An omnibus film about four lesbian relationships, Candy Rain leads off with a tale of two old friends (Grace Chen and Belle Hsin), who are tested by their burgeoning lesbian relationship. They sleep together and bask in each other's company, but minor differences get in the way of a smooth ride to happily ever after, leading to an inevitable break up and a possible make up. Story two centers on an OCD-suffering introvert (Sandrine Pinna) who works as a chef and meets possible partners online. Her new girl is a forward older woman (Waa, doing her best Bai Ling impression), and the two manage some semblance of relationship progression before clashing personalities - and one partner's irrational need for loneliness - gets in the way of extended bliss.
Existen Z (kr) wrote: *sigh* *another sigh but longer* This is not philosophy on the streets. It is political philosophy on the streets. The movie is selling itself as something it clearly is not. Philosophy will remain the discipline of elitist academia because that is the only place it has been and ever will be. Because they covered one branch of philosophy (and very narrowly I might add) the title is a misnomer as well. The examined life means precisely that in all of its unnuanced glory. The movie tries to equate the examined life with the shallow ruminations of a group of political philosophers. The whole movie is made irrelevant for the same reason that all ethical and political philosophy becomes irrelevant when separated from the larger discipline: Philosophy begins and revolves around its metaphysical systems. No discussion of ontology, hermeneutics, epistemology, logic and many other crucial disciplines were touched on by any of the philosophers. Indeed most of the philosophers in this movie have never published anything in these fields. They may be popular now but no one will be reading them 20 years after they're dead, I promise. Ultimately the movie backfires badly. By gathering a who's who of political philosophy to ramble on in a casual setting about philosophy they manage to make philosophy look exactly like what most people believed it was in the first place: navel gazing. It really isn't the ontologists and logicians that are the navel gazers of philosophy its the ethicists and activists that don't think any deeper than a humanist agenda that they've warped through clever reasoning gymnastics. Anyone who watches this that happens to disagree with a view they are seeing expressed will likely be able to ask one of the questions that that philosopher's opponent is asking (in a more academic and elitist way) thus simultaneously conflating all philosophy with this pseudo-intellectualizing and dismissing the whole discipline like they did before watching the movie. I'm only giving the movie 2 points for trying and gathering the group of hot shots it did.
Jay B (us) wrote: great animation flick!
Greg W (de) wrote: another lost review it seems they lost all my '00 movies-grrr
Phillip D (jp) wrote: There's a few films I remember from my childhood as being particularly memorable for one reason or another. Jumanji scared the bejesus out of 4 year old me and I still remember sneaking downstairs to watch While You Were Sleeping, only to discover it was a gross romance. Millions sticks out like a sore thumb for a different reason. One of our final rentals from the local movie store before those went defunct, Millions utterly disturbed me as a child. The movie is oddly mature for a PG film, with undertones that confused me and had no business being in a children's film. Not to mention, the story and execution of this film is absolutely bonkers. The plot is basically a demented ride where two bratty kids decide what to do with a ton of money they essentially stole while a number of dysfunctional things occur around them. The result is a scatter brained, adult-y mess of a movie that is confusing and concerning at the same time. Don't take your kids or yourself, you will certainly regret it.
Josh T (es) wrote: This could have been such a great movie. Helen Slater is very good as Supergirl, although there could have been a bit more depth to her. Even Superman tie-ins are promising. But it isn't a good movie. And that's because it is a terrible, terrible story.
Vanessa G (mx) wrote: The best way to depict the awkward romantics of the world.
Judy P (jp) wrote: James Cagney didn't make many westerns, and that's probably just as well But check out the way he pronounces "Pennsyvania" like a true cowboy.
Claire T (kr) wrote: it was a great and absolutely funny film, it stars John Cleese, Kevin Kline, Jamielee Curtis, I thought it was a very funny film and it made me buy the other film they did together without ever seeing it before and it was called A fish Called Wanda
Karsh D (au) wrote: Ex soldier Noel Clarke has 9 minutes to work out why he is own private hell and trying to save a kidnapped boy. A rare miss by the boy clarke
Ethan H (ca) wrote: It works but only just. Feels like we have seen it before.