ryansternmd Reviews

Wallis & Edward (2005 TV Movie)

Poorly Researched if "The King's Speech" is used as standard

[2/10 · 8 April 2012]

I was disappointed in this film and pleased that I rented it before I bought it. I caught the goof where Winston Churchill addresses the Prince of Wales as "Your Majesty" at the Jubilee ball, which for me was a red flag that the writers were not familiar with royal protocol and therefore probably anti-Roaylists. I was also disappointed when the investigations into Wallis Simpson were discussed (it was appropriate to investigate her past if she was the lover of the Prince of Wales) that at that point, nor anywhere else in the film, did they bring up the pro-Nazi connections between Wallis Simpson and the German elite. This is not speculation but historical fact: I have seen the photographs of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as state guests in Germany greeted by Nazi elite. The rest may be rumor, but this was not and it was absent. Rather than portray Wallis Simpson as a social climbing adulteress, they portray her as a loving wife introduced to the Court of St. James by her husband and wooed by the Prince of Wales. No explanation is given why a Baltimore businessman would be a guest at a royal function. However, when Wallis accepts an invitation to spend a quiet weekend alone with the Prince of Wales, she willingly enters what is obviously a set up for seduction. Then later in the film, she is portrayed as shocked when her husband confesses a long time affair and asks for a divorce. Later,Edward defends her in her two divorces as being the victim. How is a woman who has committed adultery the victim in a divorce ending a wedding of convenience as hinted at several times in the script? This was not an unbiased film portraying the facts of the Wallis Simpson affair, but a romanticized fiction of a true love story of two people (although both are committing adultery as a man courting a married woman). If "The King's Speech" is a better researched, historically more accurate film, then Edward was an irresponsible, self centered, self indulgent man with little respect for the institution of the royal family. In "Wallis and Simpson", Edward is portrayed as a kind, loving, honest man who wanted to modernize the institution of monarchy. I can not believe that one is fiction and the other accurate while at the same time that the true character of Edward lay somewhere in between. Even if you feel that "The King's Speech" was unfair to Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, they were both guilty of adultery and by law Edward VIII could not marry Wallis Simpson and be king. Yet, the script of this film misleads us into thinking that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth (the late Queen Mother) were cold and calculating in trying to separate Edward VIII from the love of his life. When Edward tells Wallis that she is the Duchess of Windsor, but not an HRH, Wallis makes a quip that she is sure that Queen Mary and Elizabeth had something to do with it. How would an American divorcée married to the former king be entitled to the the title HRH? Princess Diana lost this formal address when she and Charles divorced, though she remained Princess Diana, the Princess of Wales. In all, there were so many of these omissions, errors and glosses over character flaws that I believe that the writers wanted a love story with a sad ending rather than a historical film depicting the affair that brought Britain to crisis in 1936. My final opinion that this made for television Canadian film is what is seems: a soap opera love story and not a historical film. I will stick to "The King's Speech" as a historical, researched film depicting the Wallis Simpson affair and the abdication of Edward VIII to marry a woman that British law precluded as acceptable wife for the king.

I'm Not Jesus Mommy (2010)

Poorly written B movie with bad science and a worse climax

[1/10 · 22 January 2012]

I'm Not Jesus Mommy is poorly written. I can not leave a spoiler because the conclusion is so vague and the story line so poorly developed that the viewer can not be sure what happened. I was struck by several things about the film from the start that made the story line impossible. First, it is no secret that the plot hinges on a child cloned from the blood stains on the Shroud of Turin. So, anything I tell you about that aspect tells you no more than you already know. The film begins with the secretive, questionable fertility clinic performing human cloning. In a scene where the process is being explained to new scientists recruited for the clinic, the head doctor says that the clones are made from red blood cells. Fact: red blood cells have no DNA or nucleus unlike other cells in the body. Clones are normally made from cells lining the stomach. Strike one. During this presentation, the head doctor shows on a screen a power-point presentation of human DNA used for cloning. In DNA, it is a double helix formed of two base pairs of nucleic acids. The graphics on the film show not base pairs or even two single strands of bases: it shows two strands of base triplets. Fact: nowhere in any organism's DNA are nucleotides in triplets or groups of six; all organism's DNA is in base pairs. Strike two. While the head doctor is manipulating tissue to get more clones, he is shown slicing off large chunks of tissue (from what is probably raw meat from the grocery), which is not the way clone DNA is obtained. Stike three. The plausibility of the film's plot basis is lost in the first few scenes. In some places I found humor. While the head doctor is preparing his tissue samples for cloning, he is listening to Ave Maria, a classical piece of Roman Catholic liturgy praising Mary as the mother of Jesus. Chance or simply too obvious a choice by the film makers?

After this disappointing start that most with a high school knowledge of genetics and human anatomy would know is flawed, we jump several years to an apocalyptic world with no explanation. More time is spent on meaningless following of fundamentalist Christian beliefs about the second coming than in explaining what is happening.

The film also amuses with obvious flaws in costuming that we are not supposed to notice. In order to make the protagonist doctor look more academic, she wears glasses. But she wears them in scenes where accurate vision is not needed and fails to wear them when she would need them most. After she has been developed as a character, the glasses disappear completely. If this woman needs glasses, why is she not wearing them at the appropriate times and wearing them at the inappropriate times?

The film might interest some fundamentalist Christians as it compares well with films on the anti-Christ and the Rapture. But for an educated audience, when it finally ends, we are left without knowing how it has ended. Few films at the end leave me in doubt as to what the climax was or what it meant.

So, file this one away with other B movies based on Revelations. Watch it with an intelligent person and you will both be discussing for some time what the ending was. That is why a spoiler is almost impossible. You would have to be able to give away the ending to provide a spoiler.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Don't Bother Spoiler for the gullible

[1/10 · 22 January 2012]

This film is promoted as a cinema verite of a paranormal event. But at the end I will tell you why I gave it a 1 out of ten. Meanwhile, I want you to read it as I experienced it. In the opening it thanks the families of the two characters and the San Diego Police Department. I watched the trailer before I rented it on cable. There was no indication that it was anything but home footage of paranormal activity. There was nothing else on cable so I rented it. (There must be multiple edits in circulation because many of the goofs that are reported on IMDb were not in the film I watched). But, like the Blair Witch Project, I thought I would watch it to see what all the talk was about: how a low budget film could have grossed so much. I did notice as the film progressed and I was buying it, that there was one goof still in the film that was never explained or mentioned. In a house with a burglar alarm set, the female character leaves the house in the middle of the night without setting off the alarm. That was when I began to question the veracity. I admit it: I am gullible. At the end (which is a different end from what is described on IMDb) after the film stops rolling, there are no credits, but a copyright and the standard disclaimer that this film is completely fictitious and any similarity to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. It was then that I realized that I had been duped. I know, I should have known that it would have been on the news if it actually happened and not a film in a theater. But, it was only then I went to IMDb to confirm that this was not cinema verite of actual events. This is purely fictitious and the film was had a writer, director, hired actors, stage hands, and was deliberately sold to the public as fact. Most people would be on their way out of the theater when the fiction disclaimer was shown and who actually reads them as even docu-dramas have this disclaimer even though it is a representation of factual events. So, people saw it, believed it to be true, told their friends, and we lined the pockets of another group of people who promote a film as fact when it is fiction. I wish I could get my money back. But more than that, I believe that films like this should have at the beginning credits and a clear disclaimer that it is fiction. We pay to see big budget horror films knowing they are fiction. This group deliberately presented the film from beginning to the penultimate frame as fact. Gullible people like myself belief that they are seeing cinema verite when it is presented as such. It should be illegal to promote a fictional film as fact. Even though I rented it on cable, my money went to a group of people who presented fiction as fact until the final frame with the legal disclaimer. I was livid. In future, I will be going to IMDb to find out as much about a film before I even pay $4 to rent it. But that is not why I gave it the lowest rating. I gave it the lowest rating because despite all the hype, it is not scary or riveting or even entertaining. I kept waiting for something to happen that would scare me or have me on the edge of my seat. It never happened. I only put it on pause to stare with disbelief at the end of reel fiction disclaimer. That was the only thing thing about this film that I will remember. It was a hoax.

The Naked Archaeologist (2005–2008)

Excellent program for laymen

[10/10 · 22 November 2011]

I have read the comments left by persons unhappy with the program and Simcha Jacobovici. What they have in common are: unhappy atheists looking for evidence to disprove the Jewish Bible; unhappy anti-Jews who are looking for evidence to disprove the Jewish Bible; and unhappy Christians who are looking for evidence to support the gospels. Simcha Jacobovici is a secular archaeologist first and a Jew second. Some of the people who leave negative comments admit to not watching his programs out of disgust. If you watch all the episodes from season 1-3, you will find that he does in fact find evidence that does NOT support the Biblical accounts or orthodox Judaism. The reasons given that he is biased also stem from the fact that he is Jewish and reports archaeological evidence that supports the Jewish view of history but not the Christian view of history. This is related to those who complain that he does not cover the "contrary opinions" or "other side" of issues. Simcha Jacobovici does do investigations into the Christian view of history, but he does NOT find archaeological evidence to support the Christian Bible stories. If you have watched all the episodes seasons 1- 3, he does investigate Christian contentions, but he finds evidence that refutes the Christian biblical accounts and when he find conflicting, contradictory evidence, the Christian guardians or these artifacts refuse him interviews or access to the artifacts. A brief list of his Christian investigation episodes in seasons 1 and 2 is helpful: "Jesus: the Early Years"; "John the Baptist"; "Crucifixion"; "The Search for St. Peter"; "Miracle Workers of Galilee";"What Happened to the JC Bunch" 1-3; and "The Beloved Disciple". Christians are offended when he does not find archaeological evidence to support the gospels. Instead, he finds evidence that Jesus lived and died a Jew, and his 1st century followers, lead by his brother James, continued to live as Jews. Christianity as we know it was not founded by Jesus, Peter, James, or any of the apostles. Christianity as we know it was founded by Paul who did not know Jesus but went to the Greaco-Romans and borrowed from their pagan beliefs and the growing Jewish presence in Rome to convert peoples who already believed in divine incarnations and dying savior cults to create a new religion. Christians do not like it when he finds archaeological evidence of this. It is prejudice in favor of Christianity where the viewer expects validation of the gospels. But, he does not find evidence to support the gospels but evidence to refute them. Here is the crux of the negative comments: atheists who are displeased that he does not refute the Jewish view of history and Christians who are upset that he finds evidence to refute the gospels. If the archaeological evidence supports the Jewish view of history, then perhaps it is time to reject your atheistic, anti-Jewish, pro-Christian biases and accept that the archeology he finds supports Judaism. This is a common problem in science vs. religion: people with religious biases reject science that does not support their religion. The same was encountered by Darwin from the publication of "The Origin of Species" to this day: schools that insist that students are presented lessons in "creationism"/"intelligent design" and fundamentalists that refute the archaeological record. It is time to get over it and watch "The Naked Archaeologist" with an open mind. Simcha Jacobovici is not on a mission to promote Judaism: he just does not find archaeological evidence to refute it or prove the contentions of the gospels. I myself have been upset by some of his programs. "Who Wrote the Bible" skips over the secular and religious investigation of the writing styles, word choices, and passages inconsistent with context that suggest that there were 4 sources for the Jewish Bible. Instead, he contends that Moses alone wrote the Torah. I wanted to ask him how Moses managed to write of his own death and burial while he still lived. So, Simcha Jacobovici is not always truly objective. But, for me, when he questions the validity of the historical time line of Joshua, he redeems himself. Like all humans, he is subject to some mistakes in his science. But, you can not reject his work as a whole because he does not validate your atheistic, anti- Jewish, and Christian biases. Archaeology is a science and not a religious pursuit. In all, Jacobovici is a secular scientist who happens to be Jewish. This is not sufficient to dismiss him or his work.

Next Year in Jerusalem (1997)

A film that could have been great with a bigger budget

[10/10 · 13 November 2011]

The story of this film is excellent, with great character development, a glimpse into the seldom seen world of Orthodox Jews, and a thoughtful plot. But, you can tell from watching it that this independent film suffered from a low budget. The script could have used some improved dialog. The cinematography could have been better. But as a gay Jew, I grew to love this film and over time have found layers of meaning that I missed in the past. The film has two protagonists and does switch POV back and forth. Charlie/Shai (Probably Chai if spelled correctly from Hebrew) is a gay man who has left Brooklyn to live in Manhattan. He has rejected his faith and assimilated into the gay community. Emanuel is an Orthodox Jew living with his family in Brooklyn. They are pressuring him into an arranged marriage. As the family's plans for his wedding progress, he begins to realize that he may be gay. However, in his Orthodox community in Brooklyn, he knows no gay men. In desperation, he turns to his childhood friend (and possibly distant relation) Shai in Manhattan to learn what it is to be gay. As Emanuel struggles with his possible homosexuality, Shai must deal with his Orthodox relations who still live in Brooklyn. As Shai and Emanuel share more time together to deal with each other's problems, a romantic relationship develops. As Shai spends more time with Emanuel, he senses a spiritual void in his life that Judaism once filled. As Emanuel spends more time with Shai, he gradually comes to accept his homosexuality. But the two learn from each other: Emanuel learns how to be a Jewish gay man; Shai learns how to be a gay Jewish man. When they finally move in together, they are Jews who happen to be gay and not gays who happen to be Jewish. They form their own Jewish home together. Every time I watch this movie as a gay Jew, I am drawn into both worlds: Judaism and the gay community. It makes me wax romantic that I could find a Jewish partner. But, I also after repeated viewings, have come to describe myself as a Jewish gay man and not a gay Jewish man. The distinction is subtle: it is about priorities. And, to me, this film elevates the characters' Jewish faith above their gay identity. This film was finally given a DVD release in 2008.

I wish I could afford to finance the film maker, David Nahmod, to remake the film with a revised script and better filming, as well as a better score. With money and time, a remake would be a great film. I encourage anyone who is gay and Jewish to give this film a chance and to not reject it for its low budget flaws. Mark Donald Ryan Stern, Moshe David benAvraham b'eretz Yisra'el

Partners (1982)

Homophobic comedy

[2/10 · 30 June 2011]

The concept of pairing a heterosexual police detective (Ryan O'Niel) with a gay police department employee (John Hurt) in order to go undercover in the gay community to solve a serial murder case could have been handled with mutual respect. However, throughout the film, the homosexuals portrayed fulfill all homophobic stereotypes. They are depicted as lisping, limp wristed, mincing, pastel wearing comic relief. Meanwhile, the heterosexual police detective is portrayed as a womanizing, promiscuous, skirt chaser to convince the audience that he is 100% heterosexual. All dialog between heterosexual police department employees is homophobic, sympathetic to the undercover detective having to pretend to be a "faggot" and derogatory about the "faggot" gay police department employee. They had three opportunities to save the film. The first is when the undercover police partners are arrested along with a gay they attracted in order to interview. The arresting police refer to the trio as "faggots" and "girls", humiliating the gay character. But, Ryan O'Neil's character does no more than ask for the return of the man's clothes: no personal interaction occurs. In a humorous moment, on his way out of the shared apartment with the doting homosexual partner, Ryan O'Neil instinctively gives a quick peck on his partner's cheek. But, Ryan O'Neil's subsequent reaction is disgust. Near the end of the film, Ryan O'Neil's character is trying to encourage his gay partner (John Hurt) by making empty promises of continuing to live together. But, instead of a "The Crying Game" finding of a new found acceptance by the heterosexual lead of his gay love interest, they end the film by having another character taunt Ryan O'Neil's character by telling him that John Hurt's character had believed his empty promises which immediately causes revulsion in Ryan O'Neil's character. They walk away laughing at the expense of the deceived gay man. This is not a gay positive, acceptance learned dynamic by the main characters. This motion picture is one long "faggots are funny" mockery of gay men. If you are gay friendly, this film will infuriate you and have you checking the year it was released (1982) for some clue as to why the studio would release a homophobic film. We tolerated this homophobia in films released before 1969-1973 because of the philosophy of the general audience. But, for 1982, a homophobic "let's make a comedy about a good looking heterosexual man forced to spend time with faggots!" was not a politically correct decision. Why not make a film about a white cop forced to work with a black cop? They would not have done that: white supremacist dialog mixed with denigrative Black stereotypes would have outraged the audience. But, for this studio, screenwriter, director, producer and cast, "faggots are funny" was their objective. This film will only appeal to people who long for the 'good old days' when gays and lesbians were suppressed and legally humiliated.

Gosford Park (2001)

Altman's murder mystery version of "Upstairs, Downstairs"

[10/10 · 24 January 2010]

I have watched this film several times trying to keep up with the action. There is one murder and 41 suspects! I eventually had to go to IMDb to get the character list to try to keep up with who is who, upstairs and downstairs, with an attempt to keep track of who had a motive. After several attempts, I decided that it would be a fun parlor game to provide guests a list of characters and try to keep track of individuals' motives and try to guess "who did it". It would be a very few number of people who would have enough interest in film and mysteries to actually do it. Most viewers would throw up their hands in frustration and wait for the end of the film and find out "who did it". The most striking thing to me about the film is the strict British adherence to etiquette and class distinctions. The prejudicial response to the US guest and his valet, especially by Maggie Smith's character, is amusing. But it is the disrespect and abuse by the upstairs guests to the downstairs servants that makes the film so confusing. But, when the film is over, you have a greater appreciation for the British adherence to etiquette and class distinction. One can only hope that in the 21st century that this period piece will show a past status quo that has changed for the better.

The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond (2008)

Finally after 30 years, a "new" Tennessee Williams film

[10/10 · 24 January 2010]

I am a major fan of the works of Tennessee Williams and have everything that he has ever wrote that has been published. I also have all of the original 15 film adaptations of his work and all the remakes over the years. Tennesee Williams wrote this screenplay in 1980, but it was published posthumously in 1984. Then, we had to wait 24 years for it to be filmed. From my research, the film was made in 2008, but not released until January 2010. I do not understand the film industry's priorities that would withhold a film for two years. The film follows Tennessee Williams' screenplay very closely except for an added first scene that sets the tone for the screenplay's first scene where the underlying conflict is discussed but not shown. For most viewers, this added additional scene makes the conflict more understood rather than relying on the dialog to pick it up. It is refreshing to see a Tennessee Williams film where his screenplay is used. The majority of the screenplays for the 15 classic films were written by Gore Vidal to "clean them up" for audiences and censors. I will not discuss a synopsis of the film's characters and action. Instead, I recommend that if you like the drama of Tennessee Williams that you see this new film.

Antibody (2002 Video)

Do not watch this film unless you are writing a thesis on bad films.

[1/10 · 5 December 2009]

This is a blatant ripoff of "Fantastic Voyage". I can not find anything to recommend this film. If pressed, I can only say that it is better than single hand held super 8 video movies that make it to cable to feed the market for soft porn slasher flicks. This movie insults the intelligence of the viewer at every level. The science is wrong. Even a 7th grade science student could find the errors. The film is set in Germany, but they did not film it in Germany, hire any German actors or even have a dialog coach give any of the actors German accents. Every aspect of production is only a step above amateur and student films. The only attributes that improve the film are the models and digital effects that had to have been used to show a submarine navigate the blood vessels of the film's antagonist. My lingering question is why did any one make the film?