Many spoilers here. I enjoyed this. I recommend it to anyone, who like me, has taught themselves how to watch documentaries and docseries and have the ability to identify which parts are the filmmakers agenda, for lack of a better word. You have to look past some of the nonsense in here and you will find a very interesting and unique story. The bottom line here is this woman is a serial criminal. She is a charlatn, a huckster, a serial liar and deserved far more than 18 months in prison. Yet this documentary tries to make her in to some hero. She has a life full of scams, duping people all over the country. She was a counterfeiter, literally printed money. She had to take her 5 kids and wife all over the U. S. running from the law. The doc says she taught them how to read, but she did not home school them. The documentary gets 2 of her 5 kids and one of her grandchildren to speak on camera glowingly about her. It gets 3 ex employees to mostly speak glowingly of her. The doc conveniently avoids critical people, except for one reporter. It is quite one-sided. The really strange thing is how, when she is outed as a fugitive from The Dale fiasco, there is zero mention of the counterfeiting, zero. So she got away with federal crimes? How can this not even be mentioned? As for The Dale, this was a ponzy scheme plain and simple. She routinely lied to investors, buyers, employees,. She stole millions of dollars and then she runs from the law yet again. Oh and she bribes a juror too! But she gets 18 months? Thats it!! The doc had two people trying to make her the victim by saying she didnt do any violent crimes. It is really irresponsible. Then she circumvents more laws to set up a flower selling business by her sitting back in her office taking a cut of money from homeless people she recruits to sell flowers for her business. But yeah she is a good person, give me a break. As for the incessant comments about her loving her family, she made her kids drop their belongings and run from the law in the middle of the night numerous times, live in dozens of cities, not get an education, etc The ones in the interview have clear dental issues and the son said he cannot even apply for jobs because they were born without a legal identity. Her views were so radical that she thought Alex Jones was too mainstream for her. She is a raving crazy women who ruins lives, but you have to weed through the bull in this doc and you will find a rather interesting story.
Reviews
17 Reviews
The Lady and the Dale
(2021)
Very poorly done yet I recommend it for the good parts
13 May 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Our Flag Means Death
(2022–2023)
This looks awful
11 April 2022
All these reviews and no one is going to discuss the elephant in the room? It doesnt matter if the writing is good or if its funny, because its an assault on my eyes. I dont know if it the camera, the lens or something they do in post. The darn show is blurry, literally huge parts of the screen are very out of focus, very often. Some other scenes are washed out, the extreme lighting is overbearing. And the color scheme is quite odd, it is a very washed out look.
These are very odd cinematography choices and it was all I could think of when watching this. I guess it was sort of kind of funny at spots, but it would matter if they were.
These are very odd cinematography choices and it was all I could think of when watching this. I guess it was sort of kind of funny at spots, but it would matter if they were.
Stowaway
(I) (2021)
Very bad
4 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
So not only is there a stowaway, but it is a large man who gets shoved into a ceiling vent somehow? How did he fit in there? Why was he unconscious the whole time until they take him out?
And worst of all, why is that not the central theme of the film? How did he get there? They had two toss away lines to address that and that's it. Weird.
Then he can't stay or they will all die. So thousands of people have worked for years to get this mission off the ground, spent billions of dollars, the mission is for the good of mankind, but the girl has to commit suicide because she feels bad for the stowaway? All the stowaway or her has to do is take a shot which will put one to sleep peacefully, but she does a space walk to die from instant cancer in a solar wind storm?
The stupidity of screenwriters these days is staggering.
And worst of all, why is that not the central theme of the film? How did he get there? They had two toss away lines to address that and that's it. Weird.
Then he can't stay or they will all die. So thousands of people have worked for years to get this mission off the ground, spent billions of dollars, the mission is for the good of mankind, but the girl has to commit suicide because she feels bad for the stowaway? All the stowaway or her has to do is take a shot which will put one to sleep peacefully, but she does a space walk to die from instant cancer in a solar wind storm?
The stupidity of screenwriters these days is staggering.
Old
(2021)
good idea, awful director
23 November 2021
M Night is just a bad writer and a bad director. At least among well known ones. I only watch about 2/3 of his films because I love what I call "soft science fiction" and not many people do it. Same reason I watch Stephen King mini series. M Night would be well served to do his own type of half hour (or even hour) Twilight Zone anthology type television series. A shortened version of this would have been great for such a platform. I enjoyed it enough. But in the hands of a better writer and better director this would have been much better. There are more plot holes than grains of sand on that beach. The acting is atrocious. The editing was amateurish, who did he hire to edit, his brother in law? This film had some of the worst camera work I have ever seen. It was like a camera on a yo yo string. Swinging left and right, going in circles, framing off center, panning to a wall, the sky, the water for no reason. It was just bad and amateurish.
lowest rating ever
21 November 2021
Fahrenheit 11/9
(2018)
Two hours towards a cliche
23 May 2021
I'm a liberal. Some of Moore's films are my all time favorites. This film is a mess though. It is very unfocused. 1/3 of it is Trump bashing, one-third of it is moderate democrat bashing and one-third is about Flint water. He just does not bring them together. He contradicts himself often, for example bashing scare tactics of Hitler and Trump and then flowing seemlessly into his own scare tactics. He basically says our situation is hopeless and America has never been a good democracy ever. Then for some reason shows the fake bomb alerts in Hawaii and says this is out future? What? Is the enemy within or is the enemy from outside? It is a fitting way to end because it shows the lack of focus the entire film has. And then for good measure he shows the student against gun violence giving a speech and slowly moves in on her and fades to black. Ah, kids are our future, got it Michael. How original, kids are our future. Ive never heard that before. Be afraid, be very afraid.
The Great
(2020–2023)
Could have been Great but the creators ruin it
12 May 2021
The Great is high quality television. The first few episodes are gold and then it descends into monotony and transparent attempts at cleverness. You stop watching the characters and you are instead watching projections of 21st Century writers. Plus, after the first few episodes it seems to be nothing but a tease and denial, tease and denial, on one main expectation. The acting is quite good because you cannot blame the actors for some of the putrid dialogue. The sets, costumes and cinematography is Emmy worthy, even Oscar worthy. The story seems like it could be fascinating. But here are the problems, the vulgarity and the wokeness. I wish I could curse here but I cannot. Now keep in mind I love cursing and I love vulgarity, I curse a lot myself. But here they use the F word so frequently that is is bizarre. You could lock Joe Pesce in a closet and set it on fire and you would not hear the F word as much as you do in this show,. You hear it literally every 30 seconds in every episode. It is beyond forced. Then there are the unceasing references to copulation, oral sex, body fluids and all that juvenile stuff, in the most extreme and graphic ways and endlessly. It is not edgy nor funny, it's strange. Nothing can have it's intended intent when done so repeatedly. Then we get to the characters of color. I am not anti-woke. In fact this whole show is based on the power of women, and it is, or should be, a fascinating story in that regard. But this is 18th century Russia and, no exaggeration, 40% of the characters/actors, both in speaking roles and background, are people of color. Yeah, sure, you could say to me oh they could be from this region or that, but 40%!!. It is beyond distracting. Why abandon accuracy to make the show look like every tv commercial we see nowadays, they even have bi-racial children running around, you have to get those in there. It is just bizarre and completely takes you out of the story. When almost every week we see a new story of a white male actor apologizing for playing or voicing a character of color 20 years ago, we have scores of roles here which should be white people, but no, its 2021 and everything is woke. It is beyond absurd. Big missed opportunity here, this could have been as good as Queens Gambit but instead you get an amateurish mess.
The Crew
(II) (2021)
on the fence
24 April 2021
Watched 2, its not bad but the female lead is majorly annoying. Its a very awkward setting with the brash young new boss coming in and threatening to fire everyone though she has zero experience. That's just not a pleasant scenario and it is all ep 1 and 2 are about. I am tempting to see if this keeps up, but there are so many other choices for my tv time. I read many of the other reviews here and some suggest it will get better. Oh and 9 out of 10 of the reviews have to whine about the laugh track. Just get over it people, it is one style of show. There was a time not long ago 90% of tv sitcoms had laugh tracks, they have fallen out of favor and down to maybe 15% but they have not gone away. If you don't like them don't watch but stop flooding the review areas going on about how you don't like soundtracks. It's like complaining about a movie being black and white or having subtitles. It is what it is.
Bye Bye Monkey
(1978)
Cool atmosphere
18 April 2021
What film involves a beach in New York City, apes and a very famous New York landmark? Yeah, well Planet of the Apes does, but I mean Ciao Maschio.
This is a pretty bad film, there is no story to explain, the relationships between the characters are sometimes puzzling, the occurrences are sometimes impossible and the people's reactions unreal. Then comes the acting, the very, very bad acting.
But if you love films set in New York City and just like a calm atmospheric and weird film set in parts of New York you don't often see then you can't miss this.
The entire film takes place among a few block radius in a residential neighborhood just a few blocks north of the World Trade Center. It seems to be shot in a hurry as many scenes could have used another take or two. I wonder if they had all the necessary permits of if it was, umm "guerilla" filmmaking. It seems like they may have shot it all on a few Sunday or Holiday mornings as you never see another soul walking the streets during any scenes.
But here is the most fascinating part. This was shot, I assume in 1977, and at the time they were building landfill or extending that part of Manhattan out into the East River to create a man-made neighborhood on which they would build expensive condos. But at this brief point in history it was a vast beach, it was all sand. It was blocked by a weak fence with a warning sign but they ignored it and several scenes, long scenes, take place on this yet -to-be-finished landfill area just under the Twin Towers. It is actually quite beautiful and I doubt another film exists that would show this. In fact I doubt you could even find an old newsreel type video on youtube that might show this.
For that reason alone i would recommend this.
This is a pretty bad film, there is no story to explain, the relationships between the characters are sometimes puzzling, the occurrences are sometimes impossible and the people's reactions unreal. Then comes the acting, the very, very bad acting.
But if you love films set in New York City and just like a calm atmospheric and weird film set in parts of New York you don't often see then you can't miss this.
The entire film takes place among a few block radius in a residential neighborhood just a few blocks north of the World Trade Center. It seems to be shot in a hurry as many scenes could have used another take or two. I wonder if they had all the necessary permits of if it was, umm "guerilla" filmmaking. It seems like they may have shot it all on a few Sunday or Holiday mornings as you never see another soul walking the streets during any scenes.
But here is the most fascinating part. This was shot, I assume in 1977, and at the time they were building landfill or extending that part of Manhattan out into the East River to create a man-made neighborhood on which they would build expensive condos. But at this brief point in history it was a vast beach, it was all sand. It was blocked by a weak fence with a warning sign but they ignored it and several scenes, long scenes, take place on this yet -to-be-finished landfill area just under the Twin Towers. It is actually quite beautiful and I doubt another film exists that would show this. In fact I doubt you could even find an old newsreel type video on youtube that might show this.
For that reason alone i would recommend this.
Good but not harsh enough
3 January 2021
Ok so I see some people trashing the doc for trashing Trump. Ignore them.
Those people have issues with reality. I feel everything in this doc is accurate. It is very well made, informative and entertaining. I learned many things from it. My issue with this documentary is that it softened the history of the rag known as the National Enquirer before Davis Pecker in order to make the post-Pecker changes more dramatic. Now it is true that the paper got extremely partisan. It is true it created the so-called catch and release tactic. It sold its soul to the devil with the comb over, so to speak. But it really downplays what an awful, lying, irresponsible piece of junk it had been in the 70's and 80's and even the 90's during it supposed "good period." No discussion here of all the crazy UFO stuff and made up nonsense and the lies and distortions. Anyone with a mediocre, or higher, I.Q. routinely laughed at the clearly false headlines you saw while checking out at the supermarket. You grew up knowing that and everyone talked about it for decades, scoffing at and laughing at the pathetic newspaper. I wish this documentary was harsher on the paper but instead had interview after interview of people justifying or glossing over the irresponsible things they were doing. I still recommend it.
Bigger Stronger Faster*
(2008)
Not an honest documentary
11 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOLIERS *** I have serious problems with this documentary. I feel strongly that the set up, namely that the narrator/protagonist sort of was against steroids when he began his "research" and then was giving it the big thumbs up by film's end, is not especially true. This film has the distinct feel of a pre-conceived opinion and then fitting the so called facts to support that. Hey I am guilty of sometimes liking films that may have done the same if it's an argument I agree with. I am not taking some high moral ground. I am just questioning the objectivity here.
The film is pretty well made. There are some facts and a few "things that made me go hmmm," if you will. It was produced and edited well. But this film is clearly pro-steroids. The only anti-steroids point that was clearly stated, oddly, was that on average people who take steroids are losers. Not because they are hurting themselves or cheating but because the mentality of steroid takers tends to be of underachieving dreamers. OK interesting point, even at the expense of the two brothers of the narrator. I suppose the narrator thinks he is better than his brothers because he is a film maker. Well, actually maybe he has a point.
The film tends to not say anything positive about steroids. It is just a litany of arguments against the arguments against steroids (intentional double negative there). Are they bad for you it asks? Not as bad as people claim. But really, are they bad for you? Well so are lots of other things. Is it cheating to use them? Well people cheat lots of ways Do the people who go on against steroids have a case? No they have an agenda. Etc, etc, etc.
I mean this film seriously makes some arguments that are so shallow and off the point it is a bit pathetic. And in the failing attempt to be "fair and balanced" they do have some anti-steroid people show up and give an opinion but the ratio of screen time is not even close to 50/50. Plus they make dismissive comments about these people. When introducing the anti-steroid expert they quickly point out he is probably just a guy who wants to make a buck because he is the TV industries "go to guy."
In the end of the movie a speech is given and it honestly makes the point that steroids are American. Americans are winners, so winners take steroids. I kid you not, they even flash a picture of Al Gore when they mention losers.
The film is pretty well made. There are some facts and a few "things that made me go hmmm," if you will. It was produced and edited well. But this film is clearly pro-steroids. The only anti-steroids point that was clearly stated, oddly, was that on average people who take steroids are losers. Not because they are hurting themselves or cheating but because the mentality of steroid takers tends to be of underachieving dreamers. OK interesting point, even at the expense of the two brothers of the narrator. I suppose the narrator thinks he is better than his brothers because he is a film maker. Well, actually maybe he has a point.
The film tends to not say anything positive about steroids. It is just a litany of arguments against the arguments against steroids (intentional double negative there). Are they bad for you it asks? Not as bad as people claim. But really, are they bad for you? Well so are lots of other things. Is it cheating to use them? Well people cheat lots of ways Do the people who go on against steroids have a case? No they have an agenda. Etc, etc, etc.
I mean this film seriously makes some arguments that are so shallow and off the point it is a bit pathetic. And in the failing attempt to be "fair and balanced" they do have some anti-steroid people show up and give an opinion but the ratio of screen time is not even close to 50/50. Plus they make dismissive comments about these people. When introducing the anti-steroid expert they quickly point out he is probably just a guy who wants to make a buck because he is the TV industries "go to guy."
In the end of the movie a speech is given and it honestly makes the point that steroids are American. Americans are winners, so winners take steroids. I kid you not, they even flash a picture of Al Gore when they mention losers.
Suddenly
(1954)
Handgun Madness
21 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This film is just one tick above being a laughable propaganda film like Reefer Madness or Cocaine Fiends, only the agenda is the almighty handgun. The screenwriter tossed in one speech by the assassin about how a gun makes him feel like god so he can feel balanced I assume. But the film is basically a 75 minute speech about how we need guns. It begins with a poor little boy who cant have a toy gun because his mother wont let him and the sheriff who's dying to do the single mom buys it for him anyway; way to go sheriff, that'll get you some! The boy tells mom his classmates call him sissy for not having one. The ex-secret service father in law to the mom (dad of her war-slain hubby) gives an over the top speech about how great guns are and how she shouldn't cry for her dead hero husband. Minutes later he chastises her for just "being a woman" when she is concerned about him electrocuting himself when fixing a TV. It's really shameless. The ending is telegraphed far in advance when the little boy shoots the assassin but just barely misses, the gun-hating mom picks up the gun and shoots him but just wounds him and then the macho sheriff takes it and does what only a man can do - justifiably kill a bad man with one shot. Well the boy and mom didn't get the kill, but at least now they are men, well sort of, in a way. Oh brother.
The Chocolate War
(1988)
Awful movie!
11 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a fan of Keith Gordon. I've liked all his films which I've seen, which was all but 2, before this. I will say his direction wasn't bad at all on this film. Even the dialouge in his script isn't laughably bad. But this premise! Possibly the stupidest premise I have ever seen. I had no idea what the film was about but I didn't think "chocolate war" was literal. A bunch of high school boys selling chocolate? What would possess anyone to give him funding for such an atrocious idea? I had to laugh at some scenes. KG does a good job to set up drama with pacing, editing, cinematography and acting but then you realize what the drama is - some boxes of chocolates are missing. Oh my god!!!!! I peeked in on the commentary at a few spots and its funny I heard KG putting himself down. It was a first film and was pretentious as he admits. I think he is one of America's most underrated directors but I am glad he saw the light and began doing adaptations. I can't believe IMDb gives this a 6.7, should be a 1.5.
p.s. yes, yes I "get" that the chocolate storyline is a vehicle for the deeper things the film is trying to say about class distinction, standing up to bullies, male comradary, blah, blah. The story sucks!
edit: p.s. after posting I realized it IS an adaptation. The opening credits end with "written and directed by Keith Gordon" which is usually only done when it is an original screenplay (more young pretentiousness?). That may help explain the funding and gives KG a slight break but I still stand by what I say about the premise being ridiculous, no matter how the film compares to the book.
p.s. yes, yes I "get" that the chocolate storyline is a vehicle for the deeper things the film is trying to say about class distinction, standing up to bullies, male comradary, blah, blah. The story sucks!
edit: p.s. after posting I realized it IS an adaptation. The opening credits end with "written and directed by Keith Gordon" which is usually only done when it is an original screenplay (more young pretentiousness?). That may help explain the funding and gives KG a slight break but I still stand by what I say about the premise being ridiculous, no matter how the film compares to the book.
Death of a President
(2006)
engrossing
9 April 2007
Overall enjoyable to watch. I heard a lot about this being a liberal film and I don't see it. You can make a case for this being a conservative film. It portrays protesters as dangerous whackos, even shows them cheer when they hear Bush was shot. And the film does tout the advantages of the Patriot Act a few times. So it can easily go either way. Besides, why would liberals want Bush assassinated, it would just make him a martyr and help his legacy.
The film itself is fairly engrossing. I just saw a similar film about a week ago called Wild Blue Yonder, which also has more screen time taken up with stock footage than anything else, using it as a backdrop for a fictional story. But this film does it far, far better.
They augment it with seamless shot digital photography. They use some effects to occasionally combine the two. The shot of Bush grimacing and falling when shot is pretty amazing. I suppose it only takes a few frames of digital magic to give us that illusion.
I have had questions myself in the past when I have seen dead celebrities like Steve McQueen or Audrey Hepburn used in commercials. I guess that is nothing really because now we have here a case of using living people and real footage of them to portray something some filmmaker wants to do. They even go as far as putting different words in their mouths. I think there is a moral question here.
I write this before watching the interview on the DVD which I am eager to do.
The film itself is fairly engrossing. I just saw a similar film about a week ago called Wild Blue Yonder, which also has more screen time taken up with stock footage than anything else, using it as a backdrop for a fictional story. But this film does it far, far better.
They augment it with seamless shot digital photography. They use some effects to occasionally combine the two. The shot of Bush grimacing and falling when shot is pretty amazing. I suppose it only takes a few frames of digital magic to give us that illusion.
I have had questions myself in the past when I have seen dead celebrities like Steve McQueen or Audrey Hepburn used in commercials. I guess that is nothing really because now we have here a case of using living people and real footage of them to portray something some filmmaker wants to do. They even go as far as putting different words in their mouths. I think there is a moral question here.
I write this before watching the interview on the DVD which I am eager to do.
The Wild Blue Yonder
(2005)
barely even qualifies as a movie
4 April 2007
First, I love Werner Herzog. I am a very big fan of his and I also respect people taking chances and trying new ideas. But this smacks of someone barely even trying. It's just some ridiculous sci fi story thrown together and narrated while showing stock footage of deep sea diving and space station video. The story is so inconsistent to begin with and boring. "We came from Alpha Centauri and built a mall and no one shopped there." What the heck is that supposed to mean, and who cares? Half of the movie is stock footage of the space station and we are supposed to imagine these are astronauts traveling to a distant star that, as it was just explained to us, would take hundreds of generations to complete. I would say this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but even though I popped in a DVD and sat there for 90 minutes, I technically wouldn't even call it a movie. It also isn't a documentary. It is one of a kind, a very very bad kind.
Unknown
(I) (2006)
Overall very good
4 April 2007
I really enjoyed this movie. I loved the gimmick of these 5 men waking up in such a strange scenario having memory loss. We watch as they gradually have memories, some specific, some vague and some misleading, which give them clues as to who they may be and who the others are. They have them at different paces and it is interesting to watch unfold. There was action but not too much, which I don't care for. Some other reviewer called this movie slow, I don't know what he is smoking.
I do have a major beef with the film, but it is not one I would say should keep anyone from seeing it. The film is partially funded by IFC. But the final act of this film reeks of movie studio executive interference. The ending is not horrible, and I understand why 90% of the gratuitous violence is in the last 10 minutes, and I don't mind that. But we are subjected to a needless and fake fireball explosion and a twist on top of another twist.
You can just sense some executive saying, it needs an explosion, where's the explosion. So they film a scene where someone throws a lighter on gasoline and a fireball shoots up 40 feet in the air while the protagonist is in the foreground walking away from it. Oh my god, have we not seen that in half every studio picture for the last 15 years!? Then you could just see the doing a re-write. There is an interesting twist at the end, which is fine. Twists are not necessary in every film, but I liked it. But then just seconds before the film ends, they slap another twist on top of that twist. You can just sense the re-write, no no we need another twist, nowadays films need multiple twists that's what the kids expect, how else can we market it?.
That last twist was just gratuitous and a bit confusing leaving you to spend 20 seconds or so figuring it out while the closing credits and song roll. I thought IFC would not stoop to these tactics, but apparently I am wrong. But once again, I did really enjoy this. It is still better than most of the junk that comes out.
I do have a major beef with the film, but it is not one I would say should keep anyone from seeing it. The film is partially funded by IFC. But the final act of this film reeks of movie studio executive interference. The ending is not horrible, and I understand why 90% of the gratuitous violence is in the last 10 minutes, and I don't mind that. But we are subjected to a needless and fake fireball explosion and a twist on top of another twist.
You can just sense some executive saying, it needs an explosion, where's the explosion. So they film a scene where someone throws a lighter on gasoline and a fireball shoots up 40 feet in the air while the protagonist is in the foreground walking away from it. Oh my god, have we not seen that in half every studio picture for the last 15 years!? Then you could just see the doing a re-write. There is an interesting twist at the end, which is fine. Twists are not necessary in every film, but I liked it. But then just seconds before the film ends, they slap another twist on top of that twist. You can just sense the re-write, no no we need another twist, nowadays films need multiple twists that's what the kids expect, how else can we market it?.
That last twist was just gratuitous and a bit confusing leaving you to spend 20 seconds or so figuring it out while the closing credits and song roll. I thought IFC would not stoop to these tactics, but apparently I am wrong. But once again, I did really enjoy this. It is still better than most of the junk that comes out.
The Cat in the Hat
(2003)
Very enjoyable
5 October 2006
Wow I am shocked at these reviews. I have never checked on the reviews of any film on IMDb and seen such a thorough and absolute bashing as this. Oh well. First I have never read any Seuss and know hardly anything about his books. Second, I'm an adult who occasionally likes kids stuff because, well sometimes its just interesting. And I like the little bit of weirdness in it. This movie's visuals just sucked me in. I had no intention of watching it but the sets, the costumes, the effects, the use of color mesmerized me like, well a kid. I've rarely seen anything like that before. I thought Myers was hysterical. Dakota Fanning was adorable. Some of it fell flat. It was a flawed film. They never explained where he came from. But who cares. It was the kind of film that had to be short to be good and it was, just 1 hr 14 mts I think, and thats really short these days. True there were 5 or 6 jokes that were questionable for kids but there were 15 or 16 in the Shrek movies. It's a bad trend but I wouldn't single this film out for it.
Tell Your Friends