Q: A low point in human interaction was reached by the Maysles Brothers with this film. Do remember, you who used words like "masterpiece"when reviewing this film, that these Maysles creeps didn't just happen to drive to the Hamptons and happen to shoot film on some eccentric people. No, when they found these two poor pathetic people they then had to finance their project (and imagine what they told the money people to sell the project). Then they befriended the two extremely vulnerable women. No meeting of minds here or real consensual participation. These wretched Maysles smiled, kissed ass, did whatever they had to to get the Beales to cooperate and then exploited them as viciously as has ever been done. One would like to think that these hustlers had occasional thoughts of remorse and guilt. But the film-making process, given the preplanning, actual shooting and then editing took a lot of time and their goal had no provisions for actually relating to the Beales as human beings. An exploitation film perpetrated by the vilest of people. As time accrued their film-making reputation has been seriously stained by what they did here. Their reputation as human beings is execrable. That is what people will remember them as. Grotesque hustlers. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: 1st watched 8/29/2009 - 7 out of 10 (Dir-Sidney Franklin): Well told account of farmers in China and their rise to prominence and struggles with what Mother nature throws at them. This movie is based on an award winning novel and chronicles a family starting with the son's arranged marriage to a slave girl. The movie does a good job of keeping your interest despite a somewhat hammy performance by the lead played by Paul Muni. It chronicles , Wong Long(the character played by Muni) and how he works the land, buys more land, eventually becomes very rich but then returns to the land where he originally started. The relationship between him and his wife, played by Luise Rainer, is the main thread of the story(besides the land itself) and despite the obvious non-Chinese actors it does a pretty good job of displaying the country and it's people. It's obvious that MGM used it's money to create a really good epic with this one in an era where they could probably afford it. The scene with the locusts is done exceedingly well and the rest of th movie really looks good warranting the Best Cinematography award at the Oscars in that year. The definitive definition of an epic is what this story is and it's pulled off pretty well. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.

The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.

All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.

FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I thought the movie was actually pretty good. I enjoyed the acting and it moved along well. The director seemed to really grasp the story he was trying to tell. I have to see the big budget one coming out today, obviously they had a lot more money to throw at it but was very watchable. When you see a movie like this for a small budget you have to take that in to account when you are viewing it. There were some things that could of been better but most are budget related. The acting was pretty good the F/X and stunts were well done. A couple of standouts were the guy who played the camera asst. and the boy who played the child. These kind of films have kept LA working and this is one that turned out OK. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive