bobjaxon
Joined Jun 2004
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.
Reviews3
bobjaxon's rating
I want to start off by saying that I am a fan of Vincent Gallo's previous work. Buffalo '66 was a very good film, but this one isn't worth the cost of the film on which it's printed.
While films with minimal dialog can be interesting, this one is just plain boring, painfully boring. Tedious shots of Gallo's character driving across country, punctuated by brief periods of him lying in bed.
For me, the only interesting part of the film was the fellatio scene with Choe Sevigny. However, it doesn't make up for the dullness of the previous scenes. I definitely felt the time I spent watching this "film" was a total waste and would've been more productive had I simply been sleeping.
While films with minimal dialog can be interesting, this one is just plain boring, painfully boring. Tedious shots of Gallo's character driving across country, punctuated by brief periods of him lying in bed.
For me, the only interesting part of the film was the fellatio scene with Choe Sevigny. However, it doesn't make up for the dullness of the previous scenes. I definitely felt the time I spent watching this "film" was a total waste and would've been more productive had I simply been sleeping.
This "documentary" is no where close to being a documentary. I watched the original "Faces of Death" film years ago. And I realized then that all of the sequences shown were either fake or simply film that already existed. However, it was a surprise to realize that those same people made this film apparently questioning the authenticity of the originals.
The so called "Director" who, although being born & raised in France, had no trace of a french accent, who was interviewed in shadows as if to protect his identity, is almost as big a joke as the "Doctor" who has a terminal illness, needs oxygen (but only in small whiffs), and is so afraid of discussing his own impending death, he wets himself at the thought of it.
Don't waster your time or money on this total waste of film & video tape.
The so called "Director" who, although being born & raised in France, had no trace of a french accent, who was interviewed in shadows as if to protect his identity, is almost as big a joke as the "Doctor" who has a terminal illness, needs oxygen (but only in small whiffs), and is so afraid of discussing his own impending death, he wets himself at the thought of it.
Don't waster your time or money on this total waste of film & video tape.
I've long been a fan of Jodie Foster's acting, and upon my first viewing of "Little Man Tate", I can now say I'm a fan of her directorial talents as well.
The story is of Fred Tate, son of single mother Dede. It's found that, at the age of 2, Fred can already read the print on the bottom of a dinner plate. Dede, and the rest of the world, realize that Fred is a genius, but Dede is determined that Fred, while given ever opportunity to expand his gift, is not exploited by the well meaning, but pretentious head mistress of a school for gifted children, Jane Grierson, portrayed by the outstanding actress Dianne Wiest.
The story's told, mainly, through the eyes of Fred; however, we also see the viewpoints of Dede & Jane who each feel that she alone has Fred's best interests at heart. We are given tremendous insight into how Fred sees and relates to the world around him. He has the understanding that's beyond most adults but only the emotional experience of his 7 years of life.
Through Fred, we can see that the academic world of gifted children isn't just filled with the nice, polite, precocious, bespectacled children that we are often shown on news magazines or public television programs. We are allowed to see that some are as outright rude and pretentious as the adults who claim to be only nurturing their gifts.
In her feature-film directorial debut, Foster is able to capture the world as Fred sees it. She's able still allow us to see Fred as the youngster he is. Fred's intellect isn't the basis of the story, just one element in it. She lets the story do the work, and she let's the character's tell the tale. She allows the characters to be real people not just the stereotypes that so often are found in films dealing with this subject matter.
Jodie Foster's only directed two films since this one ("Home For The Holidays"-1995 & "Flora Plum"-2005), and I've seen "Home For The Holidays" which I also feel was very well done. It seems that Ms. Foster is being very careful in picking her projects, much like the late Stanley Kubrick did. I only hope her unique talents are recognized and she's given more green lights for future projects.
The story is of Fred Tate, son of single mother Dede. It's found that, at the age of 2, Fred can already read the print on the bottom of a dinner plate. Dede, and the rest of the world, realize that Fred is a genius, but Dede is determined that Fred, while given ever opportunity to expand his gift, is not exploited by the well meaning, but pretentious head mistress of a school for gifted children, Jane Grierson, portrayed by the outstanding actress Dianne Wiest.
The story's told, mainly, through the eyes of Fred; however, we also see the viewpoints of Dede & Jane who each feel that she alone has Fred's best interests at heart. We are given tremendous insight into how Fred sees and relates to the world around him. He has the understanding that's beyond most adults but only the emotional experience of his 7 years of life.
Through Fred, we can see that the academic world of gifted children isn't just filled with the nice, polite, precocious, bespectacled children that we are often shown on news magazines or public television programs. We are allowed to see that some are as outright rude and pretentious as the adults who claim to be only nurturing their gifts.
In her feature-film directorial debut, Foster is able to capture the world as Fred sees it. She's able still allow us to see Fred as the youngster he is. Fred's intellect isn't the basis of the story, just one element in it. She lets the story do the work, and she let's the character's tell the tale. She allows the characters to be real people not just the stereotypes that so often are found in films dealing with this subject matter.
Jodie Foster's only directed two films since this one ("Home For The Holidays"-1995 & "Flora Plum"-2005), and I've seen "Home For The Holidays" which I also feel was very well done. It seems that Ms. Foster is being very careful in picking her projects, much like the late Stanley Kubrick did. I only hope her unique talents are recognized and she's given more green lights for future projects.