All My Sons tells the story of Joe Keller, a successful, middle-aged, self-made man who has done a terrible and tragic thing: during World War II, rushing to meet an order from the Army, he knowingly sold them defective airplane parts which later caused the planes to crash and killed 21 men. He framed his business partner for this crime and engineered his own exoneration; now, his son is about to marry the partner's daughter, the affair is revisited, and his lie of a life is unraveled. Joe has spent his entire life in the single-minded pursuit of wealth for the sake of his family, an American Dream gone nightmarishly awry; this is a story about responsibility: Joe and his generation must understand that the boys he killed--all the boys in the War--were his sons, too.
All My Sons tells the story of Joe Keller, a successful, middle-aged, self-made man who has done a terrible and tragic thing. He framed his business partner for a crime and engineered his ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Mike M (es) wrote: Something of Catherine Breillat in this frank French coming-of-age tale, although debutant writer-director Quillevere comes over as the inverse of her senior colleague: here, the characters come first, and any thesis on female sexuality must follow from that... A very promising debut for both the writer-director and her leading actress: Augarde's Anna, neither the vamp nor patsy Breillat's young female victims tend to be, emerges as wilful, yearning, vulnerable and defiant. A real young girl, indeed.
JE A (nl) wrote: One wants to believe this is a one-sided doco bc one can't believe our schools are just that f*cking awful.
Gina W (fr) wrote: Today I watched Fish Tank, a story about an angry teenager at war with the world. Sometimes it's raw and it can be hard to decide who is the hero and who the villain, but it's a great movie. It was awarded a jury prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 2010. Would recommend.
Jordi M (ca) wrote: Preety Woman meets gay Oldboy
Rich B (jp) wrote: Whole New Thing (2006): "Yeah, but son, too much laundry is bad for the environment." - Roger Home-schooled by Hippie parents (who are suffering a gradual, painful implosion), 13-year old Emerson is remarkably well-equipped for the rigors of a middle school society in Canada, but when he develops a crush on his English teacher, the cool, machine-like logic of Emerson's brain finally meets its match. There's this refreshing directness and purpose to Emerson while the adults in his life are such a mess. It's more than just an unusual story, it's genuinely whacked.
Jordan G (br) wrote: I gotta say, this movie was very good! The kids acted really well, and it had a really surprising ending!
James M (jp) wrote: The Pink Panther movies really should have died with Peter Sellers. Roberto Benigni is irritating and the material simply isn't funny.
Juli N (de) wrote: Tony Todd is the ONLY reason to see this film!
Diego T (mx) wrote: Delicatessen is easily one of the strangest films I've ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's very good. Just being weird does not make a movie spectacular. This is a very artsy, stylish film that may entertain while you watch it, but is really too derivative of other deliberately strange films to be any good when you think back to it. It wants to be a homage to truly amazing and surreal cinema, like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, but it comes off as being more of a full-on rip-off than anything else. It's good for some incredulous laughter, but not much else. Delicatessen is a French film about a dystopian future in which food is scarce and society is divided between low-life vegetarians and cannibalistic surface-dwellers. A butcher who specializes in human meat runs a... well... a delicatessen, and also has an apartment complex above his business. He uses the people who stay in his building as farm-fresh food for himself and the others. This is actually a really high concept that is unfortunately thwarted by an overall feel of needless indulgence. The movie just tries way too hard to be a cult film, and that is something I cannot stand. Cult films are not pumped out by studios, they are picked by audiences after a few years of watching them. The creators of The Big Lebowski, In Bruges, and The Rocky Horror Picture Show weren't trying to create cult hits; they just did so inadvertently. To try and mass-produce something as intangible and entertaining as a cult film is just fucking wrongheaded as fuck. Delicatessen does have its fair share of high points though, the biggest being the style. The film's sepia tones and elaborate set design make it one of the most visually arresting movies I've ever seen. It's just a beautiful movie to watch, even if the subject matter is unsubstantial. The set is just a mind-blowing array of disgusting visuals and seriously awesome camera angles. It is literally a feast for the eyes. Your hunger for a complete Plotline may not be sated by the end of it, but you'll definitely have fun with the awesomely decadent eye candy. Seeing as Delicatessen is (of course) in French, it is hard for me to judge the acting. But I will say that the subtitles were error-free! So... that's something. But really, people could have been doing anything during this film and I wouldn't have known better. Their facial expressions were good, and their body language was suitably over-the-top for a movie of this sort, but they could have been putting the emphasis on the wrong syllables or screwing up their lines throughout the entire film and no American would have been the wiser. But from what I could tell, I was particularly impressed by three performances: The butcher is first and foremost, as he definitely conveys the madness and desperation that one would have in a situation like his. The main character, a former clown who takes up residence in the building, is a seemingly good actor, but I found his ridiculous forehead somewhat distracting. But the butcher's daughter (and the clown's girlfriend) was damn good. She played the klutzy, shy, yet very principled love interest very well. Even if we've seen that character a thousand times... you know, the cannibal's daughter who objects to her father's insane practice as he slaughters the people in his apartment complex? It's a story as old as time. The dialogue is inspired and very funny, and the whole thing is very quotable. Even though it sometimes sets itself up for certain scenes just for the sake of being weird, I can hardly fault it for wanting to include so many off-the-wall and great ideas. One scene, in which the butcher's daughter is trying to go on a date without her glasses, actually had me laughing out loud. This is quite a feat, especially when you consider the fact that I sat stone-faced through Shaun of the Dead. But really, the dialogue in Delicatessen is fucking inspired. I just wish that it was built around a movie that didn't seem to try so fucking hard. It gave me the feeling that the creators had no new ideas, and decided to just try to be as weird as Terry Gilliam's films because there was nothing new to do. It felt like a cop-out, and that lowered the score considerably. Final Score for Delicatessen: 6/10 stars. It's funny, witty, and very well-scripted, but I couldn't shake the feeling that the movie's quirkiness felt a little too manufactured. This is definitely a movie worth watching for people going into set design, but it's really just a little too gleefully random to satisfy my taste. It pulls no punches in its weirdness though, which should entertain those who haven't seen the movies it's trying to be-- it throws together tropes and idioms from every genre and bundles them all up in a strange, technicolor nightmare that (although not too original) is still very entertaining. And really, that's all it wanted to do. I doubt that Delicatessen is supposed to be a masterpiece, but black comedies always get good marks from me. And this is the darkest of comedies.
MT P (es) wrote: It's for four-year-olds, but it's trash. If you want your kids to grow up smart, don't have them watch shows like this. They need to be introduced to quality and to not think awful movies like this are the norm. Keep your kids away from this one.
Scotty P (es) wrote: Now I see why they call it the dark side of Woodstock
Edith N (jp) wrote: With Random Maurice Chevalier Action! Now, Disney has adapted Jules Verne elsewhere. I indicate to you, with some delight, their version of [i]20,000 Leagues Under the Sea[/i]. (I have just read an explanation that, while even in French leagues the title indicated twice around the Earth, it actually in the original French means around the Earth, not under the sea.) You can't beat James Mason and his delicate malice. Lord knows they don't get anywhere near that here, though George Sanders has been good villains elsewhere--we've seen in him [i]The Ghost and Mrs. Muir[/i], [i]All About Eve[/i], and [i]The Jungle Book[/i]. (Disney does like its recurring casts!) And I must here confess that I've never actually read any Verne, though obviously I ought to. So I don't know; maybe it's that the book here just isn't very good. It wouldn't be the first time that an otherwise-great author wrote a real turkey; I could list for a while, if you'd like. However, for whatever reason, this movie is simply dreadful. Remember that I generally like live-action Disney stuff from this era, but sometimes, even an otherwise-great studio produces a real turkey. Captain Grant (Jack Gwillim) is missing and presumed dead. His daughter, Mary (Disney's favourite, Hayley Mills), along with her brother, Robert (Keith Hamshere), and inexplicable French navigator Jacques Paganel (the abovementioned Chevalier) sneak onto Lord Glenarvan's (Wilfrid Hyde-White) ship to get him to sail them to wherever it is their father is. They've received a letter in a bottle from him, you see, and while it does include a line of latitude, so what if it doesn't include longitude? They set off for great adventures along with Glenarvan's son, John (Michael Anderson, Jr.), who is of course falling for Hayley Mills. They end up visiting all sorts of places they don't need to be and experiencing totally ridiculous adventures, badly projected behind them. Through it all, Maurice Chevalier sings cheerful songs, songs which are totally out of place to what's happening around them. And I don't just mean it's because songs at random moments are a Disney thing. Even by Disney standards, these make no sense. And boy, are those adventures made of bad special effects. And totally improbable to boot. Now, I grew up in a very seismologically active region. Technically, I still live in one, but we get a lot more earthquakes back home. What's more, the mountain range I grew up seeing every day is the most unstable one in the world--it's falling faster than it's being built up. However, the basic outline of the hills remains the same from year to year. There's a notch in the mountains that used to be where I set my eyes if I was facing north and standing at attention for marching band in junior high. That notch was still there when I was home last, and I expect it to still be there for a very long time. However, if earthquakes back home happened the way earthquakes in the movie happen, it would have been gone between sixth and seventh grade. Whole huge chunks of mountain fall down, and Our Heroes slide on these chunks through ice caves (which don't collapse even when a chunk of mountain the size of a large office building falls away), and one of them is flown away by a giant condor, no less. This really is awful. Hayley Mills does what she can, but there's not much to be done with what she has here. Maurice Chevalier swans about acting like Maurice Chevalier--it was his shtick and he was sticking to it. There's a delightful Crazy Old Man played by Wilfrid Brambell--beloved of Beatles fans everywhere, though he's not at all clean here--but he seems rather tacked on, and it does kind of start to wear thin; thanks Gods he's only in about the last fifteen minutes. (Though I have to admit that I missed such things as his character's introduction, as the library's copy stuck horribly in the middle, causing me to miss about five minutes of story. I don't regret the loss.) From what I understand, the love interest for Hayley Mills was actually tacked on by Disney, and in the book, Lord Glenarvan had in fact brought his wife, not his son, along for the expedition. I don't think I can say enough in my attempt to dissuade you from watching the film. I must admit that there's a certain amount to be said for it on an ironic level--I found parts of it hilarious, such as the time they spend trapped in the tree during a completely inexplicable flood. Especially the part of that where Maurice Chevalier, honest to Gods, builds a cooking fire on one of the branches. (Later, of course, they are almost burned out of the tree when a lightning strike hits it and catches it on fire. Naturally.) It quickly wears thin, though. It seems as though Our Heroes are being pursued by an angry god, Odysseus-fashion, because not only do they start out on the wrong continent completely, but they end up in all sorts of completely improbable disasters on it before getting to the right continent and becoming entangled with gun-runners. So while the story of Odysseus is fascinating, this one is simply horrible. Part of it is that Homer was a better writer than whoever scripted this turkey. However part of it is that what happens to Odysseus is far more believable.
Hossein N (us) wrote: June 2010 - I find it hard to imagine any better family drama, any movie that can show the clash of different generations in a family and in the context of modernization so honestly and effectively. The character of Noriko is so fantastically played by Setsuko Hara (as in all the Ozu movies of this period) and describes the mentality of women of her generation. Her older brother and his wife on the other hand show a different mind set of the same generation. Then we have the grand parents who are also in their silences and unique way of mourning for their killed son exemplary for people of their own generation. Finally we have the naughty and rebellious kids who are phenomenal and bring so much to the movie by adding humor and showing what the society should expect in the next generation.
Jc E (it) wrote: What would have been a beautiful sic fiction movie with a solid cast the likes of Antonio Bandareras if the story was more cohesive and less artsy. Unfortunately the film didn't reach its potential after a promising start. If only the robots been less passive and manage to break the protocol in the face of violent nasty humans, it would have been a far more satisfying ending.
Amy H (nl) wrote: Quite a good story line and acting isn't so bad. Worth a watch
Sui G (fr) wrote: So cute! So fun to watch! The ending was great, too.