4v291o

Fuck this a good movie! Man I wished I saw this a decade ago in theaters when it first came out it would have been epic! I when this movie came out and thought it would be stupid, here is another movie based on the Bible trying to pannier to the known religious audience, while the devoteds are going to criticize it for not being "accurate" I thought. And nothing can live up the the original with Charleston Heston - why remake it with bad CGI. Man was I wrong.

I like how Ridley Scott told the story from a true agnostic POV. Telling it as if it's a fable, but if it possibly had some truth to it, like his historic epic Gladiator. Making God appear as a child was another wise decision which I never thought of before. It added to the fable/legend motif. Good job, Mr. Scott. My only negative would be Christian Bale as Moses. As much of a fan as I am of Bale, I don't think he was a good choice to play Moses. I believe more of a classically trained actor who would have been better.

The film not only launched Tarantino into the mainstream of pop culture in America - although he had already released Reservoir Dogs a few years earlier - but also paved the way for indie films (previously reserved for underground art-house cinemas) to reach the mainstream audiences in multiplexes.

Like many up-and-coming Hollywood directors of the 2000s who got their start in the 90s American In independent cinema, Tarantino’s early films are his best, as they were made before he had an unlimited budget to work with.

Pulp Fiction with its pop, sazzled, hyper-realistic, non-linear story feels like something out of a time capsule, when watching in the 2020s. It was made back when artists wanted to create something low-key, that could reach a mainstream audience, and mainstream audience got excited and wanted something that was “different” from what the major Hollywood studios were pumping out but not pretentious.

Oh how I wish that independent cinema still looked like this, and the young film makers gave a dam, before streaming killed the medium.

No movie captures what it's like to be in high school more during the early to mid 2000s. Nostalgic times watching this film.

The story itself, is a bit far-fetched, especially McLovin's story with the cops - though, one could argue that that story is every mid-2000s unpopular teen boy's fantasy. However, it's the little conversations that makes this film so real. Seth Rogen (sadly) it says that he wouldn't make his feel now because it's "un PC". However, that is how us boys and girls, liberal, conservative (the politics were at the forefront) talk back then.

Besides being a laugh fest, the movie also has heart. Something that many comedies of the time missed. The conversation between Seth and Evan about what school they're going to is so honest in heartfelt. Highlighting something that many teenagers of the time, I'm assuming still now have. It shows they're vulnerability.

The movie is also beautifully shot to what could have been just a standard comedy. With the cinematography of Russ T. Alsobrook director Greg Mottola (who at all later go on to make Adventureland) is able to highlight the films naturalistic attributes.

The movie was produced by Columbia. However, I couldn't easily see this being marketed to the Art House crowd has a Sony Picture Classic.

If Quentin Tarantino directed an 80's children's fantasy film, with Swedish Children's cinema influences, you would have Riddle Of Fire.

A masterpiece! I'm glad Woody Allen did not destroy this film, how he originally wanted. Watching in 2024 Manhattan is like taking a step back in time. The opening sucks you in with the black and white of the high grainy film, against the jazz music, and Allen's narration. Manhattan is a true European style art film.

Towards the start of the film Allen's character (let's be honest he's playing himself) mentions Ingmar Bergman (and I'm paraphrasing here) being a the great artist of film medium. Style and it's controversial subject matter this is Allen's nod to Bergman.

Thank you Woody for this gift.

As far as biopics go this is one of the worst! Boring, mundane, no grasp on how much time has ed. I found reading Amy Winehouse's Wikipedia Page more entertaining.

If the original Die Hard was Delta Airlines, Carry-On would be Southwest.

Like with other Luca Guadagnino films (or mini series, We Are Who We Are) the first part of Queer kind of drags, then the second half shines.

Visually stunning. Musically moving. Emotionally grabbing performances. I am already looking forward to seeing it for a second, third and fourth time to really grasp the emotion that Guadagnino is trying to illuminate onto the audience.

My only negatives would be is sometimes the visuals took me out of the film. I get it. It was meant to look like the illustrations of an adventure book of the time, but sometimes it was too much. And my second being; I wish the actors did not wear prosthetics but showed their real penises. Come on grow up, have no shame - you are an actor! So what if your mommy sees your penis? The only time I think wearing a prosthetic penis is appropriate in a movie is if it is for narrative purposes, i.e the ending of Salò.

The best Christmas movie ever made. Sorry Die Hard fans. I just saw this movie for, I don't know, zillionth time. Okay, probably that not that many but you know what I mean.

I when I first saw this movie when I was a child it was a driving theater. As I recall it was my first time at driving theater. I think that added to my overall experience of the film, the drive-in nostalgic experience as a child combined with the nostalgic feeling of Christmas that the movie gives you leaves one with this awww viewing aspect.

In the following years I would watch it around every Christmas time either on VHS, or when it ran on TV, either as a family, at party, friends, or just my brother and Iuntil I bought it on Blu-ray and is now a tradition in my life as adult.
As a child I enjoyed it for the slapstick of it all. As an adult you understand the more dry humor throughout the film and you feel the emotion that to film brings. Something that is abandoned and all the sequels, and why I think they fail when this one sores.

Columbus's directing with Huge's script, combined with Williams score the beautiful cinematography and the overall design of the house. As an adult i realized why the film feels so magical as a kid; the production design, the light, the custumes, the sets. Even the house interior is red and green (as an adult I think, this house must be really weird in the summer time). It really the film really brings that holiday spirit. In watching it as an adult, even one without kids, you you get even more emotional at parts.

The scene where Kevin is sent to the attic, Macaulay plays that scene beautifully, unlike other child actors he's just not reading cue cards but he is able to really sell it when he tells his mom, "I wish I never seen you again" Catherine's face just makes you melt when she hears that from him. In what kid did not feel that way at some point about their parents? I know I did. It's another reason why I think it's film resonates so much with kids and parents alike.

To nostalgia Gothic comments in the fact that there are no cell phones.. with cell phones internet now his parents with the contracted Kevin is two seconds. Problem solve. There's also the fact of overprotective helicopter parents in 2024. Where nosy neighbors call the cops if the kid is alone in the backyard Kevin's age. They're the kind of Innocence of the latchkey kid that this film brings out which is no longer part of the American culture - sadly.

As a Jew this movie also made me want to celebrate Christmas. Seeing where Kevin is walking back from the church and he looks in at that other family celebrating Christmas, that is something I always wish I had and I felt as a kid. Now as an adult who lives on his own I am happy to say that you celebrate Christmas, thanks and part of this film, and I always make this film my Christmas edition while eating a large cheese pizza.

Timothee Chalamet was great in it, and I do believe him as a younger version of Wilder's Wonka. The songs were good. The direction was okay. I liked how they made the it so it "could" be cannon to the original, I just did not like or care for the story.

One of the purest, authentic music documentaries about recording and producing an album I have ever seen. I enjoy watching this documentary as much as I enjoy listening to the album. I think what separates this documentary from others, and other Green Day ones made later, was this was made during a slump in the band's career. While recording their experimental album American Idiot, the band asked their old friend, artist John Roecker, to film this fly on the documentary with prosumer cameras. You are left with this not overly produced, raw, authentic, one-man-crew doc.

The best Joaquin Phoenix troll job since he appeared on Letterman years ago.

You take the conspiracy theorist on Letterbox and ask them to talk about The Shining and you get this documentary.

The Citizen Kane of coming of age films.

Everyone, except for Frank, the youngest son, is unlikable in this likeable film.

Right off the bat I despised the Jeff Daniels character with his line to the eldest son, about his mother's backhand during a game of tennis. The eldest son idolizes his father, despite, or more oblivious to the fact of him being an utter asshole and essentially gaslighting him against his mother. The mom, it is overly cuddling of her boys, and is oblivious to her own flaws. And the youngest boy is invisible to the madness of his family and drinks beer and uses masturbation followed by whipping his cum all over the school to cope with his pain. Yet, I am always drawn to the to this movie at times, wishing I could be part of this family, and at the same time I feeling lucky that I'm not.

I feel like if this family drama is the true essence of the meaning "The grass is always greener on the other side".

A well made un-meladrama family drama. Written like a play, filmed like a fly on the wall documentary. Only thing that takes me out of the move (every time I watch it) is the setting. The movie takes place in the 1980s, but all of the cars on the street are from the late 90s early 00s. I get it. Low budget film. But they could have at least closed the block down where they're filming and put up a parking ban for the day.

Just an other mediocre bio pic. Not with watching. What made this movie a one star though was how it causes the SLAP heard around the world.

Fuck you Will Smith.

Annoyingly cute.

One of the worst movies to watch on a plane before going on holiday. Ultimately depressing. During my four layover, I wanted to do nothing more than people watch, which was more enjoyable then this horse shit.

What a touching film made by Jesse Eisenberg. Eisenberg, in his second directorial film, was able to construct a movie that is able to showcase generational grief and how different of the culture deal with and process that grief.

As someone who is ashamed for being born Jewish and chooses to try to forget that I am, and that part of my family history is that of being exiled from Europe, this movie spoke to me, even though (as far as I know of my family made it out of Europe before Hitler's regime over Europe). There is a line in the movie where characters talk about what if what happened in Europe never happened, they would be living in Poland now. I, too, think about the "what if" in regard to my family history. What if my family down the line just assimilated and converted to Christianity at some point? Would a version of me be better off? Would I be living in , Poland? Would I still have this anxiety and deep guilt built into me? Personally, I have never connected to the religion (or any religion) and always felt shame for being Jewish when it comes to it as a religion and culture in the modern American world. Unless you count being a fan of Seinfeld, Curb, and Mel Brooks, which stems from my parent's generation and how they deal with Jewish Pain.

I felt connected in many ways to Culkin's Benji character internally, while I was able to connect with Eisenberg's David externally. I found it interesting that Eisenberg told the story from Benji's point-of-view. Benji; an extrovert, who uses his persona as a way to mask his pain. While Eisenberg himself (from what we, the public, know of him) is more like his character David: very cautious, timid, and filled with anxiety.

Throughout watching the film, I thought how well Eisenberg was at crafting Benji's character on the page. A lot of that is also given to Culkin's performance and how he executed it.

Also, what could have, and in other productions of a similar genre, could have been cardboard cutouts; the ing characters have depth to them as well.

I found the music score to be very strong in the film, reflecting on what the charterers felt at different times during the story. It's not too over the top or too subtle. The same goes for the cinematography, and I am glad Eisenberg hired a Polish cinematographer for the job.

In many ways, the film reminded me of Emilio Estevez's spiritual tourism movie The Way. The movie also raised the question: is it okay to visit these places with horrific histories from a place of luxury, or tour a place without interacting with one local or native person from that area? These are questions that I think about when I travel.

There is talk on the interwebs that this to be an Oscar contender for both Eisenberg script and Culkin's acting. It is hard to disagree.

The film About a Boy is about a boy, but the boy isn't a pre-pubescent Nicholas Hoult, but the middle-age Hugh Grant who is a man-child living off his music royalties. Yet, in Hugh Grant's manner, he is quite charming and likable, in this "rainy-day watch a rom-com".

Grant and Hoult rocking out to Fugees' Killing Me Softly at the end, made want to buy the film on DVD alone.

A dark, twisted children's movie loosely based on the dark, twisted children's book "Charlie" And The Chocolate Factory. Only when you get older, as an adult, do you TRULY see how dark and twisted this movie is. The same goes with Gene Wilder's dark, dry humor that he brings to his Willy. Vastly better than the Depp version, though Depp's Willy may be more accurate to that of Dahl's Willy.

Wilder also brings sadness to the character. His sadness is something I noticed as a child, but it was only as an adult that I realized his sadness comes from living in what he considers to be "a cynical world".

The filming in Munich as a generic village in which the movie is set also serves as a character in its own right, like the settings in the Brother Grimm's and other traditional fairy tales (The originals being quite dark compared to their American adaptations), which originated in Deutschland. Dito to "Slugworth" Deutsch actor Günter Meisner, with his thick Deutsch accent and thick rim glasses, adding to the creepiness, especially in the tunnel that Charlie runs down.

I never found the boat tunnel scene creepy though, only fucking awesome. It is a tone down version of the opening sequence of Berman's Persona.

An overall modern day / 20th century fairy tale.

This review may contain spoilers.

While a known Louis Malle film and one among cinaphiles I feel Au Revoir Les Enfants is not popular when it comes to Holocaust education and anti-semitic films regrading children. Growing up as a reform Jew in the 90s besides Schindler's List, I watching the films Life is Beautiful, The Diary of Ann Frank, and School Ties that covered these issues, (I imagine films such as JoJo Rabbit and The Boy In The Striped Pajamas, are being watched now. Though the later is falsely inaccurate regarding children in the camps).

And other reviewer, who I follow here on Letterbox, noted how Malle always hit that fine edge of sensitive topics without pushing it. For the film here I agree. The drama is not over sensationalize, but hound down, making it realistic to the point were the final act is all the more terrifying. Much props to this is also the performances of the two actors, and how Malle is able to capture their facial expressions when they're not speaking. Even if one is not a native French speaker nor have the subtitles one would be able to follow along observing the performances alone.

There is also the underlying story of Au Revoir Les Enfants, and that is one of a love story. After the point in the film during the capture the flag game, where Quentin and Bonnet find them selves alone in the woods one senses that they fall in love with each other. I love that is stronger, in my opinion, is that a brothers. It is I love that it's more of a sensual one over a sexual one. From the boys snuggling in the back of the car, once found, to lending each other books, and Quentin inviting Bonnet to him for lunch with his mother. There is a great love between the boys that goes beyond friendship. This is seen up until the last moments of the film when Bonnet is captured by the Nazis.

I feel as if Malle could have dug a bit deeper at this love story between the two boys, but I got a sense that he held back a bit. I believe this was dude to the backlash he received when he was in America and made Pretty Baby, that showing any film that hints at youth sexuality would harm him in his career, and with a film like Au Revoir Les Enfants, though it was made in with a French production company, it's one that the Americans eat up at the Oscars, unlike a film like Murmur Of The Heart (witch you can probably tell by my avatar is one of my favorite films, though as of this writing I have yet to write about it here) that is usually tied in with Au Revoir Les Enfants when it comes to the Criterion releases, were did Malle was able to push that edge.

I am forever thankful to the person who gifted me Le Skylab for my Reddit Secret Santa seven or eight years ago now.

After seeing Richard Linklater's Boyhood in the cinema, I fell into a Linklater rabbit hole, which later led me down an Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy rabbit hole. I've seen Delpy's Two Days In.. movies and wanted to see Skylab, the semi-autobiographical film about her childhood. She made it between the two 2 Days films, but unfortunately, it was never released in the US market. According to Delpy, US distributors thought the movie was "to Fench," whatever the fuck that means. The only way (at the time) to watch this piece of cinema in the US market was by buying a UK import from Amazon, but at the time, I could not afford it, so it sat on my Amazon wish list for a while, until my "Santa" gifted to me, so if you happen (by chance) to be reading this, thank you.

Now, as for the film itself, first, let me say I have no clue what those distributors are referring to when they say that the movie is "too French." I found the themes of summer and family dynamics through a nostalgic childhood lens relatable and universal. The social-political discussions held by the adults about their country land are uniquely "French," but that would be true about any movie. Beyond that, the only other aspect of the film I can see as being "too French" is when young Albertine (Lou Alvarez), Delpy's childhood counterpart, and her father wonders onto the nude section of a French beach and spots in all his glory, an older boy, about 14, whom she has a crush on. The boy is with his mother, and the two families converse. While the actor playing the mother is clearly seen nude, the young actor playing her son is only shot in wide-shoots and from above the waist. This is more tame than other French and Europen movies I have seen in regards to child nudity. Too French...my ass.

As for the plot, there isn't much of one besides an older Albertine (Karin Viard) ing this particular summer in 1979, the summer that the Skylab satellite was going to be crashing back down to earth (hence the name of the movie). But in this regard, the movie is no different than something her Before Trilogy director/collaborator would make. No one would say Daze and Confused is too Texas and, therefore, would not play well in front of a wider audience. Le Skylab is no different.

Like Dazed, the movie follows many different characters of Albertine extended family of cousins, aunts uncles, and grand parents over the course of a few days of a family holiday. There is nothing spectacular about the cinematography or look of the film. The emotional pull from the audience is merely express through the feelings these characters bring out, unlocking the audience own personal memories. Like in Linklater films the exact situations (like hanging out on a nude beach) may not be familiar, but family and how we viewed them as a child will be.

On the Before Trilogy, Delpy mentions how she is often, mistakenly, accused of only writing her (Celine's) dialogue. Le Skylab proves that she can fashion both women and a man's dialogue. I feel more credit needs to be given to Delpy for those films compared to her male counterparts. Le Skylab proves that she just as good as a writer as Linklater and Hawke. Being able to capture a feeling, a memory, and being able to turn it into a movie. This is Ms. Delpy's Dazed.

I don't know how I feel about this one. I don't say that because of subject matter, because I enjoy dark comedies and found myself laughing at parts where others may squirm or stop watching.

My biggest problems with Happiness is that I found the narrative clunky and uneven. When it came to weaving the three sisters stories together, not to mention their elder parents. The stories that are the star of the show is is that of Philip Seymour Hoffman's depressed Allen and that of Allen's psychologist, Dylan Baker's pedophilia Dr. Bill Mapplewood, who is married to Cynthia Stevenson's Trish, the eldest of the the sisters.

While I found Jane Adams' Joy, the free-spirit SCAB teacher, and the youngest of the three sisters story interesting, I felt it was not flesh out enough and just dragged the rest of the movies narrative. While Lara Flynn Boyle's Helen, the middle sister, was merely used as a plot device to link everything else together.

Solondz's direction of the Hoffman and Baker's stories, including the music choices was on point to push the dark humor right to the point of uncomfortably, but giving permission to laugh.

"A movie that could have only been made in the '70s", is a phrase, or something similar, you see a lot when regarding this piece of cinema. And it's true. Because of the fall of the studio system and censorship in Hollywood a decade and a half before, the 1970s brought with us a Hollywood that was a mix between European avant-garde films and what would later became the 90s American Indi Renaissance.

The Possession Of Joel Delaney, a film about Joel Delaney a socialite, but bohemian, who just return to America after living in the Middle East for some time to help care for uppity sister and her children, his niece and nephew, in NYC. And during the film Joel gets possessed by a Puerto Rican cereal murderer.

The movie, the though lately racist, deals with themes of racism and poverty in New York City during the time. For movie with the word "possession" in title there is much special effects,like the The Exorcist, which would follow a year later. The terror here is the real terror of what human beings would do to each other for power or revenge, especially to those from among those from the poor the the elite class. A theme that has been done before and since but has not left the audience with the chilling feeling as Joel Delaney leave them with.

This is because of how real the film is in its production. Being the 70s, and at the time, Hollywood no longer being under the studio system, there are very little rules and regulations when it came to film production in America. Safety was not a concern.

In the later years actors on the film have given interviews how real switchblades were used throughout the production, with only scotch tape over the blade for "safety". Actor David Elliott, who was 11 at the time of filming, and whose character Peter, was ordered by Joel Delaney to strip naked and dance on a table during the climax of the movie revealed how this change was not in the original script, and was decided during the last second of filming. That filmmakers asked his mother if it was okay, and she said, "sure", without consulting the young actor, and the director ordering him to strip. Hence, it is real fear coming from his face during that controversial scene.

Now, personally as a Naturist, I have no problem with nudity in films, even youth nudity as seen in many European and South American productions. However, as a Naturist I also agree with body freedom, and that those decisions should be made by the actor themselves no matter their age. Here Elliott, like his character, did not have a choice, and I doubt Lisa Kohane who played his sister, Carrie, had a choice to have her hair pulled in her face smash into dog food too. Some consider this film a child exploitation, and that is something I can't disagree with. Perhaps the movie, produced my studio Paramount, is saying something about the 1970s, new wave of Hollywood, and how this movement will eventually be exploited by the system. And despite having the perception of artistic freedom and control, they have very little.

Good documentary that explorers what it is like being a middle age trans woman in different spots of America; from the urban to the rural. I only wish we got more of the roadside rest stops and restaurants interactions as shown in the documentary. That is where I thought the magic and message of this doc laid.

A movie version of Rent could have been edgy and gone on to become a midnight cult classic.

As a fan of the original Broadway production. I was excited when the film was announced, more so when I saw maturity of the OBC with returning. However, once I saw the movie in theaters I feeling empty. Not too different than this hollow out version of the musical. I quote Stephen King, while talking about the Kubrick version of The Shining, "[it is like]a big, beautiful Cadillac with no engine inside it" .

What fuck were the producers thinking, hiring the director from Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and the first two Harry Potter films to direct a movie version of Rent?

This brief review is after my second viewing of Liquorice Pizza on an airplane, after originally seeing it in a theater when it originally came out.

An okay movie, not a great movie how many people were praising during its initial release, but not a bad movie either. There's already been much written about the film's style that there's no need for me to dive into it. Though I will praise all the young actors phenomenal performances. Plus, Bradley Cooper's cameo is hysterical.

I also don't understand the criticism that is pointed towards the age differences in film's characters. I do not see the controversy, especially given the time that the film takes place. A period in America when such age differences in dating while not totally accepted, where more common place. Even as late into the early 2000s. Just look at any WB or CW show. Calling out the ages of the characters dating in Liquorice Pizza, would be like calling out the use of the N-word and Tarantino's Django Unchained. Oh, wait....

This review may contain spoilers.

A great movie in of visuals, script, acting, and one of the most important aspects of the horror genre: sound mixing. However, a grounded horror like Goodnight Mommy is only terrifying on its first viewing, when the audience believes it to be a movie about child abuse. Once the twist is revealed at the end, and the audience finds that one twin has been dead the entire move, the last few minutes are chilling, but for a whole other reason, one where you petty the living brother and his abusive behavior to a grieving mother.

On a second viewing, not only did I find myself looking for the missing clues, like in all films that have a twist ending, but I also found myself feeling more terrified for the mother and how she is now parenting a grieving child, who she, herself, is also experiencing grief, but in away which is more self serving through plastic surgery.

McKay tried too hard with this one. Besides being laid out in how this film was promoted (Every interview: "It's a film about global warming"), the message of Don't Look Up is obvious to the point where it makes film analysis (Film Criticism's pretentious older brother) pointless. The movie is nothing but an over-drawn-out, non-funny SNL skit. It is the type of movie that streaming is meant for.

This adaptation of the H.G Wells classic novel, is in my eyes more of an epic adventure than then it's source material. Though the future presented is a bit dated in its scenario of the future of humanity through the lens of 2024, the movie does present the themes of warfare coming off of two world wars and (at the time) the fear of a near nuclear disaster.
It's the 1960s special effects that allow this storytelling of this version of The Time Machine to be an epic classic.

The ever changing mannequin is a nice touch too.

I watching this on Netflix years ago (I think before they even had original programing) and enjoying it. Nothing special. A low budget mela drama. But as an American viewer it works as a nice Canadian roadtrip movie, that makes me want to visit our friends to the north.

My first entryway into French Cinema. I first saw The Red Balloon when I was about five (I also having the picture book). The story is a poetic one about childhood. Watching it as an adult, I am reminded of how, as children, we are drawn to and have these sentimental relationships with these ordinary objects by our imaginations giving them life.

There is little dialogue in The Red Balloon, but the characters, even that of the balloon, speak to the audience through the film's music score. Young kids (and adults) of any culture could enjoy this movie and follow its plot, as the music and the visuals make for a universal language. One that crosses borders and oceans.

This Red Balloon should be the first film experience for any child.

Watched on Sunday October 13, 2024.

I was lucky to catch a preview of this and attended a director Q&A afterward in my home city.

Funny, heartwarming, not your typical queer youth film. No real tragedy, mostly a story concentrated on the "weird" kids of a 1990s suburban high school instead of the jocks. The movie gave me real "Freaks and Geeks" vibes scriptwise, but visually it was closer to an indie teen comedy of the mid-00s.

The humor is not for the overly sensitive. A group of teens attended this screening, and they laughed throughout and enjoyed it. I see this as a positive sign that maybe the raunchy, non-PC humor is on the rebound.

After this movie being long delayed it wasn't worth the wait. Besides Michael Keaton's Batman, the film has nothing to offer.

Watched on Monday July 1, 2024.

The worst Linklater movie, if you could call it that. Honestly, it doesn't feel like a Linklater movie.

A great adaptation of a classic children's book. All the actors (the children and adults) fit their narrative characters well. Columbus was the right choice to launch this franchise. And kudos for having a British cast and filming the series in the UK instead of America with kids in Hollyweird.

Not the funniest Jim Carrey movie. A genric story of "down on his luck man" turns superhero, by magical mask. But the special effects are better then a lot of stuff we have today. That alone it sures anything that Marvel is currently putting out.

Disclaimer: I was an uber big fan of The Mask as a kid and even had (and still do) the action figures from KB Toys. Along with the Halloween yellow jumpsuit.

Sean Penn may be a nut, but this film shows he is an amazing director.

Props to Eddie Vedder for delivering one killer of a soundtrack. The music as a back drop to Éric Gautier cinematography you have succes to what could have been a Lifetime Original of a "base on a true story" movie.

Good job Sean Penn. Now go back to thinking you alone could solve world peace.

Will you lauph? Maybe. Maybe not. 90s nine year olds will find it funny. They may even grow up to become transphobes. Maybe not.
But there is a good chance they'll grow bend over and talk to a parent or teacher out of their ass. 🍑

I read years later that this film was supposed to be a satire on crime films of the time like Silence Of The Lambs, and that Spike Jonze was going to direct. If he did direct then laces would have been out and the movie would have been a field goal.

Slightly better than the first, but more racist and less transphobic.

I was lucky enough to catch a preview screening of Young Hearts as the closing film at a queer film festival, and was amazed! A year prior, I saw Lukas Dhont's Close. I am sure, like many who have seen that film, you might have been caught off guard by that "twist" halfway through, where the film changes directions. I am happy to say Young Hearts, directed by the Close director's friend, Anthony Schatteman, doesn't have that. Infant, I'll say Young Hearts is the film I wanted Close to be. It is a movie about first love and discovering one's sexuality right at the start of those teenage years.

The whole time, I found myself sitting on the edge of my seat, smiling at this beautiful story. The innocence of a boy discovering who he is by the guidance of a slightly more experienced boy. In fact, besides one crucial part of the story (which I won't go into because of spoilers), there is almost no bullying in the movie. I had a wonderful experience watching this magical film.

The movie reminded me a lot of the 1978 movie You Are Not Alone.

The acting between the two leads is raw and convincing, with the emotions they are able to emote. Something I think comes from actually being that tender age. The fact the actors are able to make themselves vulnerable to an audience is a testament to the script and Schatteman's directing.

The little moments with no dialogue make this a special movie, too: when one of the boys strips off his underwear and skinny dips in the pond without judgment from the other boy, it shows his liberation and how he is comfortable with himself. The first time one of the boys takes a visit to Brussels, his new boyfriend takes him to see the Peeing Boy statue, the look of "awe" in his eyes of wonder seeing this historic moment symbolizes the progression of where his future lies. Coming out of his small village into Europe's capital city spells optimism.

A true gem and a special film. I can't wait for its wide release so that more people can see it.

The third film, and final act in the trilogy is like fine wine. It gets better with age.

Very well made documentary giving a positive look to family family naturism (FKK) in Europe, at the end of the 20th century. Made right before the Internet age, which would lead to a significant shift in naturism culture in the region, slowly moving it from public spaces, like beaches and parks, to privately own campgrounds and resorts. This documentary is a true time capsule of the golden of European Naturism made, unbeknotes at the time, to the filmmakers and participants.

The documentary contains very good interviews from people of all walks of life, and demographics, including children, who are part of the naturism culture. Beautiful imagery too, and because it's a French produce film, they don't try to hide anything, and yet, like in a true naturist environment it's not exploitive.

Besides the interview of one couple tough from the UK, the who movie is in French, and my copy of the DVD did not have subtitles. So, if one is able happen upon a copy (I bought my off Amazon) they'll need to know French to gain any context out of it. Though one could still find the doc entertaining and educational as non French speaker, as I did.

One of the most original films in a trilogy ever made. I mean how many sequels go into the original film.

More sci-fiy and less heart than the first, and it lacks the visual quality of its predecessor. But this is mostly due to it being made five years later - technology, film grade has, and after that long break with artist working on other projects it's hard to keep consistency. Despite it's short comings, still a great second act in an epic story.

About 20 years after it's release, a film that jump started Seth Rogan's career and help change the landscape the American comedy movie (along with with Apatow's 40 Year Old Virgin) from the broad humor of the 90s to the raunchy but sentimental films of the 00s, Knock Up still has its laughs and heart. Though not all the jokes have age well compared to the first Golden Age of the American Comedy Films of the 70s and early 80s, with films like Blazing Saddles and Airplane.

Not a particular great movie, like Silence of The Lambs. Very colour by number. Dull in comparison to Manhunter but still better than most sequels and prequels that didn't need to be made.

Nothing great. Nothing bad. Just your broad family 90s comedy. I enjoy it more for nostalgic reasons.