input: There really isn't much to say about this movie....it's crude, but fun.

Plot outline (From IMDB)

_____________________________________

Two losers from Milwaukee, Coop & Remer (Parker & Stone), invent a new game playing basketball, using baseball rules. When the game becomes a huge success, they, along with a billionaire's help, form the Professional Baseketball League where everyone gets the same pay and no team can change cities. Coop & Remer's team, the Milwaukee Beers is the only team standing in the way of major rule changes that the owner of the Dallas Felons (Vaughn) wants to institute.

_____________________________________

The Acting is pretty good, since there arn't many big stars in this movie. Although I am not a big fan of 'Southpark', Parker and Stone do a pretty good job in their first real movie.

There are so many funny moments in this movie I can't come close to naming them all. It never really lets up, and they don't try to put some cruddy drama in to make it more serious.

And my favorite aspect of this movie: The Soundtrack. It's GREAT. I especially like "Take me on" and "Beer" by Reel Big Fish. Very underrated.

Overall, a crude, but extremely funny, movie. 10/10

James "Black Wolf" Johnston

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I viewed the movie together with a homophobic friend, my wife and her female friend. So I had views from all kinds of directions. Mainly, the film made me laugh, the sexual tension was not really there and the only noticeable actors were Tudor Chirila and Maria Popistasu. Yes, I do think she played her role well, even if the script was not appropriate. There were good Romanian actors around, they just didn't have complex roles. I applaud Puya's entering the movie business. I don't know why, but I think he's a good guy, I just hope he'll be a good actor.

The wife loved the movie, though, and I think there might have been chords being played and to which I had no ear for. If the film tried to present uncommon sexual behaviors and their consequences in todays Romania, then it failed miserably. There were no consequences. Just imagine that the girls are actually a boy and a girl, and the same story becomes just a boring, uninteresting plot.

I have no idea why it got all those BAFTA awards. In my book, it should have gotten the "Better luck next time" award. (bafta=good luck in Romanian).

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This "documentary" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.

There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge.

The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chavez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that "empty" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the "coup", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said "'cause they weren't there to act against the president", isn't that a confession?

There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chavez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because "that's politics" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chavez' administration.

It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this "documentary", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chavez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.

I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.

Nazi propaganda has returned!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative