I, A Man is Morrissey and Warhol's commercial take on the Swedish [film] I, A Woman. Somebody suggested to Warhol that they wanted a sexploitation film in the vein of I, A Woman, and so he and Morrissey concocted I, A Man. They created the story of this male hustler who talks with and sleeps with a series of women over the course of the film. The women are: a young woman who worries about parental acceptance of her sexuality, a woman who is on a couch, a woman with whom he does a seance, a woman who speaks French, a lesbian, and a married woman. Almost of these scenes seem to be totally improvised and just so bored. Except, the most interesting part about I, A Man is also the most interesting scene of I, A Man. The second to last woman of the movie is Valerie Solanas, who would eventually shoot Warhol […]. (cont. http://theotherfilms.blogspot.de/2013/11/i-man-1967-women-and-sex.html)
I, A Man is Morrissey and Warhol's commercial take on the Swedish [film] I, A Woman. Somebody suggested to Warhol that they wanted a sexploitation film in the vein of I, A Woman, and so he and Morrissey concocted I, A Man. They created the story of this male hustler who talks with and sleeps with a series of women over the course of the film. The women are: a young woman who worries about parental acceptance of her sexuality, a woman who is on a couch, a woman with whom he does a seance, a woman who speaks French, a lesbian, and a married woman. Almost of these scenes seem to be totally improvised and just so bored. Except, the most interesting part about I, A Man is also the most interesting scene of I, A Man. The second to last woman of the movie is Valerie Solanas, who would eventually shoot Warhol […]. (cont. http://theotherfilms.blogspot.de/2013/11/i-man-1967-women-and-sex.html) . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Kristi P (us) wrote: This movie was much more than I expected. It is action packed, fast paced, and has edge of your seat tension. It also delivers some incredible examples of the human condition, fear, selfishness, mob mentality, and finally, love and sacrifice.The characters are engaging and well acted. You definitely have people to root for, whether to survive or die a horrible death varies. The effects were well done. Complain all you want about fast zombies, these were creepy as hell. They also went a direction I've never seen before regarding their behavior. (i.e. in the tunnels & paper on the window)The claustrophobic isolation of it taking place mostly on a train was well presented. Overall, I can't recommend this movie enough, though I will warn that if you are prone to cry at movies, you should probably make sure you have Kleenex.
Priti P (it) wrote: This movie is a crossover between 'Zinda' and 'Slumdog Millionaire' but without the star cast (Sanjay, John, Lara) of the former and the director of the latter (Danny Boyle). The makers have tried to convey a social message in the shroud of a thriller but both of them fail to make any impact. Object of the movie becomes clear only towards the end. By that time you happen to loose all interest!Paresh Rawal is an acting stalwart and he dons his hat good enough. Surprisingly, though Rajeev made great impact in his debut movie (Aamir), he is just average in this one. He needs to work a lot on his timing and camera shyness. Tina on the other hand seems to have worked hard in all the departments, but still lacks the X factor. Maybe she will achieve that in time. There is a sense of continuity in all her scenes and she deserves to be applauded for the same. Dhruv has acted very well. Such movies give you the clear idea that small budget multiplex movies by Rajat Kapoor, Ranvir Shorey, Konkona Sen Sharma, Vinay Pathak etc. were hit not just by chance or due to them being in new format, but only and only because of the aforesaid actors. Social messages may differ in different movies, but it all boils down to the condemnation of exploitation and stripping one of his/her dignity without leaving any route of escape! Rightful and dignified existence is everyone's birth right and we should be very much instrumental in availing the same for ourselves as well as others. And this implementation should start from home. Any prolonged scenario of injustice is bound to create havoc later and affect multiple lives. So why not curb it in the initial stage itself?
Adrian B (au) wrote: Excellent cinematography and film location in this average war drama. Ray Winstone is as excellent as ever, worth a watch but don't expect too much.
jason a (ag) wrote: Definitly the third best but its still really good
Greg W (us) wrote: another f-in' lost review flixter-such clowns!
Nick A (fr) wrote: one of the dullest, worst movies I've ever seen. For a "comedy"/drama, it didn't muster up a half a chuckle from me.
007 W (au) wrote: To be honest very great and as good as the 1st 2 films
Thomas B (br) wrote: This is how I like my action movies! Watch it for the pace, the atmosphere, the coreography, and the stunning stunts. 80 minutes of short story & very cool fun.
Peter A (ca) wrote: "Gods and Generals" - more like "God, This Is Generally Awful." So many things wrong with this movie, most notably the script and the acting: two areas of primary responsibility for writer/director Ronald F. Maxwell. I'm certain the acting could've been salvaged. Talents like Duall, Lang and Daniels just don't give sub-par performances at the same time. Though I will say Robert Duvall, during those few times he's on-screen, does do as decent a job as we expect from Duvall. No, I don't think any actor could make gold out of this terrible script. Very few of the characters actually talk to each other. Instead, most of the time, they're speeching at each other, with one person delivering a soliloquy after the other, and all in this god-awful dialogue that sounds like it was based only on readings of Civil War letters from Ken Burns documentaries. Most of it comes from Stephen Lang, who got the lead as Stonewall Jackson. He's a decent actor in general, but in Gods and Generals, all we hear through the majority of the movie is Lang as the dour, uninteresting, Bible-thumping version of his bad guy in Avatar, but who also likes to play with little girls (yes, there's an obvious, oh so obvious, metaphor around the girl, her inevitable death, and Jackson's sobbing response). But back to the dialogue, in this universe, Jackson would wake up in the morning and address his breakfast as such: "Today, before Gawd, I spread the butter of Liberty over the toast of Freedom, then I will drink my coffee of Justice in order to free myself from the tyranny of Sleep." It sucks like that, and for 3 and a half hours! 3.5 hours of people making ridiculous speeches at each other and making declarations of prayers, interspersed by generic battle scenes that don't depict much more than adults playing Pretend Time. There is very little to distinguish the battlefields or the two sides from each other. The one major clue, according to this movie, is if soldiers are fleeing in defeat, they're from the North. There's nothing to connect us to the battles beyond our how we already feel about the Northern and Southern armies. Few, if any, of the characters are meaningful enough to warrant any sort of dramatic feeling towards their fate in the battles. The movie, however, obviously wants to engender sympathy for the Confederates. That's not surprising considering Ted Turner bankrolled (and had a cameo in) the movie. We all know how he likes to colorize history. And if the movie wants to slant history to a certain viewpoint, I accept that. It happens. But what's embarrassing about Gods and Generals is how it almost entirely erases slavery as a key component of the war or at least for fueling hostilities between the two sides. By my estimate, there are only like 4 or 5 black actors who have any lines or significant screen time. Of them, only one makes reference to being born a slave. The others aren't referred to as slaves by name, but are treated as blacks who are pleased as punch for the opportunity to work for nice white people without being paid....or freedom. There are two scenes where Jackson and a woman both speech with black servant-like characters. The black characters are proud to fulfill their duties to the white characters, and the white characters get to appear magnanimous in their attitudes towards blacks. The only time slavery is addressed as a significant issue in the conflict is during a speech by Jeff Daniels in the latter third of the film as he expresses a desire for all men to be free. The moment comes and goes so independently of the rest of the action, it's almost like it was thrown in just to avoid major controversy, like the filmmakers were ready with a defense of, "see? We included slavery." I went into Gods and Generals eager for a decent Civil War movie, but this is a train wreck as epic as the movie's scope. Unless you're a big Civil War buff with a 150 year old chip on your shoulder because the South lost, don't waste your time on this movie. It's full of a lot noise, signifying little.
Johnny R (ag) wrote: Alien Resurrection is proof that the Alien series is not trying to improve ever since Alien 3, however; there are still elements that make it somewhat interesting including some of the effects and the performances by Weaver and Ryder
Salvia W (br) wrote: The movie is good but the plot is a bit light.
Wes S (nl) wrote: More or less of the same, with the typically played out story and the average array of characters. A lack of death scenes, and an overall unoriginal and abandon ending. While it honestly is a neat concept in continuing the series, I would have preferred for it to stop at the third film.
Michael Alexander F (nl) wrote: Brilliant. How to start a war.
Mat H (ag) wrote: incredibly interesting.hmm . . . "Michael wants a ride"
Jocey D (nl) wrote: Sad twisted love story. Beautiful portrayals by Annette Benning and Ed Harris.