Reviews

432 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Spectre (I) (2015)
9/10
Didn't think anything could top Skyfall. This did. It's a normal Bond film.
25 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Whether you think this is a sequel or a prequel set in modern times thats up to you. Fact remains James Bond invented reboots. And the movies were shot out of order so you can't really say they are prequels or sequels either. With all the Bond's films I've seen (all of them and used to watch them everywhere. Although I'm not a huge fan of the Daniel Craig movies that isn't to say they aren't good movies. Bond was never really meant to win Oscars and Craig's try. Thus removing the fun out of them :( Think License to Kill skipping like a record. Doesn't batter what building they are in, Optics doesn't really matter to me. So MI6 is blown up. Ho hum. Always thought that building was absurd anyway.. Should never show the building it's in. This was unique. Why Judi Dench was in the series at all. Well she wanted her 20 but it confused things a bit. Casino Royale was for sure a prequel as it was the first book. I consider the rest prequels Especially this movie. Smersh was before Spectre. Well no Blofeld is in the picture for the first time. I shall assume Dr No is in the future. Where Bond series goes from there thats up to the future. Is this a review? All I can say is I loved the teaser trailer to Skyfall, but Spectre was way better. It was a normal Bond film. Around Goldeneye or closer. Is any one Bond actor better. Well I like some more than others but they are all equal to me. So basically the 4th movie is connected to the 3 movies before it. It should have ended here. I see nothing wrong with the ending. So what about the Ejector seat. Each Bond is a reboot. And again shot out of order so I can't really say which is a Prequel after Casino Royale or not. Each movie is mainly connected to each other. Craigs are off a bit but not much. Vesper being the main issue. Yeah the movies before Craig were connected in someway but thats Bond. This was just a normal ending.; Whether he was retired or not (oh god how many times has he done that or gotten killed) Just a normal ending and a normal Bond. Bout BLOODY time!!!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Give it a 7 , Some story mostly action.
13 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Not that it's a bad film. If you have an amp that thing is blowing up. Brings back bad memories though. Does this review contain spoilers. If you haven't heard the story by now, okay yeah who lives and who does . Nah. But you can look it up and should. Don't need a movie for that. Movie is well done as far as ignorance goes. But I didn't learn anything new except for one single thing. The people. This is for all intents and purposes a tear jerker wrapped in an action film. The Foley's, well that bird did come on in. Just bad memories watching that mud and oil flow for hours on end off a website a Senator or whomever kept that feed going. And that oil is still there. It hasn't gone away. :(



Final rating 7 Quality 10/10 Entertainment: 5/10 (it's not something you wanna watch for thrills) Replayable: I don't know at the moment. probably 4/10 . Again something one doesn't wanna watch :( But ya gotta.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Tugging on Emotions and lacking it's humor. Major cons.
18 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This one was a touch more violent than the previous 2. MIB was cartoonishly violent. This real humans (erm characters) get killed with sharp spikes. Not cool. And without Tommy's Dead Panning Josh can't even try to do it right. It's an okay movie ... But the first one is better. Second one is a good escape. This one does not need to wrap storylines up. Zero imagination now :( I'll give it a 6 but not happy. Now I know why it took 7 yrs to watch it. True I lost track of movies 2009-2016 but Warcraft got me back on it. So I'm watching them..



As always

Quality: 6/10 Entertainment: 8/10 Replayable ? : 2/10 (Reminds me of Highlander Endgame. probably be another 10 years before I watch it again. But I pace myself good
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bit too british . Poorly acted re enactment.
10 November 2018
There's another one on youtube thats a bit better. And clearly lays blame the boss of the person who pushes the operators into doing the deed. And was shorter than this. But had interviews with actual people. Both the pusher and one of the men who bothered to survive but not well. I prefer that one. But I should have recognized the voice. Like sand in the wind. How did it come to this. Now for wrath now for ruin and red sun rises. LOTR of course and long after Titanic.

As for spoilers. This happened in 1986. I'm sure we'll continue to hear new ideas.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Other than blu-ray saying the audio is poor meh Film is okay not great though
12 April 2018
And like most such westerns why are they complaining about the audio. Course a partial italian western is shot in how many language. Would be alot of fun gibberish if everyone spoke what they actually said :)

As for the movie bit. Yeah there's a bit of a twist to this movie . Some needless action though. Didn't we already have a machine gun in a certain Eastwood western. Horrible acting in that one part. Hey stop faking getting shot. Johnny Cage be thinking "this is the part you fall down" zzzzz for a $3 blu ray with 2 movies on it , probably an easier watch than Battlefield Earth and many other westerns for one single reason. Lee Van Cleef. Think I'll stay away from the spoilers on this one.

Quality: 3/10 Entertainment : 6/10 Replayable: 3/10
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Darkest Hour (2017)
10/10
Compared to Dunkirk one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.
25 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Emotionally packed. A movie where I had wikipedia around just to look up dates and wanted to learn more. Dunkirk is missing that , probably because it lacks a story. Darkest Hour has a story, great acting and isn't detracted by the fact it isn't an action movie nor poor editing. More for those who have seen too many of such movies like Dunkirk and needed a fresh perspective. Not sure why this movie is rated lower than Dunkirk. Maybe because the trailer for the dunking was played more.. Tons of plot holes in that movie. In Darkest Hour it's primarily the Secretary who wasn't hired till later the next year and she didn't have a brother. Rather emotionally packed film. Especially the bit of him just leavig the bloody car and oh hello how do I get to Westminster ?? and lady looks at him mouth on floor uh. um this line , that enetire scene was tears of joy.. Fantastic. That did it for me... Can totally see why Gary got an Oscar for that..



Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 10/10 Re-playable : 10/10

I rarely throw in my method a full spread of 10/10 but that'll do.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dunkirk (2017)
7/10
It was okay. The Darkest Hour just sailed right over this one though.
25 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Generally you can tell a movie could be iffy if they have a gazillion extra's telling you about all the wow things that was done with it. the blu ray came with the Blu ray , another one with special features (yawn) and a dvd (why???!!!, Darkest Hour same thing. Dead format. Can I have it on laserdisc while your at it?)

The movie basically runs sorta like a Soap Opera does. with the LOTR/Hobbit style editing that I was never really fond of. Okay everything seems to happen at once. But basically this was an action movie. Not much acting required here. Takes the action scenes out of Pearl Harbor deletes the fluff and well everyone follow Ben.

I do appreciate the fact that more film makers are creating films with less CGI in them (as the CGI looks dated 10 years from now anyway. Like Harry Potter 2 was bad when it came out , but the story was better.... It's hard to tell if this is a fictional piece or non fictional. It has that Titanic feel to it and we've been here before. Just not the best editing and same old type of film which might be because it's the lack of CGI but why it's rated higher than Darkest Hour I haven't the foggiest. There's no acting in the film. yeah it's an action movie and I gave it a good rating but I think the way it was edited it was to hide the huge plot holes within the movie and confuse people about it. Certainly wasn't an emotional film. The music was probably the only thing that saved the movie from being a bomb.

Quality: 4/10 Entertainment 9/10 Re-playability: 2/10

Really think this movie made me fall asleep.. The trailer was better.. Glad I just paid $10 for it. Darkest Hour. Not much extra's paid twice as much
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Way better than the second part.
29 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Whereas the second part contains all the action thus almost no substance, and skips around , totally chaotic wants to get done faster than it should. This one was much better off. Yes there is more dialogue but that was to be expected, it's a long book. It didn't rush things, and added some humor to it now and then. Not entirely sure why the second one gets better ratings. I assume people prefer action over substance. The only real substance in part 2 is Snape's end.. other than that , part 2 is way too short. Totally missed the great elf uprising. Like someone hit panic after the end of this movie. Think Peter Jackson did it better splitting 2 movies into 3 on which it's based on a single tiny book and still made it worth while. (Hobbit) So of the two I prefer this one. Maybe this will change with time but the last movie is so utterly confusing I'd rather read the book again. And probably makes zero sense to those who haven't. Keep expecting like a 30 minute extended edition to popup.

Quality: 9/10 Entertainment: 6/10 (it's a dialogue movie go figure) Replayable:6/10 (second movie maybe more so just to doublecheck what isn't making sense and still doesn't.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Shoulda been a third movie. Way too rushed
29 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Want a better movie see 7.1. This is all action, pure chaos makes no sense and very rushed to get it over with. Peter Jackson did it better with 3 movies out of a tiny Book. s an 800 page book. Why is this one the shortest out of all the movies. Not a clue. I've seen them all and except for the Snape scene, my least liked. Even below Order of the Phoenix , which despite umbridge making me cringe (hey she's funny in Rat. ) I liked the teaching behind the scene's.

This movie , large sections of the book are either missing or were changed in 7.1 so they can't appear in 7.2. The Elf revolt shoulda have been in here. Kreecher should have been in both. I really have no idea what they were thinking with this movie but it might may a little sense to those who bothered to read the book. And again if you only like action but almost no plot. This is your movie. It's not horrid but it should have been way better (and longer)

Quality: 6/10 Entertainment: 9/10 Replayable: 7/10 (if only to replay and find out why something doesn't make any sense. ) Disappointed in this one.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good but not as great and enduring as the original.
17 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Out of practice writing reviews since I just haven't had time to watch new movies. I'd watched Hellboy streaming and thought now was as good as any to finally watch my copy of Hellboy II. The movie itself on it's own is not bad. It's rather good with the entertainment and the blu ray sound is a kicker. But the one single thing that sinks this movie is plot holes. Everywhere to the point of making the movie senseless. :( The embarrassing beginning with Hellboy was ouch. Think I'll skip that part from now on. A lot of knife work that is rather good just seems out of place. I thought for sure abe woulda spilled the beans on Liz's pregnancy when he was rather drunk. Nope... Totally un needed scene. And oh don't stand by the window. Hellboy is out. Like yeah the whole big chase scene in the first movie was more obvious. That was really pushed in and created such a plot hole I kept expecting it to show up in the credits. Nope no easter eggs there. Face Palm. No I don't like Liz's new haircut or her fire color. Blue was more surreal. Again Good movie but not great. The first one is great.

Quality: 4/10 Entertainment: 8/10 Replayable: 2/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Homecoming (2012)
Season 12, Episode 22
10/10
Almost sets up for (******* ) to come back.
31 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Gotta be CSI's best cliffhanger since both season 7 and season 8.. Got a touch of the old CSI here. Season 11 is almost unbearable to watch. So bad it took me until sometime earlier this year to finish Season 11. Think ted danson's gotten the show back on it's feet. can't say much about Elizbeth Shue yet. Although being someone who was like 9 yrs old or so during a certain karate movie... I'm probably stereotyping her. although mixing her in so far has been interesting. This episode though (spoiler alert) and theory alert sets up only one possible conclusion. Being Warrick died in who's arms? Who came back because of Warrick's death. Well Sara of course. Who would come back if Comrade is out of action, Fishburne is recovering somewhere, and Ted Danson has a family problem now. There's only one guy. And he's married to Sara. Just one theory. But he would have a serious axe to grind with McKean. Moment his name entered my ears again. I was thinking no no no. Don't bring him in. Things will get hairy now that he's all healed. (on a side note.. so who did Hodges marry in Italy??) It'll take a bit to get over this episode. Thats gonna get ugly.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Genocide (1982)
10/10
Why haven't I heard of this?
20 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Was going thru the streaming films at ***flix and bumped into this. Of course streams are horrid so I rented it. Orson Welles is narrating most of it and being Orson.. he like todays Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones was among the best narrators. Interspersed with Elizabeth Taylor with emotion I'd never heard from her before lay before me a documentary that moves one to tears. The DVD is poorly cropped. So hopefully it will come to blu ray restored. The music is dated but the power is always in the narration and the images of horror shown on the screen. Highly recommend if your interest is in WWII stuff. Never was much into the Japanese side of stuff. Some within the last emperor , but mostly with the Nazi's, Jews and Russian sides. This one makes some note of America's lack of action that led to a worse situation that could have been.

10/10 Quality: 9/10 Re-playable ? 9/10 Entertainment: 0/10 (of course not)
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Plasticine at it's finest
6 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Always game for a new Aardman production. And it's Plasticine not clay. Plasticine is easier to use. Usually molded around a frame. This one brought a tear to me eye. And hadn't quite realized until the female poodle gave Gromit his box of collectibles that Gromit is a beagle. Should known in the back of me mind. No wonder I've always like the show. Miss my own beagle. The eyes always have it. But I was tearing up there good at the end. The movie is usually all laughs, but this one showed more emotion than previous ones. I wouldn't say darker. The movie curse of the were rabbit was much darker. That one included guns. This one doesn't.

Was a bit strange they aren't plumbers anymore. Although the bakery idea was cute. I loved it. And indeed the ending will bring the weepies. Not that I'm a big poodle fan, abused dogs though obviously will come on along.

Quality: 10/10 Replayable: 10/10 Entertainment 10/10 Overall.... 10/10

Loved the DVD bonus feature with Shaun too.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Confusing at first.
30 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'd been watching a ton of cheap $1 DVD's for a bit just to get used to movies I'd been putting off. This was the first one I finally got to. I thought it was really well made. I do think it takes awhile to understand, but I got the hang of it. We never really find out if she's real or dead. We'll leave that up to the imagination, but I wouldn't call this a depressing movie. I'd gone for years without watching thinking it would be. But it's more uplifting really. Lets us into a possible area of politicians when they are younger. The music is slow, but the movie runs that way. A lot of music in this movie and loved the Peter Gabriel song at the end. Not sure if I'd watch this all the time, but it's a good movie that gets you thinking.

9/10 Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 6/10 Replayable: 5/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Confusing plot makes the film almost pointless.
16 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
As a historical record, it's a must watch. But completely pointless as a movie. Like something out of The Producers. Way too little story from the original WWI guys. That was the more interesting storyline that didn't really pick back up until about the last 15 minutes of the movie. Everything in between was full of hot air. Was this a real show? I'm hedging that it wasn't. But it's difficult to tell. And the subplot with uh Reagan not wanting to get married is completely buried and even absurd on it's face. Should have never been in the movie. Great singing all around, but it never felt like a movie. Probably would have been cool as a stage show but never a movie.

Full Rating: 4/10 Quality: 2/10 Entertainment: 6/10 Replayable: 2/10
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pot o' Gold (1941)
6/10
Odd story, but interesting.
14 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Good picker upper style film. Classic Stewart. Reminded me of You Can't Take it With You. I was watching this as part of a 2 sided DVD. With Made For Each Other. Which isn't really a comedy. But Pot O Gold, rather hilarious. Especially when Stewart finds out who he really hit with that tomato. :) Get the feeling a few people wound up on It's a Wonderful Life. But can't tell. All in all well worth the $1 I paid for it. Probably would but it on a $10 version too. The only real complaint is the movie is a bit on the short side. I would disagree with a few here saying it's not worth their time. There's quite a few movies out there that aren't worth my time, this isn't one of them.

Full rating: 6/10 Quality: 4/10 Entertainment 7/10 Replayable: 5/10
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Appaloosa (2008)
7/10
Not a modern Hollywood film.
19 January 2009
Not entirely sure where to stick this one. Haven't done a review in while because I've seen too many. But had to comment on this one. I wouldn't put this in an action category. Nor an art film. But just an old fashioned western. Extremely boring to the action crowd, but the movie runs like a book. Laid back. I can't give it a perfect score because the plot is thin and vague. Like picking up a book in the middle and not finishing. But I liked it. Not sure why but it's just laid back and unique. And certainly gives some interest in an 8 Gauge shotgun. There's a fairly good youtube video on this and how to handle one. Which is more explained than the DVD. Do wish they'd stick the trailer on.

7/10

Quality: 7/10 Replayable: 9/10 Entertainment: 4/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Music Clash
14 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Unlike someone else I wouldn't call this a bootleg. Calling it a bootleg suggests the DVD is illegal. Which would bring up as to why a certain online rental spot that uses the colors blue and yellow has it for rent. Which is how I ended up watching this.

It's okay as far as it's questions. But the editing is beyond hope. The silliness of locating a camera behind the interviewee is distracting. But worst of all, they don't use Rammstein music. It likely would have been better just to strip what music there is off the documentary. Alas they don't and clearly the idiots who are controlling this item don't understand Rammstein. Rammstein isn't death metal. Yet half the time we've got death metal playing in the background.

Then there is the interviewee's themselves. Where did they dig them up. Some of them aren't the best fans in the world. One in particular seemed to be a little hostile, but still raved about them. You'll likely get a better semi documentary off their music video DVD. (no don't ask me to spell it. I don't speak German) Hence the confusion all these years over You hate and you Have me. :P

2/10

Quality 0/10 Entertainment: 4/10 Replayable: 0/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Is it one too many?
29 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I've read a number of complaints that it's simply getting long in the tooth.

Sure it's story isn't intricate as the first movie. But I found it much more hilarious than the second which was too much a parody of just about everything. Yes the third does parody, but touches the heart of the first movie that the second one completely missed. I loved it and compared to The Simpsons, (which got long in the tooth about 7 years prior to the movie) Shrek is no where near long in the tooth. Even by the promised 5th movie could I see wanting this series to end. I've come to love the characters and it was a bit of a cheer up with all thats going on personally. One confusion that makes it a bit complicated is having the hero named Arthur. So is this the real Arthur? Will Arthur be killed away from far far away?

8/10

Quality: 7/10 Entertainment: 10/10 Replayable: 10/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Titanica (1992)
9/10
Doesn't translate from an IMAX screen very well, but still pretty good.
27 January 2008
I do agree the film doesn't come across as well as it coulda been shown as an IMAX film. But that aside, I don't care who talks to who. Sometimes I don't mind a mix of the history of within something like this. This technically could be useful if you watch this and Ghosts of the Abyss back to back as they are using Mir 1 and 2 in GOTA. The best footage is the debris field. The Titanic has it's debris field and that is part of the Titanic. It is very short, but with the hour your given, it really isn't that bad. I'd say my rating has more to do with watching this before you watch Ghosts. Instead of going in to a dead ship. And I've got the book with the photos of some of the white star line. And I learned some stuff thru the short interviews I hadn't before. I'd have to watch again to remember totally :)

9/10

Quality: 6/10 Entertainment: 9/10 Replayable: 9/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disappointing
20 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Okay I've been out of touch with The Simpsons series for a little while. But I really don't quite understand the hoopla over this movie. It's 87 minutes long!!! About 3 shows worth. And the 3 shows have been funnier than this. Not to say it's not funny, but I wasn't busting a gut over it. All it was was just a rehash of stuff from the series. Boring!! I'm having more fun Watching Shrek The Third than on this movie. I was also disappointed in the DVD. I thought there'd be more too it. The Aqua Teen Hunger Force has more original jokes than this. I just didn't see the point. Other than Maggie's first word, it was just another episode of the Simpsons.

6/10

Quality 6/10 Entertainment: 3/10 Replayable: 2/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pathfinder (2007)
6/10
Weak center, but juicy everywhere else.
7 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm kinda out of practice writing reviews. I think starting with 300 or so I let myself relax a bit and simply started watching movies without feeling the need to write a review. With the obvious haters of the movie I guess I decided to chime in.

This is the sort of movie one could leave their brain at the door. I think for the most part I'll take my brain thru the door. There are points in the film I drop my brain down for a moment. But for the most part the time flew. It's not entirely been often that I'm drawn into a movie. Especially a movie with clearly poorly done editing. As in the editing is so poor in spots that it causes confusion to the viewer. Sometimes the acting is absurd like say Russell Means in the water with Karl Urban acting out of character. So the movie might have needed another director, but was done well enough to be an okay film. Certainly not in a worst of list. Maybe the sequel that should have been for Conan. I see the movie more borrowing from Conan than Apocolypto as I've read. As for the movie being racist. Against whom? So many classic films are racist against Native American's, this one sure isn't. I'm not going to berate a film because it might be factually incorrect. Braveheart gets far better reviews, but will get the same laughs from the history professors.

For the second time I see (the first being On Deadly Ground with Joan Chen playing a native) they've used another Asian (pegged a Eurasian. never heard that term before.) Wish there were more true Native American's playing Native Americans. Not that I think the actress playing Starfire is bad. On the contrary, she's quite beautiful. And she looks the part, but it's simply an observation.

6/10

Quality: 6/10 Replayable: 4/10 Entertainment: 9/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This is how the movie should have been made.
27 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'd almost give it a 9/10 because of Courtney's rant at the end, but the rest of it is so good I can't possibly give it less than 10. One of the best laughs I'd had in a long time. And Gore Vidal clearly has a sense of humor left. And Helen Mirren looks ravishing in this fake trailer. Would love to see this on DVD. I'd pay $10 to own it legally instead of looking for someone who happens to of uploaded it somewhere. Which is primarily the only way to see this.

I give it 10/10 primarily because it looks like it could be a real film. They need this to be on a DVD so we can see how they shot it and where those sets came from. (PS I give it a spoiler warning because maybe the intent was that nobody knows it's a fake trailer. That's a spoiler) 10/10

Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 10/10 Replayable: 10/10
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Home video collection?
15 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was actually watching Enron The Smartest Guys in the Room and it had a trailer for this movie on it. So I went to check it out. Good lord is this documentary boring. It might actually be worth my while to watch real bowling compared to this junk. It basically boils down to two guys that apparently don't like each other. I never really watched bowling. It was one of those sports thats more fun to actually play it. The only way I got through this home video was I was scanning photo's at the time. There's no sense of purpose or direction. It simply meanders wherever and whoever the camera is pointing at. This came to be disappointingly bad and I actually came off disliking bowling more than when I came in watching this. Which I don't think was the intention of the film. I can't call this a documentary. A documentary informs people, this is simply a batch of home video's shot with PBA stars talking. Yawn. Go watch something else.

4/10

Quality: 4/10 Entertainment: 0/10 Replayable: 1/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Very watchable unbiased documentary.
14 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I can't imagine many documentaries today that takes swipes at both political parties. In one corner we have Michael Moore and in the other we have the right wing reactionary documentaries to those sorts of films.

This one makes it clear that both Republicans and Democrats share the blame in the Enwrong game. I was reading a comment that there's nothing really new to learn from this documentary. This could be for those who have watched the news vividly, but the newscasts investigation process is usually long and tedious. So I hardly payed much attention. This documentary I learned many things I did not know and then some. This would be to say before hand, I didn't like Ken Lay, but always had doubts as to his guilt. Now I'm sure of his guilt and quite disappointed his guilty conviction was vacated.

My only complaint might be that it was released too early. I think they could have waited a bit longer so they could tell in the documentary what happened to these really evil people.

A minor complaint would also be why did they feel the need to include tits? I say this straight out not to be offensive, but to ask a direct question. Why show them? The movie could be easily played in a classroom, but you've shut those people out because of the nudity. It would have been just as effective to show strippers prancing around with out their breasts showing.

Both complaints though do not change the fact that I will give this a 10. Most of the reasoning behind this is that it's replayable. I'm actually rewatching the documentary with the commentary running. The DVD includes several good deleted scenes. And outtakes from the two main interviews.

So yes, watch the film with an open mind and also remember the people whose lives were well decked because of people like this.

10/10

Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: Not Applicable Replayable: 10/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed