ONE BRIGHT SHINING MOMENT retraces George McGovern's bold presidential campaign of 1972 - a grassroots campaign that fought for peace and justice, and positioned ideas and people first. But what is remembered today as being the ultimate political defeat of the American Century may also have been its high watermark. The film poses this central question: what does the crushing electoral defeat of a man so well respected for his decency and intellect say about the electoral process, the American government, and more importantly, what does it say about the forces at work on the American people- then and now? Featuring interviews with the candidate himself, supporters and activists like Gore Vidal, Gloria Steinem, Warren Beatty, Howard Zinn, and music from Bob Dylan, Robbie Robertson, Donovan, and Elvis Costello.
ONE BRIGHT SHINING MOMENT retraces George McGovern's bold presidential campaign of 1972 - a grassroots campaign that fought for peace and justice, and positioned ideas and people first. But... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Jared N (ca) wrote: Creepy and well executed, but not that revealing.
Juan S (gb) wrote: I really love this movie
Darren N (au) wrote: Despite the precocious kids, the storyline and drama never rise above mediocrity.
Adam A (kr) wrote: "SAW V" tries for the first time to play it smart in every twist through every corner, but fails by taking the easy way out, as always. Its traps are still more thought out than the story.
Daniel T (ru) wrote: A Hong Kong classic. Surrealist humor for kids that's also a love letter to growing up in Hong Kong. A lot gets lost in translation I found trying to watch it with a Spanish friend of mine.
Mardi M (fr) wrote: This is the biggest budget West Aussie film ever (even if the budget was only $2 mill), and if it does well in the us, and rest of the world (and in Aus to obviously) the West Aussie film industry is really expected to pick up so everyone go watch Crush at the cinemas!!plus I'm an extra in the twae kwan do scenes (well the ones in Australia anyway!)
Mareen K (es) wrote: Wonderful, sweet movie about love, intimacy, awakenings. Set in the nicest place imaginable where people accept each other unquestioningly. I like how the movie keeps surprising you because you wait for the intolerance, for the mean words, the rejection, everything you are used to and everything you expect from a movie like that set in a place like that. And it never comes, and it makes you long for that place. This might be one of the very few films where I liked every single character. And no, that does not make it boring.
Michael P (au) wrote: A couple of good twists. When it transmogrified into a, "I still love you after I made you bang my friend for money" kind of story, it became stupid and tepid.
J K (ag) wrote: Oh yes, this film served as a valuable audition for Whoopi for her present gig on The View. What better way to deal with a room full of squaking idiots than dealing for 2.5 hours with a squaking idiot dinosaur? Whoopi was born for this role!
Professor W (nl) wrote: Summary: A fat, socially awkward, good-at-science kid and his story of getting the girl of his dreams to at the very least, notice him. Sounds typical, right? Well this one is good. The Good: The characters, Angus in particular, is actually interesting and someone you can actually care about. I also liked how the pushed the idea that no one is normal, and I love some of the things that Angus says. Very witty. Good soundtrack too. The Bad: It kind of follows the same formula for these type of movies but I feel that this one is different in a way. Ratings: Acting: 9/10 Story: 6/10 Originality: 6/10 Soundtrack: 9/10 Characters: 9/10 Overall: 8/10
Lori O (gb) wrote: Stockard Channing was great in this role.
The Critic (fr) wrote: One of many Hammer horror films of the era with Christopher Lee once again in the title role. And whilst 'Scars of Dracula' may not produce anything we haven't seen before, it is notable for some remarkable make-up effects and utilising the time old good versus evil scenario as its central theme. Here, the virtuous sacrifice themselves or are rewarded with redemption if not survival. The lovely Jenny Hanley, resembling the Virgin Mary when wearing her hooded cape as Sarah, is the cause of conflict. Brothers Simon (Dennis Waterman) and Paul (Christopher Matthews) engage in a healthy competition to win her affections, but it's not until Count Dracula steps in that our damsel in distress brings out the best in those around her; servant Klove (Patrick Troughton) is compelled to betray his vampiric master to keep the blonde beauty safe. It's an interesting film to dissect and look into, but most will simply see this as just another blood and gore romp for horror buffs to sink their teeth into.
chase (mx) wrote: probably the best adaptation of a Roth novel(la), which isn't an easy thing to accomplish. it is, of course a watered down version of the story missing a lot of the nuances of Roth's superb writing- but is entertaining throughout. The dramatic impact of the end is far less effective on screen though.
Edith N (ru) wrote: I Can See Why They Stopped Harpo didn't mention it in his autobiography. Groucho didn't mention it in his first one and generally considered [i]A Night in Casablanca[/i] to be the brothers' last film. I don't know what Chico thought. But this movie, originally intended to be a solo project for Harpo, was cobbled together as a project for all three, because the money people said it had to be all three if they wanted it made. (The money people, bizarrely, included Mary Pickford.) Harpo and Chico have several scenes together, but it almost feels as though the brothers were just tired of one another, because Harpo only has a scene or two with Groucho, and Groucho and Chico never appear onscreen together at all. In fact, Groucho doesn't get much time onscreen even alone, and Marilyn Monroe, who only has something like two lines, has almost as much. But of course, she's on the cover, because she's Marilyn Monroe. Detective Sam Grunion (Groucho, with one of his least-funny character names) is Our Narrator, telling us the story of the Romanoff diamonds. Throckmorton (Melville Cooper), who runs a high-end food emporium, has had them smuggled into the US in a can of Portuguese sardines with a Maltese Cross marked on the bottom of the tin. They are to be received by the mysterious and ominous Madame Egelichi (Ilona Massey). Only a funny-looking pickpocket with curly hair (Harpo, who doesn't even get a character name and is just called Harpo) got into the storage area of the store and has stolen quite a lot of food, including the special tin. He sneaks it back to the theatre where Mike Johnson (Paul Valentine) is trying to put on a show of unknowns, not usually an easy prospect. And he acquires Faustino the Great (Chico), an uneven prospect at best, though he immediately goes to work on Mr. Lyons (Leon Belasco), who owns the sets and costumes and wants to take them all back. Mike is in a relationship with ingenue Maggie Phillips (Vera-Ellen), and Madame Egelichi is sending thugs, including Raymond Burr, after Harpo. It's really rather sad. There are some laughs in the story, but most of what makes a great Marx Brothers movie is gone by now. It would have been interesting to see the movie as originally planned, as the Harpo vehicle, and it would have been fun if the movie had acknowledged that what makes a Marx Brothers movie great is the interaction among the brothers and that we don't necessarily care about the plot. But there are none of those wonderful, nonsensical arguments between Chico and Groucho, because we never see them together. They don't even exchange a phone call, which Chico and Harpo do. I was uncertain until I checked the Memorable Quotes page on IMDB which of the women was the love interest, because we all know that the romantic subplot is the least important part of a Marx Brothers movie. Though I'm not at all sure the writers of this one did; they never seemed to before. Oh, I suppose I'd still watch it if there were nothing better about, and the person who is calling it one of the worst movies ever made clearly hasn't seen many movies. (And how two minutes of Marilyn Monroe elevates it all that much, I cannot say.) But it's really rather disappointing. Better had they left on [i]A Night in Casablanca[/i]. As I'm sure they all would have agreed. But the thing is, it's awfully hard to completely suck the comedy out of a Marx Brothers movie. Groucho, the baby, was pushing sixty at the time, and it shows. Marilyn was twenty-three, and [i]it[/i] showed. But there was still humour involved, a laugh or two. The idea that Chico could talk to Harpo over the phone simply by reading his mind is an entertaining one, and the line about how Mr. Lyons shouldn't show off by being a better violinist than Chico was a pianist was actually laugh-out-loud funny. However, those moments were scarce compared to the laughs in their earlier films, and this isn't one I feel the need to own--or even watch again. It is also an early example of product placement. The production had run out of money, and the way they paid for the rest of the movie was to have the thugs chase Harpo around the rooftops of Manhattan, with all sorts of billboards going past. Joe Breen tried to put a stop to it, but he was told that this was one thing his office didn't have authority over. On the one hand, preventing that scene would have nipped a few things in the bud, including the release of this movie. On the other, it was nice to know that there were some things which Joe Breen didn't have any authority over. And it is a charming enough scene, for all that, and one of the funniest moments in the movie. Unfortunately, that they were able to do with it led to the fact that people are constantly drinking Coke when there's no need to--and practically the entire movie of [i]Mac & Me[/i], from what I understand. Which is another which didn't need to be made.