Q: This star-studded British/Spanish co-production looks great, what you can see of it. I have three versions, two VHS, one DVD, and all are terribly cropped, so badly that it looks as if buildings are having conversations with each other. Few films suffer as badly from pan and scan as this one, as director Robert Parrish seems to have been so enamored with the widescreen process that he tended to use both sides of the screen at once, neglecting the middle. Another user comments that we see the entire inhabitants of a church massacred at the beginning; not in any of the copies I have. There are some abrupt cuts of peasants firing their rifles, one Mexican officer is shot, Shaw and Landau celebrating, and that's it. We never find out why Shaw has become a priest (if he really is), we never find out what happens to Don Carlos (Savalas) although I suspect he was called home to star in Kojak, as his departure seems arbitrary. And there is a strange flashback sequence where Michael Craig (Mysterious Island) is dancing around in a bowler hat and bad suit in the great old English music hall tradition to the 1960 hit BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, not sung by Johnny Horton here but with some lyrics I've never heard before. On the plus side, the location is great, a huge old ruined fortress with Escher-style stairs leading nowhere, some nice scenery-chewing by Robert Shaw, and good performances by Stevens, Landau, Lettieri, and Telly Savalas as Telly Savalas. I didn't really like this film, but I haven't exactly seen it. I will seek the widescreen version and make my decision then.
A: negative
Q: Someone has already mentioned "being at the right time at the right place" It was so true for this documentary that i had doubts about the genuineness of the scenes and thought it included perhaps some acting but it is not. It is all real. The story is nothing new for the people of the developing and/or poor countries. It sheds light on the manipulation of the people by corporate media, the misinformation, the artificial polarization of the people by deliberately creating tension on the streets, sometimes to the point that the army, intelligence agency or even the government(many believe,led by the US) uses agents who attack "any" side to provoke the masses into violence and therefore justifying their coups. A marine officer in the film mentions this also. That they wanted to see the peoples confront on the streets. All of these scenarios have been played in Turkey(USA's pet dog in the middle east) throughout its history who has experienced 3 coups and lately, secret plans made by the Turkish army have been exposed, ironically through a pro-government religious/conservative media opposing the a-religious doctrines of the army, in which a very important mosque is bombed by an army agent to provoke the people etc.

What makes this film unique is that they were filming from inside, perhaps by chance, when the events have happened. It is clear that the directors are pro Chavez. Whether or not this caused the directors to filter and manipulate the events and the information, I would not know.

And whether Chavez will be defending the people of Venezuela against the dictatorship of US and the global economy without repressing any opposing thought with force and in the end becoming a self-indulgent tyrant, history will tell.

But at least Chavez is hope and I believe it is worth taking the chance.
A: positive
Q: Hollywood North is a satirical look at the time in Canadian film history when the Canadian government offered huge tax breaks for films made in Canada. Most of the time it was treated as a tax shelter or a cheap way to get American films made. For example, Porky's came out of it. Anyways Matthew Modine plays a novice producer who wants to make an adaptation of a beloved Canadian novel. However, in order to get the money he needs a American name star. He gets a loose cannon and learns he has to compromise to the point where the film no longer resembles the book it was originally based on. It plays well in Canada but may not be understood outside of the Great White North. Americans will think we're satirizing ourselves but will miss the point that we're actually satirizing them. For Canadians 8/10 for the rest of the world 5/10.
A: positive
Q: Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.

But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.

Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).

Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.

The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.
A: positive