hiproductions's reviews

How is this 7.7 stars!? Everyone was simply reading memorised lines the whole time! What was the plot supposed to be? Was I supposed to follow something? If I would have seen this in the theatre I would have walked out - awful awful directing of really good actors. I don't recommend anyone waste their time on this ridiculous shark-jumping sequel.

I am now convinced that the IMDB rating system is going the way of Amazon where the ratings are being "stuffed" to boost sales...This movie is pure crap. I loved that Adam Sandler attempted a new character however, this film made him nothing more than a screaming Jewish hipster for 2.5 hours. He had zero character arc - he never got better or worse or developed or anything - just a screaming Jewish hipster and it got old. Really, it's the fault of the scriptwriter and Directors - this was just a zero of a story with no plotline whatsover so how is the Howard Ratner character ever going to experience anything worth following? There was nothing to root for - nothing funny, Nothing dramatic. There was no goal to achieve or action to accomplish. Just a bunch of bit parts for Kevin Garnett and "The Weekend" to show up and win a couple 10 star reviews from kids who have no idea how awful this movie is. Garnett did surprise me with his performance. I thought he played himself very well - it's just a shame he was trapped in this abortion of a movie that is so bad that I will be pissed off for weeks after wasting my time in watching it!

This was an unbelievable documentary. My eyes were totally opened to the garbage that I've been accepting as 'food'. Like any documentary, its not fact but rather an informative 'editorial'. This film takes you inside the ugly side of one of the fast food giants 'McDonalds' and gives us a glimpse first-hand of the negative effects of processed fast food. I love fast food and used to love McDonalds before I saw this, now I stay away from it at any cost. Yeah, now I'm over to Wendy's which is FAR more healthier with their 'BIGGIE' Size (which actually preceded the 'super' size by the way). This is a great documentary to watch with a fatty like me, its a harmless way of letting them know to watch what they eat and how much they eat.

Andrew R. Hamilton, Hamilton International Productions, hiproductionsdotcom

Mendes is turning out to be in the class of Peter Weir in that he bides his time and takes a script with depth, meaning, and weight. This is refreshing. His grasp of visual story telling is uniquely superb. Nothing is wasted and every element: writing, casting, set decor, acting, cinematography is integrated masterfully by Mendes (as it was in American Beauty). If you enjoy story 1st and have no patience for gratuitous gangland violence, then this is a film for you. Its gangland Chicago during the depression and the local mob boss Rooney (played by Paul Newman) has two sons: a surrogate son, Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and a natural born son, Conner(played beautifully by Daniel Craig). Connor inflicts atrocities (out of jealousy) on Sullivan, who is an ingenious hit man with supernatural excellence. Sullivan, driven by revenge, seeks to save his son Michael from the same "Road" that he has taken. The visual imagery was amazing. It takes a person to the era and Conrad Hall did such a great job of capturing Mendes' vision without lighting too much "on the nose". Editing was brilliant, this movie doesn't get slow, or needlessly 'cut around'. The editing is invisible and the pacing is perfect to the story. This is a DVD worth owning.

This was a very good film. The humor is British which takes a bit of adjusting to but Gleeson's performance was perfect. He demonstrates that he can hold down a lead part while not necessarily fitting a Hollywood mold. The overall plot was good. The Gleeson character was a total jerk and as a result, he was surrounded by people that hated him thoroughly. Through a tragic injury, he has to start all over and has a very hard time figuring out why everyone around him is such a jerk to HIM, not realizing that he was living in a world of relationships that he built (or destroyed). From there, Harry has to start all over and work through the many difficulties/consequences of his previous life. Gleeson is brilliant, I really had to root for him the whole time. If this were available on DVD I would probably buy it.

To sound as flipfloppy as possible: I didn't love this movie but I didn't hate it either. The story was a bit convoluted. Why in the crap was Liam Neesan wandering in Europe? to find his son? why all of a sudden? And what did the Orlando Bloom character want? What did the princess/queen lady with the bad mascara job want? I couldn't make heads or tails of the plot. All I could figure out from this movie was what I brought with me to the theater: a basic knowledge of history. From that I surmised that they wanted to establish a "New World Order/U.N. Peacekeeping mission" for Jerusalem where everyone just 'gets along' etc. aside from the evil Christian vs. the 'sensitive' Muslim undertones, the story was not very compelling. As for the cinematography, God help us all. I can't believe this is the same guy that shot "Gladiator" I thought maybe everybody was dark half the time and focus was infinitely deep the other half of the time because of the format, then I discovered it was shot in super 35...no excuses there. I was constantly distracted from the convoluted story by poor cinematography. I just couldn't see the actors. Some of the opening shots looked like something from an early Sergio Leone western...which isn't a compliment. The one bright spot here are the performances by Bloom and Neesan. Both are excellent actors, Ridley Scott is an excellent director this should inevitably lead to quality performances. It was these performances that kept me in the theater and will probably cause me to rent the DVD to see if on a second viewing, I can pick up pieces I may have lost in the initial viewing.

I watched this film with the expectation that it would have a good storyline that would keep my interest like Oliver, My Fair Lady, or at least Mary Poppins. I was sorely disappointed. This film has been called "the best" film musical of all time. I do not share that opinion.

The characters were campy. Gene Kelly was far too happy all the time and it made it very difficult for me to watch him. The dumb blonde played by Jean Hagen was an exception. I found her to be very funny (apparently so did Frank Loesser in that he plagiarized her character in his musical "How to Succeed at Business Without Really Trying".) The supporting cast was fair and Debbie Reynolds was competent but I really see no reason to rave about this musical.

I would take Fred Astaire over Gene Kelly any day for choreography. The story is rudely and abruptly interrupted by this ridiculous "vision" that Kelly has where he is suddenly on Broadway or at a burlesque show and this horrible dance sequence that lasted forever, all in the name of his character finding a good ending to their swashbuckling movie. From swashbuckler to Broadway is a bit of a stretch. Speaking of stretch, visions shouldn't take up half a movie in MY book.

This movie was genuinely bad. I am sorry that this is considered a classic. I guess we can look for future generations to hail the Beegee's and Peter Frampton for their "ingenious" work when they name "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" a musical "classic" as well. After I saw "Singin' In The Rain" I could clearly see why the musical genre took a steep dive back then.

"The Immigrant" was the film that changed my entire perception of Chaplin. I had no idea whatsoever that a silent film could actually make me laugh much less tell a coherent story.

The way Chaplin set up the boat scene was excellent. It was filthy, overcrowded, and uncomfortable and it made me want to "root" for the prosperity of the immigrants. The writing was again much better than I could have expected such as in the scene where he gives his winnings to a poor woman but is mistaken for stealing them. The audience found the flip flopping of dishes (and passengers) on deck to be very funny. I thought it to be a bit schticky, but pleasantly humorous.

The restaurant scene however, left an impression on me that I will hold onto my entire career in film. The beans in the coffee and the imposing thug waiter were a hoot but I particularly liked his methods of peaks and valleys and letting the audience in on secrets while masking them from the characters. These techniques kept us interested such as when he finds the coin (peak), loses the coin (valley, secret), then snakes the artist's tip to pull off paying for the meal (peak, secret). It wasn't so much the antics or writing of that particular scene that affected me though they were outrageously comical. It was rather, a realization that I was in a room with a large majority of teenagers many of whose grandparents weren't even born when this film was made yet these teenagers were all laughing hysterically. How is it that a man's writing and performance make men, women and children laugh in the 20's, 50's, 70's, AND 90's? The answer is immortal comedy that can only be considered the work of a genius.

I was exposed to Chaplin, in depth, for the first time during the screening of this movie. I expected to find schtick and pie-in-the-face comedy that would utterly bore me to tears. This unrealistic idea of Chaplin was what kept me from experiencing one of the great comedic geniuses of our century.

"One AM", a silent comedy short in which Chaplin played a convincing drunk returning (or attempting to return) home from a night out. I immediately took notice of the writing in that the cab driver remained totally still while his passenger (Chaplin) was a complete drunken mess. I found the unconscious reaching for the cab door handle and trying to find his pants pockets very convincing (I've been there). I laughed out loud as Chaplin goes through inebriated hell to get into his house through the window only to find his key when he gets inside and crawl back out the window to unlock the door. I've seen imitators of this sequence dozens of times, never the less it was still funny to me because it was unexpected.

I must be honest and confess that I found the staircase, clock, and bed scenes a bit tiresome after while. The first time or two he fell down the stairs, got hit by the giant clock, or failed to open the bed, etc. I found amusing, beyond that I became a little frustrated and even bored with the situation. In no way do I say that to diminish Chaplin's delightful movie, but rather that may be the result of uninventive comedy styles overplayed in the cartoons of my youth.

Chaplin appeared to be made of straw at some points in this movie, very agile and acrobatic (bed scene). He was a drunk trying to convince us he was sober which was great! Actors today try too hard to "act" drunk with their words and they fail miserably. They would be well served to watch "One AM" to see how to "be" drunk with no words at all!

This film is one of the best classic pictures I have ever seen. An interesting story line and compelling performances are what I found so attractive about this movie. Kudos to Curtiz. The set was nearly perfect and was very convincing. I felt the heat of the Moroccan town as the camera swept through the markets in the streets. I was amazed to hear that this was shot almost entirely in a Hollywood studio. I wouldn't have noticed unless I was told otherwise. The song "As Time Goes By" was moving even to a former punk/grunge rocker like myself which says something for its power.

The topic is very interesting in that it deals with the mystery and intrigue of WWII and the efforts to defeat Nazi tyranny. A beautiful love story was also mixed in with the political refugee plot which held my interest for the entire length of the film. The dialogue was excellent, the best I've seen from the era. This picture was so well written and directed that it would have been great without big name actors and actresses but it was because of the big name cast that it has become the timeless classic that it is.

Humphrey Bogart as "Rick" was stellar in his performance. I believed the character to be a heart-broken man embittered and buried in self-pity all hidden under the mask of congeniality. This mask is rudely removed by a bottle of liquor. "You played it for her you can play it for me!" is only one memorable and dynamic line from this movie that launched the Bogart cult and mystique.

Ingrid Bergman as "Ilsa" was adorable. I could easily see why two men would both share a common love for her. I was enamored by her delivery and found myself sympathizing with both Rick and Lazlo for losing or almost losing her. This movie has sparked in me an interest for the work of Ingrid Bergman.

This was a film I would recommend for anyone who loves the cinema. It has truly lived up to its reputation as a dramatic film for the ages.

I regret to report that I did not find this movie enjoyable. In fact, I had a very difficult time staying awake during the screening even after a full nights rest. I haven't felt that way about a movie since being forced to watch science flicks in grade school. What turned me off was the confused genre. Was it a horror story or was it a Gothic romance? It wasn't much of either. It was fun to watch Boris Karloff clamber around like a silly over-sized idiot in undersized clothes (which also reminds me of myself in grade school) but that was about all that it offered me. I know I risk offending fans of this picture but I must be honest. There was nothing frightening about either monster character. Frankenstein was on screen so much that one would assume that the audience was expected to identify with him rather than fear him. If we were to identify with him then the story line and dialogue needed drastic overhauling to pull it off. I did like the scene with the old man. His being blind presented a message of beauty only being skin deep. The cigars and wine were ridiculous and I was again dozing off. I really enjoyed Elsa Lanchester as the bride (not as Shelley) and Whale only gave her a few brief moments. She jerked her head about and wildly looked about as if terrified by all of her surroundings. This was intriguing. Her head-splitting shriek also served the purpose of jarring me awake from the previous hours of mind numbing pseudo-acting.

It appeared that Whale's use of shadow and light was good (old man's house and catacombs). Pretorius' little people in the jars also seemed to be a good attempt at special effect. Despite these attempts at quality there is nothing (outside of sound) that would distinguish this movie from films made 10 years earlier(the '20s) and there is nothing I would consider to be historic or amazing about this film except the fact that the viewing public has raved about it. This, I believe, says something about the viewing public.

This is clearly one of the better pictures to come out of the sixties. Arthur Penn was able to bring an audience to a place of identification with notorious robbers and murderers.

The casting of this film was the greatest feat. I'm not a big Warren Beatty fan but he really scored big in this movie. He did a great job convincing me that he was THE Clyde Barrows and Faye Dunaway was great as "Bonnie". I am a big Gene Hackman fan and I believe his role as supporting actor in this was phenomenal (he usually is).

I took the cinematography for granted until I started to remember that this was 1967 and really ground breaking for that time. The person chasing the getaway car was blasted directly in the face and the scene at the end when they're riddled with bullets also had not been seen before (to my knowledge). Both must have been huge shockers to audiences of that day.

Arthur Penn did a great job in keeping my interest by telling a story and not just relaying events like a newscaster or trying to get creative by cutting a "semi" bio/crime pic into pieces and forcing on the viewers as an ensemble.

I did notice one area that could have been improved in my opinion. There were no real villain characters to fear. This was the same problem with "I Am A Fugitive From a Chain gang". This picture had no real identifiable villain character just a conglomerate of faceless policemen and a 20 second scene with a Texas Ranger. He could have possibly brought more out in the Ranger guy and made us know him and hate him or fear him more so that we could identify more with Bonnie and Clyde.

Aside from this one very minor imperfection, this was a splendid movie.

I had the opportunity of seeing this film as part of the Edinburgh Film Festival in 2002. A group of us, all filmmakers, saw this 'making of' together and were left speechless by what we saw.

The challenges faced by this filmmaker (Terry Gilliam) were uncanny and catastrophic and every step of the way, it was captured on film for posterity. From casting problems to actor health problems, to impossible weather conditions, this film shows how a great director is to react when the worst of the worst happens. As a filmmaker, I had to really reconsider whether I knew what I was getting into. Gilliam's composure under fire is amazing. Lost in La Mancha started out as a "making of" Gilliam's "Don Quioxte" but actually wound up being an excellent educational documentary for what can go wrong with even the best of film endeavors. If you're interested in how films are made, I definitely recommend you pick up a copy of "Lost in La Mancha". It is a fascinating insight to the world of high stakes storytelling.

Some people have taken offense at the many references in this film to the stupid fat black kid, but I grew up as a stupid fat black kid and so I felt this film was a lesson in realism for all fat black kids (like myself). I really related to this kid the whole way through. But how could I not??? THIS MOVIE HAS IT ALL! I thought Friday the 13th part VII was good but BOY was I in for a shock! This is by far the greatest horror film of all time! Evil DeadII hath no competition for this FEATURE FILM. The cinematography: ruled. The acting: superb. The writing: intriguing. Buy this film. Own this DVD. Steal this VHS anything to get your hands on the glorious, soon to be sequeled, Mr. Ice Cream Man. You'll never eat a poptart the same way again.

Some people have taken offense at the many references in this film to the stupid fat black kid, but I grew up as a stupid fat black kid and so I felt this film was a lesson in realism for all fat black kids (like myself). I really related to this kid the whole way through. But how could I not??? THIS MOVIE HAS IT ALL! I thought Friday the 13th part VII was good but BOY was I in for a shock! This is by far the greatest horror film of all time! Evil DeadII hath no competition for this FEATURE FILM. The cinematography: ruled. The acting: superb. The writing: intriguing. Buy this film. Own this DVD. Steal this VHS anything to get your hands on the glorious, soon to be sequeled, Mr. Ice Cream Man. You'll never eat a poptart the same way again.

The big talk is about the combination of 3 generations of acting: Brando, De Niro, and Norton. When I saw how powerful the casting was, I feared for Frank Oz and I feared that it would be the typical flat performances of an under-directed cast. I was DEAD WRONG. Frank Oz did a fantastic job in allowing these great actors plenty of space to do their thing and yet he got some great performances. Basset wasn't quite believable in her role as 'thief's girlfriend' but she had such a minor role that it didn't detract too much. In fact, the big surprise here was Ed Norton. He turned in the most convincing performance of them all! Way to go Gen-X'r!!! I voted this film a 7 primarily because of the Sloooowwww start. not much action and LOTS of Basset scenes made for a weak opening. In fact, even the exchanges between De Niro and Brando were missing something in the beginning. Overall, I definitely feel this was a better film than the recently released, Oceans 11 in that 'Score' offered at least SOME tension which draws you into the crime scene and opens you up to a world that you never knew existed (Oceans 11 offers ZERO tension but is nearly identical in plot to this picture)

what do the words "pure Sandler" mean to you? I'll tell you what they mean to me Happy Billy "Gilmore" Madison...that's what! You saw "Overboard" first? That probably biased you against this poor Jewish kid from Montana... What you needed to do was employ some common sense and recognize that Overboard was an abortion of a movie BEFORE you saw it...leaving you pure to enjoy Sandler in one of his "purist" performances. This film was a laugh a minute which equates to about 180 laughs at about 5 cents a pop! you can't beat that with a Dom Delouise/ Burt Reynolds movie! (believe me, I've tried!). Here we have Sandler CLOCKING 1st graders with a dodge ball, threatening to beat one up for a snack pack, and a cameo by Steve Buscemi! This movie, among Sandler flicks, was topped only by "Happy Gilmore" then, unfortunately, all the other films slowly degraded to the lowest depths of Dante's Inferno... I got 4 words for you "Little Nicky" enough said....anyway....if you like jibberish and sarcastic laughing followed by a horrendous "SHADDUP!" then fork out the 3 bucks for a rental and enjoy, or just come over and watch it at my house. I have it on a constant loop day and night. Thank you and amen. Andrew

This is only the 3rd movie that I have ever walked out on. Living in Las Vegas, Rat Race was all the rage and EVERYONE couldn't wait to see this "Las Vegas" movie. It was so miserable, acting was terrible, editing was obvious - probably done by students, and the story was SO done before that I not only wanted my money back but I was willing to PAY somebody to get me out of the theater. Awful movie old jokes from Canonball Run...and I'm now convinced that Whoopi Goldberg in a GIANT RED FLAG for a bad script. DONT BELIEVE THE TEENIE BOPPER VOTE.... I wouldn't even recommend renting this film...wait for it to come on regular television or cable - and then make plans to be gone that night.

Chachi my Chachi - This show was the epitome of 70's closure.

We stepped into the 80's and Joanie and Chachi began to meld into ONE being that was the essence of Chach. I miss them both and recall Joanie and Chachi hosting the 1980 New Year's countdown and at 9 yrs of age, I remembered musing to myself, "Why does Chachi not have his own show!?" It turned out to be prophetic (I guess I had the Spirit of Chachi working inside me as many of us still do) and lo and behold JOANIE LOVES CHACHI. I cried everytime I watched it because I knew it couldn't last. I also took great hope in the realization that the power of Chach would go on and MUST go on and that my sense of loss would be fulfilled by Charles in Charge. Today, I am a thriving Chachi impersonator and travel the "Chachi lookalike" contest circuits in hopes that this show JOANIE LOVES CHACHI would rise up and be resurrected to vindicate my incessant admiration for the beautiful work of art that is "Joanie loves Chachi". I remember the one show where we were blessed by the playful side of Chachi and were allowed to hear his melodic voice. Anyone with a recording of that show is , I'm sure, a millionaire right now simply because it shows a side of our beloved Chachi that is other than his deeply spiritual side and in stark contrast to his internationally powerful political side, in time, others like yourself will one day long for the return of the Chach and that all mankind would join hands in the spirit of Chachi and bring an end to the oppression of violence and war that is SO UNChachi-like and hopefully, we can pool our visualization and visualize a new world leader. It is time to put Chachi in Charge. Or at least have a Joanie loves Chachi reunion show that I might enjoy. Thank you. Stay Chachi and remember, if ever you are in a bind, just ask yourself, "What would Chachi do?" Andrew