James B.
Joined Oct 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.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews18
James B.'s rating
This is a really tragic and shattering film. I saw it a few days ago in New York at a lower East side cinema. It is a very honest and yet artistically distinguished portrait of the demise of a Caribbean nation - Jamaica. Interspersed with the cold, hard facts of how the international community has loaned the country money at predatory interest rates, and then dumped products on Jamaica's undeveloped markets, thus destroying native industries, are scenes of tourists enjoying Jamaica's bounties, oblivious to the nature of the natives' distress.
The woman who made this film narrates it herself, and she wrote a book on the subject before she made this film. So her credentials for knowledge about the subject are very strong. She employs a few cinematic flourishes, such as the blurred-edge-of-screen effect when she shows poor Jamaicans digging about in a garbage dump. The soundtrack is replete with great reggae songs, including the potent and topical title track.
Basically, this film is more important in its 90 minutes than about a hundred typically vapid Hollywood productions stacked back to back. This film teaches you something about the world - about the exploitation of the weak, about the myth of the "helping" nature of the IMF and the World Bank, and about the everyday lives of desperately poor third world people. All proponents of "globalization" should see this film, and then be required to defend their views to the people who have been victimized by globalization's cruel and relentless march. Similarly, everyone who works for the major media in the US should see this, and should be ashamed of themselves for defending the policies that have contributed to the downfall of a proud and beautiful people such as those of Jamaica. And silence is the major defense employed on behalf of such policies.
The woman who made this film narrates it herself, and she wrote a book on the subject before she made this film. So her credentials for knowledge about the subject are very strong. She employs a few cinematic flourishes, such as the blurred-edge-of-screen effect when she shows poor Jamaicans digging about in a garbage dump. The soundtrack is replete with great reggae songs, including the potent and topical title track.
Basically, this film is more important in its 90 minutes than about a hundred typically vapid Hollywood productions stacked back to back. This film teaches you something about the world - about the exploitation of the weak, about the myth of the "helping" nature of the IMF and the World Bank, and about the everyday lives of desperately poor third world people. All proponents of "globalization" should see this film, and then be required to defend their views to the people who have been victimized by globalization's cruel and relentless march. Similarly, everyone who works for the major media in the US should see this, and should be ashamed of themselves for defending the policies that have contributed to the downfall of a proud and beautiful people such as those of Jamaica. And silence is the major defense employed on behalf of such policies.
"Forever Mine" is not a good film. The script is highly formulaic and dull, the characters are one-dimensional, there are several holes in the plot, and the ending manages to be both cliched and unsatisfying. It is worth watching only for two nude scenes from the wonderful and lovely Gretchen Mol, who hasn't done much of that at all. If you're a fan of hers, you won't be disappointed here.
Watching this cheese, I was reminded of "Strange Days", where Joseph Fiennes' brother Ralph was locked inside a picture almost as bad as this one. The Fiennes brothers certainly can act, and Joseph does his best here to keep the wooden lines fresh. Gretchen Mol lights up the screen no matter what she's in, but one can only wonder why these very good actors are stuck in such a bad movie. Weren't there any more intelligent scripts around to do than this one? Ray Liotta is strictly on auto-pilot for this film.
The story here is simple - jealousy, adultery, revenge, etc. Movies like this put some basic elements together, and then count on the magnetism of the stars to enlist the audience's attention. But if the characters have nothing but stupid lines to say, how can we care about them? 4/10, and only Mol's scenes make me go that high.
Watching this cheese, I was reminded of "Strange Days", where Joseph Fiennes' brother Ralph was locked inside a picture almost as bad as this one. The Fiennes brothers certainly can act, and Joseph does his best here to keep the wooden lines fresh. Gretchen Mol lights up the screen no matter what she's in, but one can only wonder why these very good actors are stuck in such a bad movie. Weren't there any more intelligent scripts around to do than this one? Ray Liotta is strictly on auto-pilot for this film.
The story here is simple - jealousy, adultery, revenge, etc. Movies like this put some basic elements together, and then count on the magnetism of the stars to enlist the audience's attention. But if the characters have nothing but stupid lines to say, how can we care about them? 4/10, and only Mol's scenes make me go that high.
"Dancer in the Dark" is one of the most difficult, depressing films I have seen. IMDB users know the main plot line, so I won't repeat it. This is a worthy film that makes important points. Some reviewers have criticized the plot as soap-opera-ish and unrealistic. I didn't find it hard to fathom. Events like these happen to people all the time.
What many reviewers have not discussed much is how 'Selma', played by Bjork, has so many obstacles in her life. Selma didn't ask for these, but has to deal with them nonetheless. She is handicapped, is in a male-dominated culture, and is an immigrant from a Communist (1964 Czech.) country. Selma is poor, a daydreamer, maddeningly principled just when she should not be, and has a dependent - a son. Yet I didn't find her situation removed from reality. The working poor of the world have a very tough life. Gary Oldman's "Nil By Mouth" is a valid comparison for lifestyles.
In this film, we see how the American system treats a poor, defenseless woman - horribly, mercilessly, unthinkingly. Among its other messages, it spoke to me as an indictment of capitalism and American culture. It illuminates in a cold light some deadly characteristics of American society: the crushing poverty many live in, the narrow-mindedness of many people, the lack of concern of companies for their workers, the government's neglect of the handicapped, an ignorance and distrust of foreigners, sexism, materialism, religious fundamentalism, and a morbid obsession with violence. One could continue for a long time. Director von Trier shows how these societal flaws twist and wreck ordinary people.
I liked the musical numbers, as they provided a welcome contrast to the relentlessly gloomy reality of Selma's situation. When Selma bursts out in song and people around her dance as well, we see the joy in her heart - which cannot be realized in real life. The dance sequences are also expertly choreographed, and I found them infinitely more expressive of the human condition that 'Matrix'-style martial arts tricks.
von Trier's style and subject matter remind me of Stanley Kubrick's. Both directors have a completely personal style which stirs great passions and divisions among viewers. They are experimental, meticulous and intense to a fault. Both are concerned with human cruelty and dehumanization. Both directors also reportedly inspire great loyalty among their actors.
I think this is a relevant film for America, and the world, today. We still have essentially all the same problems that I enumerated above in America in 2000 that we did in 1964, when this story takes place. I hope audiences can get past the abrasiveness of the hand-held camera technique. True compassion and bravery is needed to see this film, but we need that in life, anyway.
What many reviewers have not discussed much is how 'Selma', played by Bjork, has so many obstacles in her life. Selma didn't ask for these, but has to deal with them nonetheless. She is handicapped, is in a male-dominated culture, and is an immigrant from a Communist (1964 Czech.) country. Selma is poor, a daydreamer, maddeningly principled just when she should not be, and has a dependent - a son. Yet I didn't find her situation removed from reality. The working poor of the world have a very tough life. Gary Oldman's "Nil By Mouth" is a valid comparison for lifestyles.
In this film, we see how the American system treats a poor, defenseless woman - horribly, mercilessly, unthinkingly. Among its other messages, it spoke to me as an indictment of capitalism and American culture. It illuminates in a cold light some deadly characteristics of American society: the crushing poverty many live in, the narrow-mindedness of many people, the lack of concern of companies for their workers, the government's neglect of the handicapped, an ignorance and distrust of foreigners, sexism, materialism, religious fundamentalism, and a morbid obsession with violence. One could continue for a long time. Director von Trier shows how these societal flaws twist and wreck ordinary people.
I liked the musical numbers, as they provided a welcome contrast to the relentlessly gloomy reality of Selma's situation. When Selma bursts out in song and people around her dance as well, we see the joy in her heart - which cannot be realized in real life. The dance sequences are also expertly choreographed, and I found them infinitely more expressive of the human condition that 'Matrix'-style martial arts tricks.
von Trier's style and subject matter remind me of Stanley Kubrick's. Both directors have a completely personal style which stirs great passions and divisions among viewers. They are experimental, meticulous and intense to a fault. Both are concerned with human cruelty and dehumanization. Both directors also reportedly inspire great loyalty among their actors.
I think this is a relevant film for America, and the world, today. We still have essentially all the same problems that I enumerated above in America in 2000 that we did in 1964, when this story takes place. I hope audiences can get past the abrasiveness of the hand-held camera technique. True compassion and bravery is needed to see this film, but we need that in life, anyway.