I've seen every feature starring or directed by chaplin.
the kid is one of the best ones. but City Lights sits at the top of the pile
movies What's the last film you watched? And rate it!
- Thread starter GerryLovesU
- Start date
I've seen every feature starring or directed by chaplin.
the kid is one of the best ones. but City Lights sits at the top of the pile
I've seen every feature starring or directed by chaplin.
the kid is one of the best ones. but City Lights sits at the top of the pile
Thanks for the recommendation! City Lights looks great, along with all of his other films on Criterion but those prices are killing me!
I've seen every feature starring or directed by chaplin.
the kid is one of the best ones. but City Lights sits at the top of the pile
City Lights is at #2 for me. Great Dictator will always be #1.
Face/Off directed by John Woo - 9/10
I was surprised by how great this film was! This film is actually up there with Woo's Hong Kong work IMO. The action is all John Woo, but so is the drama as well. I like the concept of the film too! The film could've been a bit shorter, and some of it was a bit too over the top, but it's still a very enjoyable film with a lot of emotion!
I was surprised by how great this film was! This film is actually up there with Woo's Hong Kong work IMO. The action is all John Woo, but so is the drama as well. I like the concept of the film too! The film could've been a bit shorter, and some of it was a bit too over the top, but it's still a very enjoyable film with a lot of emotion!
(referring to airplane) hows the gas
oh it was terrible, kept me up all night
you're better than this chaplin. you're better than this
It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't funny or beautiful. just ballsy
(referring to airplane) hows the gas
oh it was terrible, kept me up all night
you're better than this chaplin. you're better than this
It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't funny or beautiful. just ballsy
LOL I've always wanted to see The Great Dictator even though I've noticed that it has many critics. Just imagining what the film might be like makes me laugh, hopefully it doesn't disappoint me in the way it has for you and others.
(referring to airplane) hows the gas
oh it was terrible, kept me up all night
you're better than this chaplin. you're better than this
It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't funny or beautiful. just ballsy
I disagree... although it is a love it or hate it film. Personally, I think it was one of the more experimental pieces of work that he's done. There was comedy, drama, action, romance, and just some truly sad moments. Not to mention that final speech... and the fact that the film had sound. At least we can both agree it's ballsy!
Badum-tish.
It might not make you laugh, depending on your sense of humor, but it definitely is interesting.
It might not make you laugh, depending on your sense of humor, but it definitely is interesting.
Yup, it does look interesting!
Thor 2: The Dark World 8/10
I wasn't crazy about the first Thor. Half the movie I liked (Thor in Asgard). The other half was pretty dull (Thor on Earth). This movie, to my tastes, fixed the problem entirely. The earth stuff was better handled, and the Asgard/otherworld stuff was fantastic again. I'm a fantasy junkie, so of all the Marvel franchise films, this one lands more to my tastes than any others. The antagonist was a little flat compared to, say, Loki (but he really steals the spotlight in any film he's in), but that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. He provided the conflict, his motivations were pretty clear and was pretty competently acted. But he definitely provided contrast for the more complex characters around him, which I think worked well. And of course, can't talk about a comic film without talking about the post-credits scene: so very VERY excited about Guardians of the Galaxy! Love del Toro as the Collector, and the Infinity Gems building towards Thanos in Avengers 3...just fantastic! Anyway, after Avengers, this has probably been my favorite Marvel film, something I never thought I'd say about a Thor movie (doubly so after the first).
Also, a local theater was screening my favorite movie of all time: Legend. Was expecting the US theatrical cut. They instead screened the Director's cut. The US cut I would give a 10/10 (11/10 even!). The director's cut? 6/10 at best. This is one of those rare cases where I do not prefer the director's cut (or the original UK cut, though that still has a couple points over the director's cut). And when you expect to see another...it's like ordering a steak and getting a burger. Doesn't matter how good the burger is, you can't objectively see it as anything other than "not the steak you wanted". For those less geeky than me about this movie, here's why:
- the score. Tangerine Dream's score is one of my favorites of all time. Got me into electronic music as well as film music. Goldsmith's original score is...well, passable. Not his best work by a long shot. Goldsmith's score is the original on the UK (and Director's) cut. The studio brought in TDream to make a more "contemporary" score to appeal to teenagers. It's true, because Goldsmith's score sounds like an old Disney film and skews the movie much younger. Tangerine Dream's music makes it seem otherworldly. Goldsmith's makes it seem generic. Also, instead of the amazing Jon Anderson song at the end (Tangerine Dream also hated that he was brought in to sing) and the decent Ferry song, we get Lily singing in the movie...the same song. A lot. Way more than is warranted. And a really hokey song over the end credits (I guess it's supposed to be the fairies singing a drinking song?) Half my excitement about seeing the screening was to hear the score in the theater, so already a strike against it.
- omissions. The day-glo shot of Darkness at the beginning, while unnecessary (cut out for the bigger reveal later in the film) was neat. I can see why Scott cut it, but I liked it. Ditto the battle with the wights later in the movie. They just pop up out of nowhere, fight for a moment, and then the film moves on, no explaination, no purpose. EXCEPT, it demonstrates a part of a larger world/story. They're sneaking through a lair of evil. Of course they're going to run into, well, evil things that they need to fight. Maybe it's the D&D player in me, but that 30 second scene, like so much of the movie, sets my imagination going and that's part of why I love the film so much. Do they need to be there for the story? Not at all. But for the greater world and atmosphere of the film? Absolutely.
- princess lily. Yes, we picked up on that. We don't need to hear about how Princess Lily needs to be a Princess while she's Princessing like a Princess. Maybe it's not quite that bad, but it's pretty damn heavy handed. You know who she is in the US cut without ever using the word "princess." In the director's cut, it seems to be every other word when she's on screen. What is unspoken (with her and with Blunder) is, again, part of the magic of the film. Interesting that the studio wanted the film more ambiguous, while Scott preferred everything spelled out.
- a couple good additions. The Meg Knucklebones scene is fantastic in its longer form. When Jack meets Gump, it's also longer and fantastic (Gump is damn creepy), although that scene is still unfinished. It was supposed to be a "dance to the death" scene (which is why Jack is coated in sweat for no reason halfway through the scene). Oddly enough, these two scenes are included in the version shown on TV (I've been told SyFy still shows the TV Cut). Of all the added scenes, these two are best, and since the tv cut is otherwise the US cut with the TDream score, it's my favorite, hands down.
- and lots of bad additions. The dress dance scene is one of my favorites...but gets really silly when it goes on further. Lots of lines of dialogue (Jack and Lily in particular) are trimmed just perfectly in the original cut. Sometimes a line, or part of a line, is cut out for a good reason, and I think this demonstrates that.
Moral of the story (since this is more babble about Legend than most people care about) as creative folks we sometimes strive for the perfection of our original vision. Sometimes in doing that, we lose sight of what it was the made the work good in the first place. Sometimes an external perspective is needed; I have always felt the studio took a decent but standard fantasy film and turned it into a unique and great one. Collaboration can be a good thing!
I wasn't crazy about the first Thor. Half the movie I liked (Thor in Asgard). The other half was pretty dull (Thor on Earth). This movie, to my tastes, fixed the problem entirely. The earth stuff was better handled, and the Asgard/otherworld stuff was fantastic again. I'm a fantasy junkie, so of all the Marvel franchise films, this one lands more to my tastes than any others. The antagonist was a little flat compared to, say, Loki (but he really steals the spotlight in any film he's in), but that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. He provided the conflict, his motivations were pretty clear and was pretty competently acted. But he definitely provided contrast for the more complex characters around him, which I think worked well. And of course, can't talk about a comic film without talking about the post-credits scene: so very VERY excited about Guardians of the Galaxy! Love del Toro as the Collector, and the Infinity Gems building towards Thanos in Avengers 3...just fantastic! Anyway, after Avengers, this has probably been my favorite Marvel film, something I never thought I'd say about a Thor movie (doubly so after the first).
Also, a local theater was screening my favorite movie of all time: Legend. Was expecting the US theatrical cut. They instead screened the Director's cut. The US cut I would give a 10/10 (11/10 even!). The director's cut? 6/10 at best. This is one of those rare cases where I do not prefer the director's cut (or the original UK cut, though that still has a couple points over the director's cut). And when you expect to see another...it's like ordering a steak and getting a burger. Doesn't matter how good the burger is, you can't objectively see it as anything other than "not the steak you wanted". For those less geeky than me about this movie, here's why:
- the score. Tangerine Dream's score is one of my favorites of all time. Got me into electronic music as well as film music. Goldsmith's original score is...well, passable. Not his best work by a long shot. Goldsmith's score is the original on the UK (and Director's) cut. The studio brought in TDream to make a more "contemporary" score to appeal to teenagers. It's true, because Goldsmith's score sounds like an old Disney film and skews the movie much younger. Tangerine Dream's music makes it seem otherworldly. Goldsmith's makes it seem generic. Also, instead of the amazing Jon Anderson song at the end (Tangerine Dream also hated that he was brought in to sing) and the decent Ferry song, we get Lily singing in the movie...the same song. A lot. Way more than is warranted. And a really hokey song over the end credits (I guess it's supposed to be the fairies singing a drinking song?) Half my excitement about seeing the screening was to hear the score in the theater, so already a strike against it.
- omissions. The day-glo shot of Darkness at the beginning, while unnecessary (cut out for the bigger reveal later in the film) was neat. I can see why Scott cut it, but I liked it. Ditto the battle with the wights later in the movie. They just pop up out of nowhere, fight for a moment, and then the film moves on, no explaination, no purpose. EXCEPT, it demonstrates a part of a larger world/story. They're sneaking through a lair of evil. Of course they're going to run into, well, evil things that they need to fight. Maybe it's the D&D player in me, but that 30 second scene, like so much of the movie, sets my imagination going and that's part of why I love the film so much. Do they need to be there for the story? Not at all. But for the greater world and atmosphere of the film? Absolutely.
- princess lily. Yes, we picked up on that. We don't need to hear about how Princess Lily needs to be a Princess while she's Princessing like a Princess. Maybe it's not quite that bad, but it's pretty damn heavy handed. You know who she is in the US cut without ever using the word "princess." In the director's cut, it seems to be every other word when she's on screen. What is unspoken (with her and with Blunder) is, again, part of the magic of the film. Interesting that the studio wanted the film more ambiguous, while Scott preferred everything spelled out.
- a couple good additions. The Meg Knucklebones scene is fantastic in its longer form. When Jack meets Gump, it's also longer and fantastic (Gump is damn creepy), although that scene is still unfinished. It was supposed to be a "dance to the death" scene (which is why Jack is coated in sweat for no reason halfway through the scene). Oddly enough, these two scenes are included in the version shown on TV (I've been told SyFy still shows the TV Cut). Of all the added scenes, these two are best, and since the tv cut is otherwise the US cut with the TDream score, it's my favorite, hands down.
- and lots of bad additions. The dress dance scene is one of my favorites...but gets really silly when it goes on further. Lots of lines of dialogue (Jack and Lily in particular) are trimmed just perfectly in the original cut. Sometimes a line, or part of a line, is cut out for a good reason, and I think this demonstrates that.
Moral of the story (since this is more babble about Legend than most people care about) as creative folks we sometimes strive for the perfection of our original vision. Sometimes in doing that, we lose sight of what it was the made the work good in the first place. Sometimes an external perspective is needed; I have always felt the studio took a decent but standard fantasy film and turned it into a unique and great one. Collaboration can be a good thing!
Requiem For A Dream directed by Darren Aronofsky - 8/10 or 8.5/10 or 9/10
As my rating suggests, it is very difficult for me to properly evaluate this film. So I'll attempt to explain my opinion.
If I had never seen Satoshi Kon's brilliant Perfect Blue last October, I would easily say that this is a masterpiece. However, given the fact that I have seen that film, I have to say that this film didn't impress me as much as I had hoped.
The beginning of the film is decent stuff. It's good but not great. I don't like how Aronofsky takes out all of his film school tricks here, they don't always work. Having a distinctive cinematic style does not make a film more artistic. Perhaps if I had seen this film 2 years ago I'd think this film is brilliant. But after seeing films employ a unique style in a better way (such as Perfect Blue, Wong Kar Wai's films, French New Wave films, Hou Hsiao-hsien's films, and Edward Yang's films) this film's use of a unique style seems weak in comparison.
The second half of the film is much better, however it is too derivative from Perfect Blue. The highlight for me is the Perfect Blue inspired (though not copied like other scenes) scene with the refrigerator. That scene was just incredible filmmaking, and I haven't been sucked in such a surreal scene since I saw Perfect Blue actually LOL.
The story of the film is good, but part of my problem is that it drives its themes and its characters too much without giving time to properly develop a realistic world. All films that I think are masterpieces need to establish a believable world that I care about, when I watch an Ozu movie I think "yes, that's how Japan must have been like, or how it should have been like." When I watch something like Blow-Up, I think "yes, this must have been Swinging London back then!" IMO Aronofsky fails to establish a unique world that is essential to turn a great film into a masterpiece.
Still, some of the cinematography is great (although there is a little bit too much use of close-up for my tastes, though that is personal aesthetic opinion), the use of music is awesome. Also as derivative as some of the scenes are from Perfect Blue they are still amazing to watch in live-action.
Perhaps most important in my evaluation is that I saw the film with my father, and it got us talking. And it got us relating the characters to one of my cousin's who had similar drug addiction issues. But beyond that, it didn't get us pointing fingers at my cousin and just get us thinking "he should see this film" it also got us to look at ourselves. How do I take care of myself so that my passion for cinema does not turn into addiction? What leads us to place our hearts in cinema or work or eating junk food or anything that we love in our daily lives?
This leads me to my last point. The film barely explores the issue of what leads the characters to addiction, and I took issue with this. My father pointed out that the film explored it in a more subtle manner, which I agree with, but I argued back that the film does not portray a realistic enough world to get away with that subtlety. So for me, the film still falls flat on this point.
To conclude with my little review, I'd say that although I think this is a very flawed film, it is nonetheless an infinitely interesting film. It's a film that takes inspiration from a greater film IMO but that brings this style to more daring subject matter. The fact that I discussed this film a lot is enough to prove that whatever I rate the film doesn't matter, the only thing that does matter is how it affected me. I'll end on a note that may be coming totally from left field. But this film reminded me of Jesus' call to enter the narrow gate , because the wide one leads to destruction. I think I'll remember that message because of this film, whenever I conform myself too easily with any person, thing, art, or anything else. It's easy to comfort ourselves and escape the roots of real issues instead of solving them, but once we decide to run away instead of facing our issues then we will ultimately live meaningless lives that only get worse until we die.
As my rating suggests, it is very difficult for me to properly evaluate this film. So I'll attempt to explain my opinion.
If I had never seen Satoshi Kon's brilliant Perfect Blue last October, I would easily say that this is a masterpiece. However, given the fact that I have seen that film, I have to say that this film didn't impress me as much as I had hoped.
The beginning of the film is decent stuff. It's good but not great. I don't like how Aronofsky takes out all of his film school tricks here, they don't always work. Having a distinctive cinematic style does not make a film more artistic. Perhaps if I had seen this film 2 years ago I'd think this film is brilliant. But after seeing films employ a unique style in a better way (such as Perfect Blue, Wong Kar Wai's films, French New Wave films, Hou Hsiao-hsien's films, and Edward Yang's films) this film's use of a unique style seems weak in comparison.
The second half of the film is much better, however it is too derivative from Perfect Blue. The highlight for me is the Perfect Blue inspired (though not copied like other scenes) scene with the refrigerator. That scene was just incredible filmmaking, and I haven't been sucked in such a surreal scene since I saw Perfect Blue actually LOL.
The story of the film is good, but part of my problem is that it drives its themes and its characters too much without giving time to properly develop a realistic world. All films that I think are masterpieces need to establish a believable world that I care about, when I watch an Ozu movie I think "yes, that's how Japan must have been like, or how it should have been like." When I watch something like Blow-Up, I think "yes, this must have been Swinging London back then!" IMO Aronofsky fails to establish a unique world that is essential to turn a great film into a masterpiece.
Still, some of the cinematography is great (although there is a little bit too much use of close-up for my tastes, though that is personal aesthetic opinion), the use of music is awesome. Also as derivative as some of the scenes are from Perfect Blue they are still amazing to watch in live-action.
Perhaps most important in my evaluation is that I saw the film with my father, and it got us talking. And it got us relating the characters to one of my cousin's who had similar drug addiction issues. But beyond that, it didn't get us pointing fingers at my cousin and just get us thinking "he should see this film" it also got us to look at ourselves. How do I take care of myself so that my passion for cinema does not turn into addiction? What leads us to place our hearts in cinema or work or eating junk food or anything that we love in our daily lives?
This leads me to my last point. The film barely explores the issue of what leads the characters to addiction, and I took issue with this. My father pointed out that the film explored it in a more subtle manner, which I agree with, but I argued back that the film does not portray a realistic enough world to get away with that subtlety. So for me, the film still falls flat on this point.
To conclude with my little review, I'd say that although I think this is a very flawed film, it is nonetheless an infinitely interesting film. It's a film that takes inspiration from a greater film IMO but that brings this style to more daring subject matter. The fact that I discussed this film a lot is enough to prove that whatever I rate the film doesn't matter, the only thing that does matter is how it affected me. I'll end on a note that may be coming totally from left field. But this film reminded me of Jesus' call to enter the narrow gate , because the wide one leads to destruction. I think I'll remember that message because of this film, whenever I conform myself too easily with any person, thing, art, or anything else. It's easy to comfort ourselves and escape the roots of real issues instead of solving them, but once we decide to run away instead of facing our issues then we will ultimately live meaningless lives that only get worse until we die.
Glad you liked it! Sounds like you're conflicted, but at least you gave it a shot and liked it somewhat.
Just to play devil's advocate, the techniques he used in the film were made popular and some even started by him. Throughout his filmography, he has used uncomfortable closeups, jarring split screen effects, jump cuts, snorricam shots, and bizarre sped up/slowed down shots.
I gotta check perfect Perfect Blue out. Was that the anime one about the singer? I forget.
Again, I'm going to play devil's advocate. That might have been Arnofsky's goal. I mean, seeing the characters are all train wrecks in slow motion, with a twisted perception of reality, and a slow disconnection from reality, isn't that a bit fitting? I mean, the characters aren't necessarily in a realistic world, they're confused and don't see reality as it is.
What are you talking about? Too close for comfort?
Personally, I found the film to be an interesting exploration of why?, but depending on people's experiences, they may perceive it differently. As someone who has known drug addicts, I find the film to be very relatable. The older woman in the film is a complete mess. She feels the desire to be beautiful and flawless. She wants to be a "somebody". Her attempts to lose weight and take various medicines to try to maintain mental stability and regain her youthful appearance lead to delusions and twisted perceptions of reality lead to a dependence on this drug, and the downfall that occurs once misery from her real life enters her fantasies, or when the drug wears off.
Although that's more of a personal thing. Obviously, we both take different messages and ideas from the film. So, yeah
-----
If Requiem for a Dream was shown in D.A.R.E. programs, I can assure all teachers and instructors that no kid will ever touch drugs again
Hey kids, wanna take drugs?!
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Requiem-requiem-for-a-dream-556625_770_495.jpg
Students: ...
------
Watched The Family w/ Robert De Niro - 6/10
Decent flick. It's a lacking film, but I was laughing my @ss off a couple of times, and the acting was just awesome. Not to mention the great cinematography and sound design. Although the film did have some plot holes, and began to die out in the last 30 minutes. But overall a fun watch.
Rush - 8/10
Not bad. Great story told respectfully. Some great performances, amazing scenes, fantastic cinematography, and lovely sound design. Although the pacing did feel a bit off sometimes, and the heavily stylized color grading gave the film an artificial film. Good flick.
You can bookend that with 'Trainspotting' for kicks to seal the deal.If Requiem for a Dream was shown in D.A.R.E. programs, I can assure all teachers and instructors that no kid will ever touch drugs again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrEJrI2pU5w
We still get Jennifer for a GF tho, right?
Hmm...
Yeah I'm conflicted but I'd say I like it more than just somewhat lol, I liked the film a lot. I ended up giving it a 9/10, yet I'm still not convinced it's a masterpiece up there with the greatest films of the 21st century let alone of all-time.
That may be true, but I feel that not all of the techniques are used effectively all the time. I like some of the experimentation used but while watching the film this reminded me of all the tricks I wanted to try when I was like 15 years old and first started getting more into making films LOL.
Yeah, that's the one. It's less ambitious (yet more original stylistically speaking) but I think that's why it's more successful for me. When you're taking really important subject matter, you have to do it in the best way possible. I feel like Aronofsky almost gets there but not quite.
That is true, but then I can't relate to the film too much. I think at least the beginning of the film should show a realistic world and we find it getting distorted more and more as the addictions grow. But I think this may be a bit more of a personal aesthetic taste of mine since it's clear to me that Aronofsky was not going for a realistic world. When I watch films I tend to emphasize 'world' because I have to be convinced that more is going on than just the plot in the film. But even then, there are uncomfortable worlds like those created by Tsai Ming-liang, and I really feel like I'm a part of them. So I still think Aronofsky could've done a better job.
LOL I actually like those shots. It's more the relatively conventional close-ups in the film that I feel are overused. But again, that is personal aesthetic, if you look at my favorite directors they always are the ones who pull the camera a bit back lol (except for Bergman).
Here I found that the film tried but it didn't do enough for me. Still, you mentioned the example of the old lady, and I think her story is my favorite of them all. And that's part of the reason why I mentioned that the film got me thinking about my own possible addictions, we don't have to go as far as illegal drug use to be equally addicted to something. And the way she gets into those addictions is realistic to me.
I can't argue with that
I think my feelings on this one is not that I dislike the film, but that it could've been even better IMO. Still, it is the best film on drug use that I've seen so far, so I can't complain too much. I'm glad I watched it, and I know I'll re-watch it some time. I learned a lot from this movie, and I think it goes even further than just a film about addictions but something actually spiritual IMO. But there's this feeling that something is lacking in the film, still I haven't been so conflicted in a film since I first started getting into Godard (who I love now) and it's still a great film but it doesn't quite reach 'masterpiece' level to me.
God, was I depressed after watching "Requiem For A Dream". I mean, actual feelings of depression. To that end, the film is probably brilliant, but it's not something I'd ever want to watch again.
Am I the only one who thought that "Trainspotting" actually glorifies drug use?
I watched "Kill List" again this weekend. Love it. It's a pretty crazy Brit-shocker, much in the same vein as "The Wicker Man" or "Rosemary's Baby". 8/10
Am I the only one who thought that "Trainspotting" actually glorifies drug use?
I watched "Kill List" again this weekend. Love it. It's a pretty crazy Brit-shocker, much in the same vein as "The Wicker Man" or "Rosemary's Baby". 8/10
I just recently watched Fruitvale Staiton, I'd give it a 9 of 10. It was a superb film, and for it being his first feature length, I was blown away. The story behind it is powerful and I thought the emotion captured was spot on.
I think the film shows how attractive that life-style can appear, and how people get sucked into it so easily. Almost like Wolf of Wall Street. The character (or in the case of Trainspotting, drug) was so appealing and persuasive that he (or... it) could lure people in so easily.
Then there's that baby scene. Holy $#%& that makes me cringe every time. Oh god... probably the scariest non-horror movie scene ever... IMO. There was just something so unsettling about it crawling over to him FROM THE CEILING.
Day Of The Fight directed by Stanley Kubrick - 6/10
A decent early work by Stanley Kubrick, not bad but I don't think it reveals what a great talent was to come.
Dora's Dunking Donuts starring Shirley Temple - 7/10
A cute, funny little short film. Not super impressive but it's still a fun watch.
Hoop Dreams directed by Steve James - 10/10
An achievement of the documentary genre! I love how there are just so many brilliant stories here, and they weren't crafted by an author, they are from real-life! I love how the film works both within a larger social context and within a more intimate look at two boys and their families. The film is long but never dull, and always watchable, I never found myself checking how much time was left. I watched this film with my younger brother who also has hoop dreams, and I'm sure he learned a lot from it. What I love most about this film is that the 'characters' are so amazing, which is a great achievement since the events presented are real-life events!
A decent early work by Stanley Kubrick, not bad but I don't think it reveals what a great talent was to come.
Dora's Dunking Donuts starring Shirley Temple - 7/10
A cute, funny little short film. Not super impressive but it's still a fun watch.
Hoop Dreams directed by Steve James - 10/10
An achievement of the documentary genre! I love how there are just so many brilliant stories here, and they weren't crafted by an author, they are from real-life! I love how the film works both within a larger social context and within a more intimate look at two boys and their families. The film is long but never dull, and always watchable, I never found myself checking how much time was left. I watched this film with my younger brother who also has hoop dreams, and I'm sure he learned a lot from it. What I love most about this film is that the 'characters' are so amazing, which is a great achievement since the events presented are real-life events!