timmyj3
Joined Feb 2007
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews7
timmyj3's rating
I was very eager to see this movie. I am a skeptic by nature and the barrage of pink the last few years has had me wondering. This movie has an agenda. The film wants to be the black in the pink parade. That is OK.
A valid point the film makes is that corporate America is making money on the "pink". Solid points are KFC making profits off selling dubious food under the "pink" banner. Estee Lauder selling cosmetics that may contain cancer causing ingredients under the "pink" logos. The NFL trying to refurbish their image with "pink" everything in October. Clearly most businesses involved have self serving motivations. I was happy to see that brought out.
They had some stage 4 cancer patients express their displeasure with the happy joyful pink parade. I sure respect the opinion of the ladies but I suspect their are an equal number of cancer patients that appreciate the attention of the pink awareness. We were not shown many differing opinions.
The film makes some great points about working on prevention instead of the phantom cure which may or may not come. This was a solid idea that should have been more fleshed out.
Where the film fails is making the environmental connection. It ventures into kooky junk science territory a bit here. They implied Ford should not be involved with breast cancer awareness because they make cars and cars pollute. OK.
We get to the end of the film and we are off the rails a bit now. We have to blame President Bush for "using" breast cancer awareness for his mid east policies advancement. (They must have missed Obama's use of breast cancer awareness 2009-2011) The movie was made in 2011.
Overall it is a bit of a mess in a cinematic sense. It is sort of hard to watch. It doesn't flow well. The people in the film all seemed a touch angry or just professional activists.
The film also seemed angry at the many and mostly good people trying to help other people and fight this horrible disease. I find it hard to fault people trying to raise money to help others in our communities even if the "pink" charities may have jumped the shark so to speak.
A great subject that is not popular to talk about. Too bad it wasn't done by competent people.
A valid point the film makes is that corporate America is making money on the "pink". Solid points are KFC making profits off selling dubious food under the "pink" banner. Estee Lauder selling cosmetics that may contain cancer causing ingredients under the "pink" logos. The NFL trying to refurbish their image with "pink" everything in October. Clearly most businesses involved have self serving motivations. I was happy to see that brought out.
They had some stage 4 cancer patients express their displeasure with the happy joyful pink parade. I sure respect the opinion of the ladies but I suspect their are an equal number of cancer patients that appreciate the attention of the pink awareness. We were not shown many differing opinions.
The film makes some great points about working on prevention instead of the phantom cure which may or may not come. This was a solid idea that should have been more fleshed out.
Where the film fails is making the environmental connection. It ventures into kooky junk science territory a bit here. They implied Ford should not be involved with breast cancer awareness because they make cars and cars pollute. OK.
We get to the end of the film and we are off the rails a bit now. We have to blame President Bush for "using" breast cancer awareness for his mid east policies advancement. (They must have missed Obama's use of breast cancer awareness 2009-2011) The movie was made in 2011.
Overall it is a bit of a mess in a cinematic sense. It is sort of hard to watch. It doesn't flow well. The people in the film all seemed a touch angry or just professional activists.
The film also seemed angry at the many and mostly good people trying to help other people and fight this horrible disease. I find it hard to fault people trying to raise money to help others in our communities even if the "pink" charities may have jumped the shark so to speak.
A great subject that is not popular to talk about. Too bad it wasn't done by competent people.
I viewed Casino Jack recently. The story centers around Jack Abramoff who is a registered lobbyist. It is kind of an odd movie subject. Jack rises and then falls in a dramatic fashion even though the true story is pretty dull. Lets look at the different areas of this film. After reviewing the specifics I want to talk about Hollywood and politics.
The acting: Kevin Spacey was the only reason this film is watchable. He delivers a solid smooth performance. Barry Pepper is becoming a first rate supporting actor. Spencer Garrett was strong as Tom Delay. Kelly Preston is a weak link. Not sure how she got this role ( I have an idea though). Her looks are gone and her mediocre acting ability is getting even worse. Poor choice. The rest of the cast is OK. GRADE B-.
The story/screenplay: This film was written by Norman Snider. This is as bad as it gets. He gets most of it wrong. Making some stuff up out of the blue. He tries to tie the life long criminal activities and ultimate death of the SunCruz owner to Jack with no proof or even allegations. This was the only interesting part of the film and its mostly false at least in tying it to Abramoff. The dialog is more of "evil Rupublican" theme than anything. Of note, the director's brother is a Democratic Governor in Colorado. We make Tom Delay a focal point here. He had some ethics issues but none seemed linked to Jack. As time as gone on Delay has actually been vindicated in most common sense circles. The real story of Abramoff is that he got greedy at the end with shaking down Indian tribes and trying to get into the offshore casino business. One point the movie harps on is that the Bush administration didn't help Jack when it went bad. Well doesn't that say something for integrity that the Bush administration would go after this guy in the first place? If Abramoff could be so damaging to the Republicans, wouldn't they have left him alone? If this would have been a factual story it would have been quote boring and complicated. GRADE D
The directing and technical aspects: The director was George Hickenlooper. He is awful. This film had a LMN feel to it. It seemed to have a decent budget but showed like a TV movie. This film was disjointed and not smooth. It seemed as the actors had very little to work with here. Again, Hollywood seems more interested in showing how bad the Republicans are than making a decent film that sticks to the facts. GRADE: D
Overall film GRADE: C- (only because of Spacey)
Now my big picture thoughts. Hollywood recently seems to be heavily invested in making mainstream films depicting the right as bad, evil, stupid, criminal, etc.. The logic seems to be lets use legitimate actors and films to twist facts and make some odd leftie political statements. Films such as this one, Too Big to Fail, Inside Job, No end in sight, Recount, etcc.. There seems to be a shift from the outright kooky Michael Moore stuff to a more "normal" looking films to further the nutty left look at things. I believe everyone one of these films has been a financial flop. Hollywood isn't good at listening to their customers. I suspect we will see more films like this depicting the right as evil and left as saintly.
This got me to thinking. We must have had 10 medium to big budget films ripping President Bush over the last 10 years. Most downright silly and clearly financial losers. But.. what about some "leftie" films that could/should be made? Here is a list of films we could make showing the left in not so flattering terms. Most would be pretty entertaining as well. Here goes:
1) "House of male Congessional review" Starring Rep. Barney Frank. Remember he and his partner ran a male prostitution ring out of their town home. You cant even make this up!!!
2) "I am not a drunk, no matter how many girls I kill" starring Sen. Ted Kennedy. This fool actually killed an innocent girl either by just being drunk or something more sinister. Oyy.
3) "Governor and mama need a new pair of shoes" Starring Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. This character actually tried to sell Obama's Senate seat!! This is gold!!
4) "I invented the Internet and baseball" Starring Vice President Al Gore. How come this fruit loop doesn't have more media dinging him? He is a liar and a profiteer. He has made more money on the global warming scam than there are carbon foot prints in Europe!
I think you get my points. While my suggestions may seem silly they are true and can be documented. Wouldn't a film on Blago be way more entertaining than Jack Abramoff?? I think it would. What about Barney Frank? This idiot not only broke the law with his house of ill repute, but it was his sponsored legislation that really enabled the housing collapse (forcing banks to give low income, no background check loans, Too Big to Fail must have missed this). Funny we never have seen Hollywood disparage any of these people.
While clearly few if any Americans actually look to Hollywood for political guidance they sure seem to want to give it to us. I mean do you want to be told how to vote or think by most Hollywood types? Of course not. Many of these people have no education, never had a real job, are surrounded by butt kissers. (Did you ever see that video of Matt Damon prattling on about dinosaurs and voting for Obama?? It was quite enlightening. Lets just say you wouldn't hire Matt to work at the local Wal-Mart). Gimme a break.
Hollywood, stick to entertaining us. You really should be better at it.
The acting: Kevin Spacey was the only reason this film is watchable. He delivers a solid smooth performance. Barry Pepper is becoming a first rate supporting actor. Spencer Garrett was strong as Tom Delay. Kelly Preston is a weak link. Not sure how she got this role ( I have an idea though). Her looks are gone and her mediocre acting ability is getting even worse. Poor choice. The rest of the cast is OK. GRADE B-.
The story/screenplay: This film was written by Norman Snider. This is as bad as it gets. He gets most of it wrong. Making some stuff up out of the blue. He tries to tie the life long criminal activities and ultimate death of the SunCruz owner to Jack with no proof or even allegations. This was the only interesting part of the film and its mostly false at least in tying it to Abramoff. The dialog is more of "evil Rupublican" theme than anything. Of note, the director's brother is a Democratic Governor in Colorado. We make Tom Delay a focal point here. He had some ethics issues but none seemed linked to Jack. As time as gone on Delay has actually been vindicated in most common sense circles. The real story of Abramoff is that he got greedy at the end with shaking down Indian tribes and trying to get into the offshore casino business. One point the movie harps on is that the Bush administration didn't help Jack when it went bad. Well doesn't that say something for integrity that the Bush administration would go after this guy in the first place? If Abramoff could be so damaging to the Republicans, wouldn't they have left him alone? If this would have been a factual story it would have been quote boring and complicated. GRADE D
The directing and technical aspects: The director was George Hickenlooper. He is awful. This film had a LMN feel to it. It seemed to have a decent budget but showed like a TV movie. This film was disjointed and not smooth. It seemed as the actors had very little to work with here. Again, Hollywood seems more interested in showing how bad the Republicans are than making a decent film that sticks to the facts. GRADE: D
Overall film GRADE: C- (only because of Spacey)
Now my big picture thoughts. Hollywood recently seems to be heavily invested in making mainstream films depicting the right as bad, evil, stupid, criminal, etc.. The logic seems to be lets use legitimate actors and films to twist facts and make some odd leftie political statements. Films such as this one, Too Big to Fail, Inside Job, No end in sight, Recount, etcc.. There seems to be a shift from the outright kooky Michael Moore stuff to a more "normal" looking films to further the nutty left look at things. I believe everyone one of these films has been a financial flop. Hollywood isn't good at listening to their customers. I suspect we will see more films like this depicting the right as evil and left as saintly.
This got me to thinking. We must have had 10 medium to big budget films ripping President Bush over the last 10 years. Most downright silly and clearly financial losers. But.. what about some "leftie" films that could/should be made? Here is a list of films we could make showing the left in not so flattering terms. Most would be pretty entertaining as well. Here goes:
1) "House of male Congessional review" Starring Rep. Barney Frank. Remember he and his partner ran a male prostitution ring out of their town home. You cant even make this up!!!
2) "I am not a drunk, no matter how many girls I kill" starring Sen. Ted Kennedy. This fool actually killed an innocent girl either by just being drunk or something more sinister. Oyy.
3) "Governor and mama need a new pair of shoes" Starring Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. This character actually tried to sell Obama's Senate seat!! This is gold!!
4) "I invented the Internet and baseball" Starring Vice President Al Gore. How come this fruit loop doesn't have more media dinging him? He is a liar and a profiteer. He has made more money on the global warming scam than there are carbon foot prints in Europe!
I think you get my points. While my suggestions may seem silly they are true and can be documented. Wouldn't a film on Blago be way more entertaining than Jack Abramoff?? I think it would. What about Barney Frank? This idiot not only broke the law with his house of ill repute, but it was his sponsored legislation that really enabled the housing collapse (forcing banks to give low income, no background check loans, Too Big to Fail must have missed this). Funny we never have seen Hollywood disparage any of these people.
While clearly few if any Americans actually look to Hollywood for political guidance they sure seem to want to give it to us. I mean do you want to be told how to vote or think by most Hollywood types? Of course not. Many of these people have no education, never had a real job, are surrounded by butt kissers. (Did you ever see that video of Matt Damon prattling on about dinosaurs and voting for Obama?? It was quite enlightening. Lets just say you wouldn't hire Matt to work at the local Wal-Mart). Gimme a break.
Hollywood, stick to entertaining us. You really should be better at it.
I have to admit that this may have been a clunker. It shouldn't have been. Anyone that saw a porno in the 80's (basically anyone over 40) should have been interested.
I thought the premise was sound and should have produced a better finished product. The premise is a legendary porn director has passed away. One of his old cronies wants to fulfill his dead friends last wish of one more porno with the old stars. The best part of the movie was showing the old fictitious movie clips the fake porn star made.
Once we have the cast all set, the movie seems to stall. The petty bickering among the old friends takes over. The director loses control of the assorted cast of fake faded porn stars but all works out in the end. It just kind of clunks along.
Mockumentaries are a pretty dicey road to travel. Spinal Tap is the only one that I have ever really thought was a cut above. This movie is more in the realm of "A Mighty Wind". A similar mock about old folk singers. I think this genre only goes so far and this film was limited by that.
The cast was OK. Too large and I think that was part of the problem. I especially liked Molly Hagen and Pete Gardner. They played a late 40's married couple that were the hot porn couple of the 80's. Christopher Boyer probably had the largest part as the director that is doing this film for his late friend and mentor (not really, he made it up!) and he is very good. I thought the acting was fine. It was a cast without major stars and I am OK with that. I just believe that this type of film (mockumentary) can only go so far. But, thanks for the honest effort.
I thought the premise was sound and should have produced a better finished product. The premise is a legendary porn director has passed away. One of his old cronies wants to fulfill his dead friends last wish of one more porno with the old stars. The best part of the movie was showing the old fictitious movie clips the fake porn star made.
Once we have the cast all set, the movie seems to stall. The petty bickering among the old friends takes over. The director loses control of the assorted cast of fake faded porn stars but all works out in the end. It just kind of clunks along.
Mockumentaries are a pretty dicey road to travel. Spinal Tap is the only one that I have ever really thought was a cut above. This movie is more in the realm of "A Mighty Wind". A similar mock about old folk singers. I think this genre only goes so far and this film was limited by that.
The cast was OK. Too large and I think that was part of the problem. I especially liked Molly Hagen and Pete Gardner. They played a late 40's married couple that were the hot porn couple of the 80's. Christopher Boyer probably had the largest part as the director that is doing this film for his late friend and mentor (not really, he made it up!) and he is very good. I thought the acting was fine. It was a cast without major stars and I am OK with that. I just believe that this type of film (mockumentary) can only go so far. But, thanks for the honest effort.