/thriller genre normally tends to impose.  And realistically, would this work have made it to video for widespread viewing if it hadn't been presented in terms of a popular genre? (horror/thriller)  Perhaps not, unfortunately...  This is quite a haunting work, and I found myself liking it as a film even while regretting that we don't see as many positive portrayals of giftedness as we should.
3975136
I went into this film thinking it was a love story. It turned out to be more of a story about a guy and his relationships with his father, sister and love interest. As a guy, this kept me more interested than if the entire story had been about the couple only. The film had humorous moments, but was also serious when it needed to be. I thought the actors did a good job making me believe in their characters and the soundtrack was pleasant. If you are looking for a feel good film, but not necessarily one of Oscar caliber, this was definitely worth the rental.
860191
This film deals with the problems of races and classes in London. But this film doesn't provoke me to anger as in Hollywood films. This film (and it may sound unusual to people who have seen My Beautiful Launderette) is beautiful and calm to me: the growing love between Johnny and Omar, the squelching sounds of their funky launderette, the aqua color, the questions that the film raises -- to me these are very impressive and seductive and calming. But my focus will be on the women. There are four women in the film: Tanya (Nassir's daughter. Nassir is Omar's uncle), Rachel (Nassir's mistress) and Omar's mother (she is talked about by Omar and Nassir in the course of the film). Nassir thinks that for people like them, Pakistani-British, their position in England is determined by wealth. The film focuses on how and others in the family want to make money. But the women don't have any money. They are dependant on the menfolk, completely. Tanya blames Rachel for living like a parasite on her father and which is the truth. But Tanya herself, a grown woman, close to Omar's age lives off her father as well. She could have helped her father in business as she points out to Omar. But business belongs to men. Nassir would give the business to his brother's son (Omar), not to his own daughter. Money and who controls it is a powerful subject in the film. Women in it don't have money and are therefore weak and powerless. At a family party, at Nassir's house, women are separated from men. Women are in a open and bright living room. There is laughter and talk there. But we (spectators) are not able to hear them. Their conversations are unclear and not translated into English. (They are speaking Urdu -- the language spoken in Pakistan).
Men on the other hand, seem to talk about important things in dark corners of the room. And it seems like women are forbidden to enter this place. Tanya defies this. When Omar first visits Nassir's house, Tanya shows defiance by lifting her sweater and exposing her breast to Omar. She is standing outside the house, and through the window lifts her sweater to unnerve Omar.
I have sympathy for Omar's mother. We got only ghostly glimpses of her from Omar and Omar's father, a journalist and activist is disillusioned by Britain. He vents his pent up anger and frustrations on her wife. Finally, she can't endure any more, and throws herself on a railway track. In traditional eastern families (and this includes India, Korea, and other eastern countries), a husband's violence on his wife is tolerated as his right. His wife is thought of as a part of her husband's possession. And when a husband keeps a mistress, she can't oppose it. But if she were to have a boyfriend, she would be kicked out of the patriarchal husband's house. In My Beautiful Launderette, I find women in this Pakistani-British family neglected. They are powerless, rejected, dependent, and victims of men. At the end of the film, Tanya leaves her father's house. She is the first one to resist against a system of patriarchy. Her father is stunned, anguished.
4661149
I take it from the reviews on this site that people can't stand this film because they perceive that it has "no depth", or that its just a porno, or has too many "highbrow" aspirations, or that the voice  over is redundant.
I can understand how the film can be seen as so.  Everytime a film maker tries to do something different with film narrative  he gets a whack.  Yes, this film is sylistic.  Yet it is far less  stylistically innovative than the book by Duras, the blueprint which veins  this film.  The book is one of the most successful experiments in narrative  - it is the most amazing experience to read it, and I highly recommend it -  but not to anyone who is impervious to originality, and only wants the old  1-2-3, beginning-middle-end progression.  However, back to the film, I  think that the voice-over is to re-create the feeling of the book which  loops from present to past and shifts narrative perspective continually,  and also to draw attention to the lushness and sensuality of the subject  matter.  It creates an almost voyeuristic thrill.  Why else: look at me,  I'm fifteen ...  And yes, I can imagine that this would disturb people, to  be made more aware than usual of the vouyeurism of cinema, to be aware that  they are watching someting of great sensuality and emotional complexity.  I  felt that the camera had a sensitivity to detail which was almost painful  to watch, in that little things; the flutter of silk, the stain on the  lips, and even shadows, seem to be laden.
Yes, the story is perverse.  Duras herself admits to perversity - and she also had noted that sometimes  people will not understand that perversity, and will therefore never  understand her.  Or the film, for that matter, which is a perverse thing of  great beauty.
1632631
I believe a quote from seven psychopaths by Christopher walken sums this movie up best. "It's got layers, You know?" "It's got... It's got layers."

This thing of "OURS" was written specifically for a certain audience. Those that understand the traditions of the Sicilian mafia as portrayed in film. The story has two versions. One that is theirs being everyone who isn't in on it, and one for those who are that is Ours. Even the title hints at the subtext of the story. Every single mini story hints at it also. The words themselves along with the blood red Ours are exceptionally overt indicators of what this movie is about, but also a kind of nod to who this movie is written for. Me personally I find it clever, however it is also cliche and more than a bit tripe.

It is an esoteric piece. That makes use of Allegory within an allegory to break the fourth wall and humor their target audiences sense of being part of the story. I can see why it was made into a movie. It expertly crafted to fit the theme of the entire movie, and the title. Both "theirs" and "ours" I doubt this movie was ever intended to make money, it has pet project written all over it.

That being said. Knowing that. Knowing that played a role in the Camera work and filters, knowing it played a role in the sound. Doesn't change the fact it went beyond overt into the absurd for me. It was just trying to hard to be cute and clever, at the expense of the film itself.

Thaddeus O'Sullivan the director likely had a lot to do with these decisions in Camera work and audio. The written script I am sure was amazing as it was. I don't think they needed to incorporate those other elements, if anything they detracted from an already obvious script for it's target audience. Look he is good director that really likes to add authenticity to pieces through the audio and Camera work. The problem is this piece didn't need that, the script itself already more than accomplished it. Thaddeus O'Sullivan is one of those directors like Quentin Tarantino who just has such a poweful style that often he can overpower the script. Usually to the movies benefit. But in this case it didn't work out.
3253363
If you like documentaries about the representations of people of color in film (e.g., "Fade to Black," "The Slanted Screen," or "The Bronze Screen"), then you will like this.

This documentary shows mostly Native American film critics analyzing depictions of Native Americans in film.  This moves from nickelodeon images to "The Fast Runner."  Those interested in cultural studies will especially like this as it practices constructionism.  The work emphasizes that changing times create changing images.  For example, as the counter-culturalists of the 1960s and 1970s embraced Native American cultures and activism, then Natives in film became "groovy."

I learned a lot here.  It turns out that wearing headbands is more a Hollywood invention than a true Indian cultural practice.  (Then again, Scandinavians didn't wear hats with horns, that was an operatic invention.)  Most importantly, this work exposed me to the life and death of Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance.  He seemed like a Black counterpart to Grey Owl and I'm going to dedicate myself to learning more about him.

I did have some concerns, however.  There is a lot of focus on watching the Native director go through a journey.  While I understand that it may be important to illustrate that this was a Native-made documentary, I think they could have said more about the films themselves if there had been an unseen narrator.  The work concludes by saying "The Fast Runner" may be the pinnacle and future of Natives in film.  However, that film was about Alaska Natives, a group that never gets mentioned before that point.  (For more on them, please see the book "Freeze Frame.")  Thus, the work blurs "Native American" and "indigenous" by the end.  Wearing a pro-feminist hat, this work does focus on male characters and male interviews, even though both genders are covered.  In fairness, there may be more male depictions than female ones in actual movies.  However, female viewers may feel a tiny bit left out.

There are several films that get ignored here and thus the work may be more of a cursory exploration.  Little was said on "Dances with Wolves."  I recall nothing on "Black Robe" or "The Business of Fancy Dancing," etc.
1366327
FEAR EATS THE SOUL is an offbeat film.  Its premise is preposterous, but nonetheless the viewer is drawn into the story and comes to care about characters who are not glamorous or very exceptional on any level.  But somehow Emmy, this sixty-ish, somewhat dumpy cleaning woman, who had been a member of the Nazi party in her youth, and a very fit Moroccan "guest worker" named Ali, who is more than twenty years her junior, meet, fall in love, and marry.  They are reviled by the society in which they live. As long as other people are against them, their relationship is strong.  But gradually those who rejected them realize that they need the couple for economic reasons and (at least on the surface) accept them.  Then the couple's relationship falls apart.  The camera is objective and rather coldly observes the characters and the world in which they live.  The characters inhabit the German petit bourgeois, where kitsch is the reality.  Emmy's wardrobe consists primarily of jersey dresses with bold colorful patterns.  The pictures on her walls are seascapes that are perhaps "Paint-by-number."  But there is nothing campy about the point of view.  characters are respected.  Their feelings are real.  The film is in many ways like a play.  Some scenes look as if the characters were placed upon a stage while the stationary camera filmed them from the audience.  There are a lot of tableaux.  The whole story is told very simply and straightforwardly.  But the whole effect is compelling and somewhat disquieting.  I've seen it many times in theatres, television, and recorded video, so I was blown away by this DVD's fabulous quality.  You can really appreciate the clean, crisp photography of this film that was not evident on the VCR or the worn-out prints shown in revival houses.  I'll say the same for the soundtrack, which is a revelation after decades of hearing warped soundtracks.  The wonderfully restored film alone is worth the price of the DVD, but a second DVD is included that gave even me, a long time fan of this film, some new insights.  I was surprised that I was impressed by Todd Haynes' introduction because I do not like his films.  Based on this short film, I think he is a much better critic than director.  I especially loved the interview with 93-year old Brigitta Mira, as well as the short film "Fear Eat Soul," in which she also appears.  Also included is a British television documentary, "Signs of Vigorous Life: New German Cinema from the 1980s which features Fassbinder, Volker Schlondorf, and Werner Herzog.  In addition there is an interview with the film's editor, who says she had a nervous breakdown over it, and an excerpt from Fassbinder's film THE AMERICAN SOLDIER, in which the story of Emmy first appeared as the subject of a monologue related by Margarethe von Trotta.  In addition, a 16-page booklet is included in this Criterion Collection package that features essays "One Love, Two Oppressions" by Chris Fujiwara and "All that Fassbinder Allows" by Michael Toteberg.  Five stars.
4796006
I enjoyed this film. It reminded me of the 1950s and early 1960''s war films. Patriotic,
filled with attractive and well known actors; it moved right along. The message - the
importance of art, the life of the mind, creativity and the worth of culture - was made
clear . I did not think it was too heavy-handed, perhaps due to the cast.

I did not think this was a great film. But It did get me more interested in who the
'Monuments Men' were, what their project was and about some of the art and other
 valuables they sought and found or didn't find.
1576599
"The Last Confederate" takes a bold approach to film making, with rich cinematography lacking in many independent historical films.  The film is also remarkable for it's portrayal of love and separation, a subject to which most of us can relate.  I recommend the movie without hesitation.
1971629
Okay this is a different type of film. Really. Let me say right now that I enjoyed and liked this film. It has a few very funny scenes. However, it is an experimental film and thus as with these surreal types of films you don't get the normal story or plot. In this case you don't get a plot at all, it's more of a concept. Yet and still I think this film is very good. The colors just pop and make the scenes come alive. The girls are pretty and yet very silly and alive. Which only works do to the overall theme and context of the film. When thinking about this film I am and was reminded of two other films, "Daisies" and "Zazie Dans Le Metro". Which have a similar structure and wild or craziness to and within them. As you can tell, Zazie Dans Le Metro is French and the other is Czech and both where made in the 1960's. However, Beautiful Daydreams is out now, 2009 and yes it's in this mold of new wave cinema, from it's editing style and soundtrack to it's surreal, psychedelic and stylistic look. Yes, like it's for runners and yet it is new and fresh. What makes it new, is it's somewhat spiritual undertone. Which to me makes it fresher. I mean it has a Buddhist sort of underlaying theme which I feel makes it far more interesting than many of the so called normal films of the day. So I say watch it or at least some of it. It's different, but in a good way. I have to say to the director, thank you for taking a chance and making something that is different, so few do.<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Beautiful-Daydreams/dp/B001GVJZ1M/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Beautiful Daydreams</a>
4247158
Like a number of other reviewers, I also prefer this film to 'A Night at the Opera' (although that film is also terrific).  I just find 'A Day at the Races' funnier, personally, and with the plot more tightly constructed.  There's also more chemistry between Allan Jones (their best imitation Zeppo by far) and Maureen O'Sullivan than there was between Allan Jones and Kitty Carlisle in the previous movie.  There's great comedic timing, gags, jokes, funny situations, classic routines, polished acting, you name it.  It is kinda slowed down in the middle by the superfluous song and dance performance, although it was common practice for a lot of films at the time, particularly at MGM, to have musical interludes.  I was much less bothered by the much talked about African-American musical performances the second time I watched this than I was the first.  Some of their speech, mannerisms, and facial expressions are cringe-inducing, even considering that this was actually probably considered pretty progressive by 1937 standards, although the overall scope of these performances is positive, certainly nothing like other films which depicted African-Americans via whites in blackface or which made them all out to be villains and caricaturish negative people, a la BOAN.

The extras are really good too; the documentary could have been longer, but I thought it was pretty good, covering well the making of this film and the stars behind it themselves.  There are also the original trailer for the film, a few audio extras, and some cartoons and short films from the era, probably to try to recreate what a night at the movies was like in 1937.  This was their last film that was truly great from start to finish, made just when they were on top of their game; we see glimpses of their former greatness in their later films, some more so than others, but never again did they make a film this great, funny, or tight.  Like is pointed out in the documentary, who knows what might have happened had Irving Thalberg not passed away during the filming?
462695
I've seen the Asian version and this movie, I enjoyed Jessica Alba's roll better. We enjoy watching Asian movies because they generally have a way of depicting a whole different level of creepy in their films. However, I think this one did a better job of making the viewer really feel an emotional attachment for her and what she had to endure and some pretty good moments of feeling high tension. This movie to me was worth watching.
2696659
Alan Bloom ("The Closing of the American Mind") and Neil Postman ("Amusing Ourselves to Death") are challenged by Stafford's thesis. Not only are they wrong for thinking our image culture is dumber than the text culture of their youth, images have always been a more powerful way to communicate more information to more people. Stafford demonstrates this by showing how art over history has been better at communicating the difficult and complex to a broader audience than text. Text has always been the tool of a limited social class while art has educated the masses. Today with digital art through movies and the Internet web pages even more people can learn more than ever.
My own sense tends towards agreement with this thesis. When faced with students that are not interested in reading but love to watch (in the sense of Peter Sellers' "Being There") I have the clear sense that this is because compared to movies books are boring. Why? Certainly not always, and certainly not for all students, but in general, movies are too compelling a medium to be seriously challenged by a text - (not in the Postmodern sense of "the text").
Stafford's argument lends support to the idea that there is a good reason for this and not just an explanation.
My only critique is that there are no color plates and color should certainly be part of the argument.
2546408
I saw this film last weekend and a friend recomended I read the graphic novel. This was the first graphic novel I have ever read. Now I can say I wish I had read the novel first, it gives you more insight into the characters. The film is more compact and emphasizes a more politcial and moral base. The novel has more a "pulp fiction" feel.

I do not want to give too much away but will say there is a difference in the begining sequence when Evey meets up with the Finger Men. There is a relationship (that Evey has) and a few subplots from the novel that never make it into the film version. The endings are a bit different - see the film and read the novel and you can decide which you prefer.

I am glad that this was the first graphic novel I read because it has good character development and is entertaining. The illustartions compliment the story and even add to it. Other graphic novels I looked at were overwhemling visually. That was not the case with this novel.