Change Your Image
weeples09
Reviews
Food, Inc. (2008)
one sided, flat argument.
I looked at the sponsored links on this page and guess what they were for???? Organic food products and whole foods market. I get the message of the movie...that the conditions in our food processing facilities aren't great, and I accept it. They are definitely better than 100 years ago.
the reason I disliked this movie is it's obvious political spin. It is extremely biased and rarely shows the other side. The only way to win a logical argument is looking at both sides, which hasn't been done. It is trying to force feed u crap (no pun intended). The facts are, that yes, these places do things that are somewhat ethically questionable but there is no proof at all that it does any harm at all to the foods. In fact, some studies have shown that organic foods might not be as safe as non-organic...I even saw a taste test outside of an organic market, and in this blind taste test, most people chose the non-organic foods. The quality of life doesn't affect how something tastes or the quality. If u treated a cow like a king and had one that was processed like these big companies do, the meat would taste similar and healthwise they would be the same.
Organic foods are a trend and all this is trying to do is get you to buy organic foods and scare you into doing it. People should know the facts and not be scared into eating a certain thing. People want us to have organic foods only in the world someday...With the way organic farms have to be set up, spacewise, there is only enough farmland and land that could b used as farmland in the world to feed 2/3 of the ppl. That would mean the bottom 1/3 wouldn't be able to get food. that is 2 billion people, and getting larger each day. They want to scare you that genetically engineered crops are evil and will kill you. In fact, they are sometimes better for you and have saved millions of lives already across the world. They put out their side, now i am addressing the facts they missed. it is easy to protest when you're not hungry!...
Brüno (2009)
Cohen makes up for Comedic gaps with extreme vulgarity
This is the type of movie, i have noticed that gets mostly one's and tens. That is always risky for someone making this film, although Sasha Baron Cohen knew something like this would happen. I did not hate it, yet i did not love it. I went to this movie with my 15 year old sister and my father. they walked out, while I gave it a fair shake because I enjoy being a critic. At first I was completely Disgusted by the vulgarity, but after a few weeks to think about it (and try to block some images out of my mind) I will be a little kinder to the movie. Yes, it was funny at some parts, but nowhere near measures up to Borat. For anyone who didn't see Borat, 99% of that movie wasn't staged (very similar to a candid camera kind of thing), while for Bruno, Most of it was staged. Even scenes that tried not to look staged, did, and did so in a very amateurish way. With Borat, he was clearly making fun of anti-semitism because he showed how ridiculous it really was. He doesn't really poke fun at Homophobia, he just makes the worst stereotype of a gay person and just shows them as horny guys who will try seduce you while you are walking down the street. That is like me, a white person, dressing in black-face, getting drunk, and walking around, eating fried chicken and watermelon calling everyone N---a. I am not afraid to say this movie is close to being as offensive as Birth of a Nation, if not more offensive. I also understand how it tries to poke fun at celebrities and how the celebrity life is. I get it and they do. The main root of the problems for this movie is that it isn't particularly funny and tries to make up for this with extreme vulgarity. One of the first scenes is Borat and his pygmy sex slave engaging in odd gay sex (not blocked out). Later on, there is a scene where it is just his penis going around and around in a circle for about 30 seconds, getting erect, and saying Bruno. He is trying to make a show kinda like TMZ. one of the testers says it is WORSE THAN CANCER, which is what i would describe this movie as at its worst times. It is a vulgar, Gay bashing Orgy. I did give it a 3, because it did have funny moments when it was poking fun of celebrities, but the offensiveness drove my rating downward. i would only give it around a 7 without the vulgarity. The last half an hour is crap. It is not that vulgar, but i sat there for the last 20 minutes (which seemed like an hour) and i was thinking about the errands I had to run that day, what I needed to get at the grocery store, My plans for the evening, etc. I am not making that up. The end has cameo's by Snoop Dog, Bono, and Elton John, and Ron Paul appears in it too. They are probably thinking this is the worst career decision since Costner Decided to make Waterworld. 3/10 (And if I didn't enjoy Cohen's other stuff so much, it would be lower)
Van Helsing (2004)
not amazing quality, but entertaining
most people that have left comments got it pretty accurate. it was not a great quality film, but films are not made for people to critique, they are made to entertain and in that sense, it gets an A+. the acting wasn't great and it was inaccurate from what it was based off of, but that is not always a bad thing. the new twists that they added to the van helsing storyline were interesting. there were some funny moments, especially with Carl. it will definitely not be an Oscar contender but i was entertained. the CGI, although some people may have thought cheesy, i think brought Dracula into the 21st century. this isn't the type of film to win awards and standing ovations, but is likely to get many oohs and aahs because of all the effects. Overall:
Story Plot 8/10
Acting 7/10
special effects 10/10
overall quality (everything else not covered by those 3) 5/10
30/40
7.5 Entertainment value of a high quality movie, but felt sloppy and not well done.
The Great Debaters (2007)
Classic Hollywood BS
I went into this movie and i liked it. A few scenes were bland where James tries to hit on Samantha. I thought it seemed pretty well done and especially with the job Denzel did with his acting. I wasn't as thrilled with his directing, but it was still a decent job.
Later that day i was looking up online about the story of Wiley College and i realized the script was highly inaccurate. The writer deserves all of the blame. During it, it was hard for me to believe that small Wiley College could get an opportunity to debate against the honorable Harvard, and now i know why. They NEVER faced Harvard, they faced USC and they barely won. However their victory was negated because they weren't a member of the national debate association, which further shows how hard it was to be black, which was the real reason it was taken away.
This was all "hollywooded up" as i like to say. It is a David and Goliath story, with Goliath coming out on top, during the time of the civil rights. This had the potential to be a box office hit, but not a success in my eyes. They are telling me a false, inaccurate story that is hard to believe considering that it was 1935 and not 1960. I wasn't moved by it at all. I feel if the writer had gone with the actual story, it would have not made as much money, but would have been more artistically effective and more moving, because the fact that their win was taken away adds more to the whole racism idea of it. I have no respect for the writer who destroyed an interesting story to make money.