7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
My Dog Skip (2000)
2/10
Why???
24 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I caught this on WGN and wound up watching it because out of 300+ channels on cable, there was nothing else worth watching. My first impression was formed by the syrupy background music that played almost continuously throughout the film. If it had lyrics, they would be, "Open up some Kleenex and just cry, cry, cry." I cried, all right, but for the wrong reasons. Any film that involves the use of animals inevitably includes harming said animals, and My Dog Skip was no exception. From the graphic hunting death of a deer to the verbal/physical abuse of the dog, this project could not have been pleasant for the title character, who out-acted all his human counterparts. Keep in mind the fact that movies are only fictional where people are concerned. Animals only experience it as real-life mistreatment that they cannot comprehend.

The plot can be summarized in two words: Who cares? It's a coming-of-age tale about a boy named Willie and his terrier Skip in small-town 1940s Mississippi. Willie has growing pains. He has to contend with a stern father, the town bullies, his complete inability to play baseball, an inexplicable, mostly one-sided friendship with a WWII veteran who is painted as the town pariah, and a first love named Rivers, to whom we never find out what happens. Most of the characters are completely forgettable, and the narrative consists of loosely-pasted vignettes of a dreary childhood. I only saw this movie last night, and I don't remember much of anything except being surprised to learn that, in the c. 1945 South, white families could watch young black men playing baseball after dark. (Read Maya Angelou if you don't understand what I'm saying here.)

A violent scene leaves the viewer feeling lousy, after which the story just peters out. We see Willie rowing his girlfriend on a pond--probably an allusion to his Rhodes scholarship, which requires athletic ability--and then he suddenly grows up and blows town, leaving the aging Skip all by himself. If the film's hypocritical concluding drivel doesn't make you want to throw up, then nothing ever can. Comparatively speaking, Old Yeller was more cherished than ol' Skip.

I don't recommend this film to animal lovers of any age, particularly children, because they won't understand its conclusion. I'm not even sure that I do, if for no other reason than to wonder how in the hell a dimwit like Willie ever made it into Oxford.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Color this disappointing
22 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I read Alice Walker's novel in 1984 as part of an American literature course. Walker's work is raw, gritty, heartbreaking and powerful, written in the first person by Celie without an ounce of self-pity. I have read it several times, and it has never failed to move me.

The following year, THE COLOR PURPLE came to the screen. A group of us from the English department went to see it. We were horrified by Spielberg's Disneyfied treatment of a work we all cherished. Between Spielberg and Menno Meyjes (who wrote the execrable screenplay), the original point of Walker's story was completely lost. What a waste! The film could have been magnificent in more competent hands, but its terrific casting, location, cinematography, and acting were all wasted on this saccharine and often incredibly dull, loose adaptation.

My suggestion: Read the book before you watch the film. You'll be surprised by the difference in nearly every aspect.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A pack of lies
1 December 2013
If anyone wants to know the TRUE story of P.L. Travers' and Walt Disney's negotiations regarding MARY POPPINS, read Caitlin Flanagan's article "Becoming Mary Poppins" published in The New Yorker in 2005. Walt Disney was an S.O.B., and treated Travers abominably. Obviously the company is trying to soften his image with this insipid film. I've lost all respect for anyone involved with the project.

This paragraph from Flanagan's piece says it all: "The première was the first Travers had seen of the movie—-she did not initially receive an invitation, but had embarrassed a Disney executive into extending one—-and it was a shock. Afterward, as Richard Sherman recalled, she tracked down Disney at the after-party, which was held in a giant white tent in the parking lot adjoining the Chinese Theatre. "Well," she said loudly. "The first thing that has to go is the animation sequence." Disney looked at her coolly. "Pamela," he replied, "the ship has sailed." And then he strode past her, toward a throng of well-wishers, and left her alone, an aging woman in a satin gown and evening gloves, who had travelled more than five thousand miles to attend a party where she was not wanted."
138 out of 258 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Insulting
17 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I just watched this schlockfest on Encore. In the 1970s I read the reviews panning it, and so I never saw it until tonight.

Screenwriter Barry Sandler slapped together the script for "Gable and Lombard." If you don't recognize Sandler's name, he is also the writer of one of the most famously awful movies of all time, "Making Love." Although presenting a gay-themed love story was a bold move during the early Reagan years, it was severely criticized, not so much for its subject matter but for its cringe-inducing dialogue. The same holds true for "Gable and Lombard."

Marvelous, vividly colorful cinematography is wasted on a poorly written and largely imaginary "biopic" of Clark Gable and Carole Lombard. In the background, the incessant repetition of Michel Legrand's trite, syrupy theme grows tiresome very fast. As for the characters' screwball action, stretched out for 132 specious minutes, no better adjective than "trashy" applies.

But Sandler saves the worst for last. Gable, resplendent in his Air Force uniform (he didn't actually enlist until AFTER Lombard's death) sits under a tent near the site where Lombard's plane has crashed, killing everybody on board. Gable says that he wants to go up to find her, but his fictional good buddy Ivan Cooper, who has been holding his hand for practically the entire film, convinces him to leave, saying, "She wouldn't want you to remember her that way." Obediently, Gable immediately leaves in a green sedan. The movie should have ended right there. However, in a REALLY classy move, Sandler decides to depict the grief-stricken Gable telling the driver a filthy anecdote, after which the camera pans out and the soppy Legrand theme rises for the last time over the credits.

This moment left me stunned. Even if it were true--which by all accounts it wasn't--why leave us with an obscene final impression of Clark Gable? It's not merely preposterous, but beyond disgusting. It would have been more poignant to go with the truth, which is that Gable was prevented from hiking up with the search team to look for his wife, and remained in the area for days while the team dug through the wreckage. He is quoted as saying, "They never let me go to the crash site," and spent the rest of his life sending searchers back to look for Carole's wedding ring, which was never found.

There is so much more that Sandler could have done with this story and didn't. Choosing scatology over dignity, he put a toilet-paper ribbon on his Technicolor package of lies about people who meant little more to him than cartoon characters, and flung it at the audience, flipping the bird in farewell.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hangover (2009)
1/10
Less than zero
12 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
...though, really, nothing could spoil this movie--IT'S ALREADY ROTTEN.

THE HANGOVER doesn't even deserve a 1. What a waste of time. Four revolting morons drive to Vegas and have a series of adventures that they cannot remember because they were given a date-rape drug by their fat, completely disgusting buddy who thinks it's Ecstasy. That brings up about a thousand issues in my mind, not the least of which is the question, "Why they didn't leave him on the side of the road when he admitted to drugging them?"

As several people have mentioned here, THE HANGOVER is not only derivative, but has clearly "borrowed" material from other movies as well. Example: The tiger trashing the car = the deer trashing the car in TOMMY BOY. The scene is filmed in exactly the same way. Add into the mix bits and pieces of THREE MEN AND A BABY, THE FRESHMAN, American PIE, VERY BAD THINGS, etc., etc., etc., and hey! You've got several funny movies rolled into one, boring, stupid, nasty mess.

I could go on, but I've wasted enough time with this execrable film already. Nothing new under the sun here. It's all been done before.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Waltzing Anna (2006)
10/10
A sweet labor of love
13 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
WALTZING ANNA is a breath of fresh air about a subject that goes largely ignored by not only the the film industry but society in general: the plight of the elderly who are left to languish in corrupt nursing homes. While this may not be the finest script ever produced, it has a strong purpose and wonderful veteran actors to flesh out the plot and make it both charming and poignant. Beautiful Betsy Palmer and the marvelous, versatile Pat Hingle as two residents who keep a secret from the home administrator are absolutely the heart and soul of the movie. Their performance had me in tears a number of times. The film's resolution is terrific--truly a "bravo" moment.

I think a lot of reviewers here seemed to miss the credits where Robert Capelli dedicated the film to his grandfather, who inspired this project. One idiot called it a "vanity" film. I call it a labor of love. My grandmother died in a nursing home that employed the horrific practices of sedating the elderly in order to hasten their demise (she died three days after she was admitted). This film was made to memorialize people like her who didn't get the chance to be rescued from the misery and the abuse one finds in most nursing homes.

WALTZING ANNA should wake people up to the fact that a nursing home can be an active, useful, cheerful residence for living, rather than a corrupt, smelly, dreary place where old people are dropped off to die or be killed by money-hungry administrators. Palmer and Hingle subtly but effectively prove to that true love can come at any age, to the elderly as well as to dewy-eyed youngsters. I applaud Capelli for making this film. Again: Bravo!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cruelty posing as entertainment
26 September 2008
Want to watch somebody cut open the abdomen of a living creature and gut it while the animal struggles and screams for mercy? Want to hear about the practice of clubbing live animals before they are slaughtered because it "makes the meat taste better"? Would you enjoy seeing someone slice off the top of a monkey's head so they can eat its brains while he is still alive?

Welcome to the sick, psychotic world of "world-renowned gourmet/food critic" Andrew Zimmern, who hosts a revolting program on The Travel Channel called "Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern." Zimmern's claim to fame is that he will apparently eat any creature that can be captured and served up for him to eat, in whole or in part, alive or dead. He cares not a bit what the creatures he ultimately consumes have suffered in order to satisfy his bloated, disgusting appetite. I don't know what possesses him to do this, except for the fact that he is obviously being paid a handsome salary by The Travel Channel to find some new and shocking way to murder a living thing and then chomp it down, all the while smacking his lips greedily.

It might surprise readers to know that this piece of trash is sponsored by Discovery, the same company that produces not ONLY The Travel Channel, but TLC, Discovery Kids/Health/Education, and, most ironically, Planet Green AND Animal Planet. The same corporation that claims to protect animals and caters to to the education of children also gives them the horrifying opportunity to witness the murder of helpless animals in the callous hands of human beings who carve out a live creature's insides as casually as if they were inanimate pieces of fruit.

Anyone who would allow or encourage their children to watch "Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern" is raising a generation of serial killers. Anyone who has studied the field knows that killing animals is where most psychos begin in their killing sprees...which makes me wonder where Andrew Zimmern's palate will lead him next when he runs out of animals to torture.
17 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed