CommieTT
Joined May 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings297
CommieTT's rating
Reviews28
CommieTT's rating
I've seen every film by Michael Moore and have enjoyed them all to a certain extent. "Roger and Me" had been my favorite until "Sicko" came out. Now, I have a new favorite - "Capitalism: A Love Story." Though Moore's film is not thoroughly anti-capitalist in the film (he states that the '50s were "good times" - even though most people of color in the US wouldn't have agreed), the over-riding message is clear: Capitalism needs to be replaced with something better. He suggests, "democracy." I believe that would be an excellent start.
The reason this film is my new favorite is that even though it is very sad and infuriating to learn the results of rampant capitalism in our nation, he also includes victories (however small) in fighting back. The workers at Republic Windows in Chicago fought Bank of America and won. A family in Florida fought being evicted and won; and a US Representative from Ohio said on the floor of the House that not leaving your home is the best way to fight being evicted. I thought it was amazing for her to give this advice! She said that with all the shenanigans involved in the mortgage crisis, no one really knows where the mortgage is held and therefore you should stay put rather than being forced out.
I saw this with my slightly apolitical girlfriend and we give it two thumbs up - way up! She said the only let-down was that the audience didn't say, "let's go start a revolution" when it ended.
The reason this film is my new favorite is that even though it is very sad and infuriating to learn the results of rampant capitalism in our nation, he also includes victories (however small) in fighting back. The workers at Republic Windows in Chicago fought Bank of America and won. A family in Florida fought being evicted and won; and a US Representative from Ohio said on the floor of the House that not leaving your home is the best way to fight being evicted. I thought it was amazing for her to give this advice! She said that with all the shenanigans involved in the mortgage crisis, no one really knows where the mortgage is held and therefore you should stay put rather than being forced out.
I saw this with my slightly apolitical girlfriend and we give it two thumbs up - way up! She said the only let-down was that the audience didn't say, "let's go start a revolution" when it ended.
I didn't know anything about the film before seeing it. I just saw it on the shelf at my local library and the cover made me think it might be a fun flick, a la "Romancing the Stone." Well, it wasn't.
There is plenty of potential for fun, adventure and intrigue (as the cover promises) with Garner, Kennedy and Renzi - who's quite easy on the eyes. But the story (which the plot summary does a fine - albeit no frills - job of covering) and acting is so lackluster, it never gets off the ground. Poorly timed jokes delivered with about as much enthusiasm as someone reading a dictionary; action that is very stilted and uninspired; and intrigue? - it was tacked on to the last 30 seconds of the film.
Besides the fact that less than a few minutes of this takes place in what anyone could consider a "jungle" (after viewing the movie, I found out the title actually refers to a color of lipstick, but the picture on the cover makes it look like it might take place in a jungle setting). The bulk of the movie actually takes place in the desert. In theory, there's nothing wrong with that - but that's not what I was expecting from the title and the cover.
Rather disappointing, overall.
My rating: 5
There is plenty of potential for fun, adventure and intrigue (as the cover promises) with Garner, Kennedy and Renzi - who's quite easy on the eyes. But the story (which the plot summary does a fine - albeit no frills - job of covering) and acting is so lackluster, it never gets off the ground. Poorly timed jokes delivered with about as much enthusiasm as someone reading a dictionary; action that is very stilted and uninspired; and intrigue? - it was tacked on to the last 30 seconds of the film.
Besides the fact that less than a few minutes of this takes place in what anyone could consider a "jungle" (after viewing the movie, I found out the title actually refers to a color of lipstick, but the picture on the cover makes it look like it might take place in a jungle setting). The bulk of the movie actually takes place in the desert. In theory, there's nothing wrong with that - but that's not what I was expecting from the title and the cover.
Rather disappointing, overall.
My rating: 5
Before I saw this film, I'd only followed the situation in Venezuela on a cursory level. I knew Hugo Chavez was better than the presidents that preceded him in Venezuela, but I had also bought some of the right-wing propaganda against him. After seeing The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, I've become a "true believer" in Chavez and Bolivarian Revolution.
The myths the film dispelled for me were:
-Chavez is a brutal leader
-Chavez doesn't allow dissent
-Chavez is a megalomaniac who may be insane
To the contrary, President Chavez seems to be a quite ordinary, working class, non-white man, but an extraordinary leader. His first comments captured on film after he is returned to the Presidential Palace after the coup were something like, "I knew that we, the people, would win." It wasn't about him. It was about what the will of the majority wanted. It was about what the constitution demanded.
His first broadcast to the people of Venezuela after the coup was directed toward calm and reconciliation. This was amazing for me to see. If he was as brutal as US media portrayed him, he would have incited his followers to go after those who supported the coup. Instead he said to those who dissented, "go ahead and disagree with me." No squashing of dissent there.
The film has a number of candid moments with Chavez. One of the most striking was his recalling his grandfather, who was deemed a "killer" by his grandmother. As Chavez studied who his grandfather was, he found out he was not killer - he was a revolutionary. And that is what Chavez has striven to be.
A terrific documentary that once again shows you can't trust the corporate media.
My rating: 9
The myths the film dispelled for me were:
-Chavez is a brutal leader
-Chavez doesn't allow dissent
-Chavez is a megalomaniac who may be insane
To the contrary, President Chavez seems to be a quite ordinary, working class, non-white man, but an extraordinary leader. His first comments captured on film after he is returned to the Presidential Palace after the coup were something like, "I knew that we, the people, would win." It wasn't about him. It was about what the will of the majority wanted. It was about what the constitution demanded.
His first broadcast to the people of Venezuela after the coup was directed toward calm and reconciliation. This was amazing for me to see. If he was as brutal as US media portrayed him, he would have incited his followers to go after those who supported the coup. Instead he said to those who dissented, "go ahead and disagree with me." No squashing of dissent there.
The film has a number of candid moments with Chavez. One of the most striking was his recalling his grandfather, who was deemed a "killer" by his grandmother. As Chavez studied who his grandfather was, he found out he was not killer - he was a revolutionary. And that is what Chavez has striven to be.
A terrific documentary that once again shows you can't trust the corporate media.
My rating: 9
Recently taken polls
1 total poll taken
