Suradit

If you're expecting the gritty, sweaty reality of rent boys in London, you'll find this movie disappointing. While there are some brief, decidedly homoerotic poses struck by the boys that replicate some of Caravaggio's paintings, the rent boys in this fantasy film are more about the cerebral than the physical. As mentioned several times in the film, they do not like the term "rent boys," preferring to be called "raconteurs."

The clients are obviously drawn to the physical beauty of the boys, in particular Harris Dickinson, but (and one must be reminded that this is a fantasy) it is the boys' ability to discuss artists such as Caravaggio in depth that seals the deal, so to speak.

One reviewer referred to this as "pretentious 'dibble'". Not sure what "dibble" is. I didn't notice anyone in the film dribbling, so presumably he meant "drivel." I have to totally disagree with that. I found it all to be fascinating and the actors carried it off with marvelous skill.

If I attempted to explain what it all meant, I would undoubtedly descend into pretentious drivel. It was somewhat amusing and presumably intended to mentally stimulate the viewer by making it all open to different interpretations. It undoubtedly explored the different forms of exploitation, but not in a way that demands all viewers react in a singular, predictable way.

I thoroughly enjoyed Postcards from London and will probably watch it again because, like a painting by Caravaggio, it contains far more than can be absorbed in one glance. I can easily see that it wouldn't appeal to everyone, but it definitely deserves attention as a thought-provoking film.

I found this biographical documentary to do a fairly good job covering the life of someone who is undoubtedly a person of importance in the history of South Africa and civil rights. For anyone who is unware or minimally familiar with the extent of the government's brutal treatment of the majority of its citizens throughout the history of South Africa, this documentary did not provide a meaningful context for Winnie Mandela's life and the lives of all non-white people under apartheid, but to have done that would have been a daunting, lengthy undertaking.

Another reviewer felt that Winnie's involvement in the death of Stompie Moeketsi and with the Mandela Football club was whitewashed in this documentary. I didn't find that to be the case. Even Desmond Tutu's plea to her to admit whatever she had done and the fact that she was asked to appear before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were documented. Clearly that provided evidence that she was thought to be complicit. But it was also evident that the government, factions within the ANC, Inkhata and Mangosuthu Buthelezi all exploited the charges against her in the media and through other propaganda. A former government official admitted as much.

Did she involve herself in violence? Almost certainly. Did what she may have done compare in any way to the total violence against people under apartheid. Not even close. Were the ANC and Inkhata and the government of the day in a position to throw stones? Hardly.

I'm not excusing what she did or her refusal to acknowledge it. But she was never likely to be given a fair hearing in the public or in any court. The testimony of supposed witnesses was remarkably inconsistent and in many case the same witness told stories that were totally different each time they testified or were interviewed, as was explained in the documentary.

I lived in southern Africa for nearly a quarter century during the time that encompassed the period before and after the independence of Zimbabwe and during the time that some of the ANC leadership was in exile in Lusaka until Nelson Mandela was installed as president of SA. A good deal of what happened during these periods of transition was horrific and there was plenty of blame to go around.. Despite some legitimate questions that can be raised about the behavior of some, or maybe all, of those involved, the fact remains that Winnie Mandela was extraordinarily brave and that her life was extraordinarily difficult. Very few important figures in world history, no matter how revered they may be, could withstand meticulous scrutiny of everything they did without tarnishing their reputations.

This was a good biographical documentary attempting to present a complex, difficult subject who is unquestionably a person of historical significance.

Great News might remind one of the Mary Tyler Moore show ... with variations on the characters in the MTM Show ...Ted, the clueless news anchor and Rhoda, Phyllis, Lou and Sue Ann Nivens all contributing to the mayhem and lunacy surrounding the life of the central character, Mary Richards.

Great News does have a fairly decent supporting cast. Actually, the supporting cast probably carries the show and they provide most of the comedy.

It's rather hard to tell whether the central character is meant to be Katie Wendelson or her mother or whether it's just supposed to be mélange with no one being the focus. Katie (Briga Heelan), unfortunately, has been poorly cast and makes it seem that the rest of the cast has to struggle to keep the show afloat.

Definitely could have been a better, funnier show based on the concept and the talent exhibited by most of the cast, but the overall result has become bland and borderline slapstick.

Maybe if the parts played by Nicole Richie (Portia) and John Michael Higgins (Chuck) became more central and Katie and her mother became more peripheral it would help.