Q: What a good movie! At last a picture revealing a unknown side of rock: illusions of fame. Well-known Rockers are getting old and forgotten, not the music. And with a good sense of humour. Have you ever danced on Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock?

Anyway, Still Crazy is probably the best movie about rock n'roll I have ever seen. Far much better than Spinal Tap for instance. Why? Because in Still Crazy, people are mature. They have a different point of view about rock, about love and about life. They want to catch up with their crazy youth they miss so much. Beyond the story itself, we see characters with their own personality, weaknesses and dreams. Like anyone of us.

Spend a good time watching this (listen to the awesome soundtrack! )and finally thinking of your own future.

Bye! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this "movie" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.

This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux "24" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.

Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: This was director von Stroheim's third effort - it is quite crude and shows none of the exceptional flair for the camera and editing mastery he would display a few years later with his masterworks, GREED and THE WEDDING MARCH. Essentially we have a trio of grifters, masquerading as a Russian count and two Russian princesses who have rented a villa in Monte Carlo. Their aim is to use counterfeit money at the gambling tables and win a fortune. Part of that plan is for the Count (von Stroheim) to insinuate himself between a visiting American ambassador and his "foolish" wife, wooing her and hoping to gain some money by playing on her weaknesses. He makes the mistake of also taking the life savings of the maid, whom he has promised to marry. When she sees them together, she sets fire to the room, (von Stroheim and his prey are on the room's balcony). Here von Stroheim first establishes his persona as "the man you love to hate." He is thoroughly bad and his character flaws eventually bring him to a very bad and deserved end. The film is crude in its cinematography and editing and not worth seeing unless you are fascinated by the director. There is a cute bit- when he first attempts to meet the Ambassador's wife, she is reading a book - we see the title - FOOLISH WIVES by Erich von Stroheim. This was originally envisioned as a 210 minute film, cut down to 140 minutes by the studio and finally released at 70 minutes. The restoration on Kino Video restores surviving footage (damaged in some way in most scenes) from the alternate earlier version to give us a 107 minute print. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I rented this movie about 3 years ago, and it still stands out in my mind as the worst movie ever made. I don't think I ever finished it. It is worse than a home video made by a high school student. I remember them doing a flashback to 1970 something and in the flashback there was a man with a polo shirt, oakley sunglasses and a newer SUV, like a Toyota Rav-4 or something (I don't remember). I don't understand how they could have possibly said that to be in the 70s. He might have had a cell phone too, I cant remember, It was just horrible. I returned it to the video store and asked them why they even carry the movie and if I could get the hour of my life back. To this day it is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen some pretty bad ones. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative