Q: you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.

Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Don't mistake "War Inc." for a sharply chiseled satire or a brainy comedy full of inside jokes for news buffs. It isn't.

This is an old-fashioned screwball comedy, with ridiculously coincidental plot twists, stock characters (given some depth in fun performances by John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff) and a straightforward approach to the political content.

You see, the filmmakers' political points are things nearly all of the country already knows are true. Yeah, we understand that the corporations profiting off the war are corrupt, inept pigs, the political leaders in charge of it are even more inept buffoons, and American imperialism has never looked crasser and more out of touch than it does right now -- but none of that is the point.

Here, all of that noise is the setting that they lampoon -- sometimes in genius ways -- as the backdrop for a silly romp, as John Cusack's character (the hit-man with a heart) tries to change his life with the help of the do-gooder journalist who doesn't trust him (Tomei) and the young Middle Eastern starlet who wants to call off her marriage (Duff). Cusack's sister, Joan, plays his assistant with an almost cartoonishly enthusiastic quality. Ben Kingsley seemed to me wasted in his smaller part as a ruthless CIA boss.

That's all, and it works. It's simple fun, but if somehow you can't see reality and you think the war is going well and everyone involved with it is doing a good job and there's no corruption and people in the Middle East wish our Western culture would supplant theirs, then you might not find it as funny.

For all the rest of us, it was a light comedy with a political edge. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Steven Speilberg's adaptation of Alice Walkers popular novel is not without its share of controversy. When first released members of the black community criticised its treatment of black men, while others questioned why a white man was directing this film about black women.

This is the story of a young black woman named Celie, growing up in rural America after the turn of the century. She has two children by her abusive father which are snatched from her arms at birth. Her only solace in her miserable life comes from her sister.

Celie (played in later years by newcomer Whoopie Goldberg) is married off to an abusive husband (Danny Glover). The husband is humiliated by the sister and so she is quickly removed from Celie's life.

The story is often heartbreaking as Celie keeps up hope that she may one day be reunited with her sister and with her children. Throughout her life she meets an assortment of characters, including Sophia, a tough as nails wife to her step son, and Shug, a loud and luscious saloon singer, who teaches her a thing or two about love.

Speilberg's direction is all over this picture, which offers brilliant cinematography and some stellar performances. I dare you to watch this film and not be moved! The film The Color Purple manages to capture the essence of what is a complicated story. While it tends to minimise the lesbian aspects as well as the African story, both of which were so vivid in the book, the movie remains true to its themes, allowing the voice of Alice Walker to shine through.

I couldn't begin to respond to the controversy that surrounded this film. Suffice it to say, however, this is one of the few films that I can watch again and again, and which has left an indelible mark on me.

OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Recently, I saw the documentary "The revolution will not be televised", also know as "Chavez: inside the coup". At first I thought it showed a genuine inside view of events during the Venezuela coup of April 2002. What bothered me though was the fact that the tone of the narration and the accompanying music were suggestive, and that at no point any criticism was expressed about Hugo Chavez. This is peculiar because if a documentary is giving an non-biased account of what happened, there should have been some of that too. After all, Chavez certainly is not a saint. Fortunately, since the documentary is several years old, a lot of additional information is available on the internet nowadays, and it was not difficult to find for instance "Urgent Investigation about Chavez-the coup by the 5 European TV Corporations who financed the film which presents blatant falsehoods about Venezuela." It lists the many errors and intended or unintended falsifications in the documentary. (Just use the title as a search string in Google, you will find it). Another interesting document was the video registration of a presentation of the findings of the many errors in this documentary, "X-ray of a lie". To me it seems to be a good counterweight to "Chavez: inside the coup" It's available at video.google. I strongly advice you after watching "Chavez: inside the coup" to look at "X-ray of a lie" and then form your opinion. My conclusion is that Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Brian were (knowingly or not) part in Chavez-propaganda. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative