Reviews

13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Well-filmed, had promise but too many cliches and ultimately didn't get there
26 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Depp plays a typical Hollywood American character--irreverent, immature, self-centered, cares only about money and self-preservation (however we're constantly reminded about how good he is at his job by people mentioning it as well as his lack of sentimentality and garbage-level clothing). Filled with cliches of Europeans and unrealistic scenes (at one point he sits in a cafe for three hours watching as a stalker stares at him from across the street, then leaves and gets caught by him thirty seconds later; in another he sneaks his way into the office of a wealthy Parisian aristocratic bookseller by...waiting until her secretary goes to lunch). Felt like it was going to lead to something interesting but just kind of peters out at the end (although there are a couple concluding plot twists, such as finding out that Depp's characters has...demons of his own? But it's not enough.)

(Ultimately felt like a da Vinci Code-like attempt by the director Polanski to say that because the devil is a woman, he himself is not a sexual criminal. I know the movie predates Dan Brown's work; perhaps the modern world is so bereft of moral certainty that its directors can't resist the urge to endlessly regurgitate films with medieval storylines and visuals?)
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Don't expect the world of it
26 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know why so many reviewers are hating on this film, yes it's fairly simplistic and low-budget but it's a TV movie...no great surprises but it tries to show the humanity behind what used to be called retardation...also depicts Rosie O'Donnell's character is having adult agency of her own despite her limitations...personally I found it a little uncomfortable to watch (her character is very loud and obnoxious) but I think this was partially the point and maybe why so many other reviewers didn't like it (they were uncomfortable with how it made them feel).

(The title refers to the fact that the main character spends her days riding buses around a small New York town interacting with the drivers and passengers. She is generally tolerated and well-liked but some people can't stand her. There is a family drama with Andie Macdowell as her successful but conflicted sister who hasn't yet come to terms with their relationship but of course things move towards a positive resolution of sorts.)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent film about witch hunt by Manhattan D.A.'s office
17 October 2016
Very well-done documentary about small (2,651st largest bank in the U.S. at the time) family bank in Chinatown New York prosecuted for financial crimes after 2008, has interviews with all the major players (bank employees/owners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors, audio from witnesses, etc.)

Absolutely head-scratching as to why the D.A. thought this was a good place to satisfy public outrage over the Great Recession (politics and racism are hinted at but not fully explored). (I do wish this angle has been pursued in more depth.)

Basic plot: low-level employees are fleecing home buyers into giving them cash fees and then falsifying their loan applications so they get approved by higher-ups, the government decides this is evidence of a systematic conspiracy and tries to go after the bank itself (this despite it having an extremely low default rate, which makes it strange that Fannie Mae is named the defendant in the case because overall it got much more money from this bank proportionally than from thousands of others, particularly the giant ones who not only didn't get prosecuted but actually got bailouts (courtesy of you and me)).

Also shows incredible scenes such as the bank employees shackled together in a chain gang and paraded into the courthouse in front of news cameras (which by all accounts is an unheard-of practice nowadays); the Manhattan D.A. (Cyrus Vance Jr.) and one of his underlings ("Polly Greenberg" iirc) are both masterful in denying any kind of prejudicial motivation in selecting and prosecuting Abacus (the case took five years and cost taxpayers ten million USD and resulted in *zero* convictions).

Anyone need anymore evidence that giant corporations run this country? Anyone?
46 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not a bad idea but adolescent and immature filmmaking
24 April 2016
Not a bad idea (how often are the disabled looked at with anything other than the most uncritical of perspectives, especially in our current cultural climate of moralistically competitive victim-hood?) but unfortunately done with a directorial hand which betrays a lack of confidence and maturity...yes we get the point, the blind brother is a jerk, the younger brother is a victim, the parents are insensitive, on and on and on...all the "good" characters act nervous/neurotic and/or self-hating...such is "authenticity" in America in this day and age I guess.

(The film explores the dynamics between two brothers the older(?) of whom is blind (caused by accident induced by his younger brother who then "naturally" has spent his life feeling guilty), the disabled sibling deals with his sense of powerlessness and purposelessness in life by doing charity athletic events to raise money for visually- impaired children, but he requires his younger brother (who hates athletics) to accompany him on his runs/swims/etc. to guide him. The parents, quite naturally, show concern only for the emotional needs of the disabled sibling and seem to be deaf and dumb to even overt psychological abuse of the younger sibling by the older).

The younger one has a chance hookup with a mildly unbalanced female who feels over-responsible for the death of her last boyfriend, she spends the night with him but then ditches him because she needs to focus on expiating her imaginary guilt, whereupon she begins unknowingly working with his brother and becoming romantically involved with him (an absurd lack of boundaries made apparently necessary for the plot to develop)).

Of course there are further plot twists so I won't reveal anymore that might necessitate a spoiler warning, not the worst film but not great either, kudos to the director for at least taking on something somewhat unconventional.
12 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Well-intentioned which touches out on powerful themes, somewhat drawn-out
3 October 2013
An intellectual labor of love in which the director tries to recreate the psychotherapeutic relationship between a French psychoanalyst (in reality a Hungarian-German Jew who converted to Christianity) and a Blackfoot Indian vet suffering from inexplicable symptoms in the late 1940s in a VA hospital in Topeka, Kansas.

Played by Benicio del Toro (who is Puerto Rican) and Mathieu Almaric (who is half-French half-Polish Jewish), the film drags at times but does delve into some interesting psychological (although of course it goes *much* more seamlessly/painlessly than most analyses in reality).

Almaric's character wins over Del Toro's with his initial knowledge of Native American cultures (actually Mojave but there are parallels to the Blackfoot). From there he tries to synthesize his anthropological knowledge with what seem to be a pretty standard fare of sexualized Freudian clichés (witnessing the primal scene, explicit discussions of vaginas (which I thought Del Toro's character spoke about far too easily for the mores of that day and age)).

The relationship between the two men are supposed to be a life-changing event but I felt the film fell a little short in depicting that reality (also a film review (for which I know the director is not responsible) described their friendship as resulting from their both being outsiders, but Almaric's character never reveals his true background (his lover mentions at one point the fact that he changed his name but that is it, perhaps there were other scenes that didn't make it past the editor (I went to the premiere in NYC with the director and main actors and they said there are a lot of scenes that got cut)).

In the latter part of the movie there are strong hints that Jimmy's (Del Toro's character) headaches, fits of rage and alcoholic binges are the result of systematic sociopolitical mistreatment of native Americans but the subject is only strongly hinted at, not really discussed explicitly by Jimmy in any deep or meaningful way. This was to me perhaps more interesting than the anthropological Freudianism of the first 90 minutes of the film, but the director was trying to adhere to a book on the subject and real-life events (psychology back then was even more grossly unaware of psychopolitical factors compared to now).

Perhaps subtly discourages the notion that Jimmy is suffering from PTSD (a diagnosis which did not exist at the time, but the phrase "shell shock" is not used either) because he never saw combat or killed anyone (he was involved in mine-clearing operations after the German retreat). Also interesting insofar as his injury was to his head, thus perhaps implicitly challenging the often presumed relationship nowadays in vets between TBI (traumatic brain injury) and PTSD? (Then again the director was following real-life events so I don't know his intentionality.)

A worthwhile film but a little odd insofar as it (to me) underemphasizes the ethnocultural forces in the characters in favor of a "special friendship" (in a universalized way) despite the fact that it is the decultured nature of American psychiatry which was at the root of doctors' inability to help Jimmy in the first place. Also couldn't stand the way a couple of actors (thinking of Almaric and Joseph Cross specifically) who think that acting means being as anxious and/or intense as possible in every scene.

P.S. The film does drag a bit (114 minutes) (I'm not someone who normally complains about "art-house" films with slower (French) pacing either.)
45 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good low-budget film, nothing too unexpected
25 July 2013
Interestingly-titled low-budget film (with decent lead actors/actresses) about a Chinese-American guy (presumably in L.A.) who channels his racialized self-hatred into serial killing (of people of different races)...won't say *too much* more to give away the ending but doesn't delve very deeply into the underlying roots of his feelings (besides the obvious playground footage/memories of him being taunted).

Also develops a love interest (with a Chinese woman) in his office and has some interesting dynamics with his boss (who is Chinese-American and who hires pretty blondes to be his secretaries to make his firm look more "prestigious").

Wish the film had explored a little more how he gets away with his crimes (it's because he's Asian descent that no one ever suspects him, but I thought this could have been teased out with a little more nuance.)

Jason Tobin does a good job as the title character, he's able to convey a sense of constant self-discomfort but also drop the "mask" in certain situations when his character feels more at ease (not sure I really got what led him to "cross the line" and actually commit the murders however).
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Limitless (I) (2011)
5/10
Some interesting ideas and camera-work but falls flat
21 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Interesting idea but I found the execution to go flat. Yes I tend to be a stickler for realism and intolerant of plot-holes but this one really went too far (making millions in a couple days trading stocks as a newbie? (he wouldn't have had the authority to buy that much equity to begin with) or getting enough of a drug someone's blood to give you a fix? (the average human body has eight quarts of blood, lapping up a couple spoonfuls isn't the equivalent of getting a "hit") or forgetting to pay off a Russian loan shark (a genius would have remembered something that might cost him his life)).

Also found the acting of both Cooper and DeNiro to be mediocre. Maybe I've seen him in too many other films, but Cooper seems to have this permanent smirk on his face, even when it doesn't make sense for his character to.

Thought the angle with "Hank Atwood" could have been developed better, indeed the entire concept that others in the business world were also on the drug could have been developed much more fully, and even turned into an implicit societal critique of Wall Street-style "manic capitalism". As it was, I thought the implicit critique was about drugs in general, but antidepressants specifically (the fact that it was manufactured by a pharmaceutical company, rather than a meth lab or coke dealer etc.). Also thought that angle could have been developed better, judging from the other reviews here (no one else else mentions antidepressants, just drugs in general) this message (if indeed that was the director's intent) was too subtle.

Thought Deniro's role would have been much larger after having seen a trailer (I thought he was going to be in the know from the get-go about Cooper's secret, and the movie would be about the power struggle between the two of them). So maybe I was a little disappointed by having the movie not be what I expected.

Did find it interesting at the end that the question of his continued usage was not answered--would be curious to know what others thought--I'm not sure myself (that's the point I guess--it's like a French film, you're supposed to leave the theater and have a healthy discussion with your friends about what really happened).
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
mostly juvenile crap
30 November 2010
only redeeming parts were the (accurate) portrayal of the sleaze of the pharmaceutical industry and psychological insights by anne hathaway's character about jake gyllenhaal's character's motives for wanting to stick with her (which strangely enough never seemed to alter the trajectory of their relationship--for what reason?--we never saw what else was motivating him in my opinion, stuff about never having been liked or experienced himself as sufficient were underdeveloped)

showing anne hathaway's titties got old after a while sometimes less is more (that's not a pun on the size of her breasts btw)

also thought that doctor's cursing was very contrived and unnatural, it didn't seem to add to the character at all--if you can't swear naturally don't do it at all (and were people really already demanding drugs they had read about online at the time viagra was introduced? seemed like an anachronistic conflict)
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Didn't think either character was completely innocent, but not sure what director intended
21 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone seems to think that the wife was either a whore and the husband a hero or she was driven to it by loneliness (and the husband is still a hero)...I didn't see it either way, both are too black and white.

For one we never really saw her loneliness I didn't think, plus she kept cheating on him even when he was back sometimes IIRC. Also she was out of control, and unable to commit one way or the other to either her husband or her lover.

I thought the film was about two people with psychoemotional problems who stayed together simply because they were too afraid to separate...the husband's service seemed parasuicidal for example, and his family seemed to realize how unstable she was but he stuck with her (loyalty is not always a virtue).

If the film was meant to be autobiographical then perhaps the director was stuck with certain plot developments? Or maybe his point was that the first experience of emotional deprivation was so scarring that it created a life-long pattern that would have not been there otherwise? But I think if she died because of a broken heart, even metaphorically, it meant from the get-go that she was torn between "desire and duty", i.e. a marriage to a respectable and appropriate partner and the person her heart and body desired. A little unclear but that is par for the course for French films in my experience, they are meant to provoke thought and discussion (unlike most American ones). Also I did not understand the title, unless the director was saying this is the emotional reality for most French women, for that generation or in general.

P.S. I was also glad there was no nudity in the film. It would have been a cheap attempt at interjecting eroticism into the film IMO, such things can be inferred implicitly by adults.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Finding Bliss (2009)
4/10
I wanted to like it...
9 June 2010
but just couldn't. Has a few zingy one-liners that keep it from being a complete dud, and a couple characters/actors that do well (the tech guy, the female head of the studio and "Jeff Drake", imo) but otherwise a yawner. Better movies in this genre (if it can be called that) are Zack and Miri Make a Porno and Orgazmo. (Also not really any nudity to speak of, so don't bother if you're thinking it's a cheap way to get some thrills).

Also has *nothing* meaningful to do with a woman getting hired to make pr0n from a female perspective or a (male) director trying to make classy pr0n (at least to me). The former never gets beyond "women want an emotional connection during sex" while the latter consists of "maybe we won't just concentrate on closeups of genitals". In a way it's really about the psychoemotional hangups of the main character vis-a-vis sex, but these are never really explored beyond her parents are uptight, she's afraid she's not skilled enough at sex, she likes to tease guys, etc. Caveat emptor :-)
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Don't bother
17 June 2009
Typical cheesy American comedy about Greece and Greeks (and of course Americans, and a few others, in Greece). Does the director really expect us to believe that Greeks not only happen to speak English, but act like irritating and irritable New Yorkers to boot? At least some of the stereotypes were mildly amusing without being too offensive, like the Australians who kept offering everyone cans of Foster's Lager (despite the fact that no one in Australia drinks Foster's), the Canadians with Canadian flags sewn all over their clothing and/or belongings, and so on. Plus some of the shots of Greece were beautiful, although you could clearly tell the backgrounds were faked in some of them. (Having said all that "Niko", the other guide, seemed like a clichéd stereotype of an Italian, not Greek, to me).

So if that's what you're looking for by all means go ahead, if not you've been warned...
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not bad...
17 June 2009
but not good.

Don't bother if you're looking for "quality erotica" or something bridging the gap between porn and a "real film". The film tries to be serious, and address a topic with some seriousness and psychological-mindedness, and for that should be commended. Having said that I found the film to be somewhat disjointed i.e. I had a hard time figuring out how things in the plot were related. (Of course you can always hypothesize that that was the director's intention, that your viewing experience is meant to mirror the confusion of the main character, but I don't think that's how things actually work. I could be wrong, of course.) :-) Sasha Grey's not a bad actress, but don't hold your breath for the next Meryl Streep. I'd be curious to see her portray someone in a non-sexualized role.

Also be aware there was a movie released in 2008 entitled "Girlfriend Experience", it's something different.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Statement (2003)
3/10
Crap, only for those who want their anti-French prejudices confirmed
6 January 2006
Pure rubbish, ridden through with stereotypical Anglo-Saxon anti-Catholic and anti-Continental bigotries and biases. Having said that, some nice scenery but that was about it. I can't believe Michael Caine made something this poor at this point in his career.

And now adding more content to satisfy IMDb's requirements: Michael Caine plays an ex-Nazi French collaborator; he "acts" exceedingly nervous throughout the film helped no doubt by the liberal application of some oil-based lubricant to his face; Church officials are of course portrayed as deeply corrupt and dishonest, protecting their pro-fascist sympathies until the heat gets turned on them when naturally they sell out their own man, and so on. Again, the only reason to watch are some nice scenes of the French countryside, one could even let it run with the sound off as a kind of background living-room panoramic.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed