Around 1940, New Yorker staff writer Joe Mitchell meets Joe Gould, a Greenwich Village character who cadges meals, drinks, and contributions to the Joe Gould Fund and who is writing a voluminous Oral History of the World, a record of 20,000 conversations he's overheard. Mitchell is fascinated with this Harvard grad and writes a 1942 piece about him, "Professor Seagull," bringing Gould some celebrity and an invitation to join the Greenwich Village Ravens, a poetry club he's often crashed. Gould's touchy, querulous personality and his frequent dropping in on Mitchell for hours of chat lead to a breakup, but the two Joes stay in touch until Gould's death and Mitchell's unveiling of the secret.
Writer:Joseph Mitchell (books), Howard A. Rodman (screenplay)
Around 1940, New Yorker staff writer Joe Mitchell meets Joe Gould, a Greenwich Village character who cadges meals, drinks, and contributions to the Joe Gould Fund and who is writing a ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Caroline S (de) wrote: If your a fan as i am ull love it
Denis S (es) wrote: Dear April, please get some normal job!
Lilly K (au) wrote: A good movie but....eh, not the best plot.
Tsukasa A (ag) wrote: In June 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide. Having watched the movie, I realize that the fight against prejudice has been long until the US Supreme Court's rule though it may not be end of the fight. There many movies which deal with gays but sometimes it's not easy for straight people to empathize with gays and I guess this has been one of the reasons which make the human right problems difficult to be solved. Gus Van Sant who spend 15 years to realize the movie depict not only gay world but also their fight for other minorities and their problems on private/business priorities so that wider range of people can emphasize with gays. Gus Van Sant being a gay himself probably knows how to get understanding not only theoretically but also emotionally. Director Lisa Cholodenko also takes the same approach in 'The Kids Are Alright' by depicting family which is important both for strait people and gays. I believe art which deals with emotions plays important role in solving this kind or human right problem by complementing theories.
Wesley R (au) wrote: What this documentary claims to accomplish and what we see on the screen are two different things. It is clear that the filmmaker wanted to create an artsy film that feels cutting edge and talks about a taboo (and illegal) subject with great insight. Instead this seems like an amateur art film that tells us nothing new that we couldn't have learned from just reading about this story online or seeing it on the news. Most of the actors are hidden by shadows in recreations of the story told via voiceover. This gives the film a cryptic feel that would work...if there was anything that was truly mysterious. The only thing I was left wondering was how the filmmaker managed to drag 80 mins. with the material given. An ambitiously failed film that tries to add insight and depth to a story that has none.
Stefano C (mx) wrote: Ottima atmosfera, per si vede che stato scritto in fretta e poteva essere migliore. Guardarlo con i commenti del regista sembra dare una visione pi accurata del film (e di quel che poteva essere)
Louise G (us) wrote: louise gave it 5 stars not 1 star
Anna B (es) wrote: Ridiculous even by Lee's standards. Of course, his movies are always interesting and worth watching, but in this case the flaws that I couldn't get past were too numerous to forgive (and to go into in this limited space in any detail): the cartoonishly repellent characters; the sluggish pacing; the grossly saccharine tone amplified by Terence Blanchard's typically ruinous score; the elements of unintentional (I think?) comedy, especially the hideously misjudged scenes in Berkowitz's apartment. I could just go on and on.
stefano l (jp) wrote: Mah, I am basically disappointed by this movie because a friend of mine whom I really trust talked me in a very exctactic way of Stargate, but although the very cool idea of old Egiptian gods that enslaved people on Earth and brought them on another planet to build pyramids there (why, btw??) the rest is just not interesting to me.
Kylie B (it) wrote: This sounds too bad not to see it.
carey p (mx) wrote: hell of a movie....the ending, were hes leaving in the car...made me cry!!!
Matt W (au) wrote: Cool premise. But they were afraid to go the undead route.
Karsh D (ru) wrote: Maybe not quite the classic that I had led to be believed but it's a good well acted film which has very much a story book feel to it.
Joule R (es) wrote: The hero is so destroyed by the villain that the movie is destroyed by the villain, that is, by the protagonist. If God wasn't dead before the making of the film, now God is deader than dead.The scene in the classroom where the professor (the actual hero) challenges everyone to say god's not dead is good, but then the movie isn't about anything else. This would be a good scene in a story where the student is actually challenged by something other than a question that's been answered. You know, where the professor is a mentor and the character uses what the professor taught him to solve a tough problem.A crisis of faith isn't a legitimate problem. Anti-intellectualism is a problem. Denial of scientific fact is a problem. How about his creepy relationship with reverend Dave? Could've exploited that. How about the kid being a drug addict? How about he's a drunk? Some combo of animal house and serious philosophical consideration? Nothing. Just a movie about philosophy of religion by someone who has not read any philosophy of religion.Better yet... it should've been a movie about a drunk professor who gets involved in a murder mystery while dying of cancer.