Full Test

I went and saw this movie last night after being coaxed to by a few friends of
mine. I'll admit that I was reluctant to see it because from what I knew of Ashton
Kutcher he was only able to do comedy. I was wrong. Kutcher played the character of
Jake Fischer very well, and Kevin Costner played Ben Randall with such
professionalism. The sign of a good movie is that it can toy with our emotions.
This one did exactly that. The entire theater (which was sold out) was overcome by
laughter during the first half of the movie, and were moved to tears during the
second half. While exiting the theater I not only saw many women in tears, but many
full grown men as well, trying desperately not to let anyone see them crying. This
movie was great, and I suggest that you go see it before you judge.
Actor turned director Bill Paxton follows up his promising debut, the Gothic-horror
"Frailty", with this family friendly sports drama about the 1913 U.S. Open where a
young American caddy rises from his humble background to play against his Bristish
idol in what was dubbed as "The Greatest Game Ever Played." I'm no fan of golf, and
these scrappy underdog sports flicks are a dime a dozen (most recently done to
grand effect with "Miracle" and "Cinderella Man"), but some how this film was
enthralling all the same. The film starts with some creative opening
credits (imagine a Disneyfied version of the animated opening credits of HBO's
"Carnivale" and "Rome"), but lumbers along slowly for its first by-the-numbers
hour. Once the action moves to the U.S. Open things pick up very well. Paxton does
a nice job and shows a knack for effective directorial flourishes (I loved the
rain-soaked montage of the action on day two of the open) that propel the plot
further or add some unexpected psychological depth to the proceedings. There's some
compelling character development when the British Harry Vardon is haunted by images
of the aristocrats in black suits and top hats who destroyed his family cottage as
a child to make way for a golf course. He also does a good job of visually
depicting what goes on in the players' heads under pressure. Golf, a painfully
boring sport, is brought vividly alive here. Credit should also be given the set
designers and costume department for creating an engaging period-piece atmosphere
of London and Boston at the beginning of the twentieth century. You know
how this is going to end not only because it's based on a true story but also
because films in this genre follow the same template over and over, but Paxton puts
on a better than average show and perhaps indicates more talent behind the camera
than he ever had in front of it. Despite the formulaic nature, this is a nice and
easy film to root for that deserves to find an audience.
As a recreational golfer with some knowledge of the sport's history, I was pleased
with Disney's sensitivity to the issues of class in golf in the early twentieth
century. The movie depicted well the psychological battles that Harry Vardon fought
within himself, from his childhood trauma of being evicted to his own inability to
break that glass ceiling that prevents him from being accepted as an equal in
English golf society. Likewise, the young Ouimet goes through his own class
struggles, being a mere caddie in the eyes of the upper crust Americans who scoff
at his attempts to rise above his standing. What I loved best, however,
is how this theme of class is manifested in the characters of Ouimet's parents. His
father is a working-class drone who sees the value of hard work but is intimidated
by the upper class; his mother, however, recognizes her son's talent and desire and
encourages him to pursue his dream of competing against those who think he is
inferior. Finally, the golf scenes are well photographed. Although the
course used in the movie was not the actual site of the historical tournament, the
little liberties taken by Disney do not detract from the beauty of the film.
There's one little Disney moment at the pool table; otherwise, the viewer does not
really think Disney. The ending, as in "Miracle," is not some Disney creation, but
one that only human history could have written.
I saw this film in a sneak preview, and it is delightful. The cinematography is
unusually creative, the acting is good, and the story is fabulous. If this movie
does not do well, it won't be because it doesn't deserve to. Before this film, I
didn't realize how charming Shia Lebouf could be. He does a marvelous, self-
contained, job as the lead. There's something incredibly sweet about him, and it
makes the movie even better. The other actors do a good job as well, and the film
contains moments of really high suspense, more than one might expect from a movie
about golf. Sports movies are a dime a dozen, but this one stands out. This is one I'd recommend to anyone.
Bill Paxton has taken the true story of the 1913 US golf open and made a film that
is about much more than an extra-ordinary game of golf. The film also deals
directly with the class tensions of the early twentieth century and touches upon
the profound anti-Catholic prejudices of both the British and American
establishments. But at heart the film is about that perennial favourite of triumph
against the odds. The acting is exemplary throughout. Stephen Dillane is
excellent as usual, but the revelation of the movie is Shia LaBoeuf who delivers a
disciplined, dignified and highly sympathetic performance as a working class
Franco-Irish kid fighting his way through the prejudices of the New England WASP
establishment. For those who are only familiar with his slap-stick performances in
"Even Stevens" this demonstration of his maturity is a delightful surprise. And
Josh Flitter as the ten year old caddy threatens to steal every scene in which he
appears. A old fashioned movie in the best sense of the word: fine
acting, clear directing and a great story that grips to the end - the final scene
an affectionate nod to Casablanca is just one of the many pleasures that fill a
great movie.
I saw this film on September 1st, 2005 in Indianapolis. I am one of the judges for
the Heartland Film Festival that screens films for their Truly Moving Picture
Award. A Truly Moving Picture "...explores the human journey by artistically
expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life." Heartland gave that
award to this film. This is a story of golf in the early part of the
20th century. At that time, it was the game of upper class and rich "gentlemen",
and working people could only participate by being caddies at country clubs. With
this backdrop, this based-on-a-true-story unfolds with a young, working class boy
who takes on the golf establishment and the greatest golfer in the world, Harry
Vardon. And the story is inspirational. Against all odds, Francis Ouimet
(played by Shia LaBeouf of "Holes") gets to compete against the greatest golfers of
the U.S. and Great Britain at the 1913 U.S. Open. Francis is ill-prepared, and has
a child for a caddy. (The caddy is hilarious and motivational and steals every
scene he appears in.) But despite these handicaps, Francis displays courage,
spirit, heroism, and humility at this world class event. And, we learn a
lot about the early years of golf; for example, the use of small wooden clubs, the
layout of the short holes, the manual scoreboard, the golfers swinging with pipes
in their mouths, the terrible conditions of the greens and fairways, and the play
not being canceled even in torrential rain. This film has stunning
cinematography and art direction and editing. And with no big movie stars, the
story is somehow more believable. This adds to the inventory of great
sports movies in the vein of "Miracle" and "Remember the Titans." FYI -
There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where there is a listing of past winners
going back 70 years.
Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but I wonder how much of a hand Hongsheng had
in developing the film. I mean, when a story is told casting the main character as
himself, I would think he would be a heavy hand in writing, documenting, etc. and
that would make it a little biased. But...his family and friends also
may have had a hand in getting the actual details about Hongsheng's life. I think
the best view would have been told from Hongsheng's family and friends'
perspectives. They saw his transformation and weren't so messed up on drugs that
they remember everything. As for Hongsheng being full of himself, the
consistencies of the Jesus Christ pose make him appear as a martyr who sacrificed
his life (metaphorically, of course, he's obviously still alive as he was cast as
himself) for his family's happiness. Huh? The viewer sees him at his
lowest points while still maintaining a superiority complex. He lies on the grass
coming down from (during?) a high by himself and with his father, he contemplates
life and has visions of dragons at his window, he celebrates his freedom on a
bicycle all while outstretching his arms, his head cocked to the side. It's fabulous that he's off of drugs now, but he's no hero. He went from a high
point in his career in acting to his most vulnerable point while on drugs to come
back somewhere in the middle. This same device is used in Ted Demme's
"Blow" where the audience empathizes with the main character who is shown as a
flawed hero. However, "Quitting" ("Zuotian") is a film that is
recommended, mostly for its haunting soundtrack, superb acting, and landscapes.
But, the best part is the feeling that one gets when what we presume to be the
house of Jia Hongsheng is actually a stage setting for a play. It makes the viewer
feel as if Hongsheng's life was merely a play told in many difficult parts.
I felt this film did have many good qualities. The cinematography was certainly
different exposing the stage aspect of the set and story. The original characters
as actors was certainly an achievement and I felt most played quite convincingly,
of course they are playing themselves, but definitely unique. The cultural aspects
may leave many disappointed as a familiarity with the Chinese and Oriental culture
will answer a lot of questions regarding parent/child relationships and the stigma
that goes with any drug use. I found the Jia Hongsheng story interesting. On a down
note, the story is in Beijing and some of the fashion and music reek of early 90s
even though this was made in 2001, so it's really cheesy sometimes (the Beatles
crap, etc). Whatever, not a top ten or twenty but if it's on the television, check
it out.
This movie is amazing because the fact that the real people portray themselves and
their real life experience and do such a good job it's like they're almost living
the past over again. Jia Hongsheng plays himself an actor who quit everything
except music and drugs struggling with depression and searching for the meaning of
life while being angry at everyone especially the people who care for him most.
There's moments in the movie that will make you wanna cry because the family
especially the father did such a good job. However, this movie is not for everyone.
Many people who suffer from depression will understand Hongsheng's problem and why
he does the things he does for example keep himself shut in a dark room or go for
walks or bike rides by himself. Others might see the movie as boring because it's
just so real that its almost like a documentary. Overall this movie is great and
Hongsheng deserved an Oscar for this movie so did his Dad.
"Quitting" may be as much about exiting a pre-ordained identity as about drug
withdrawal. As a rural guy coming to Beijing, class and success must have struck
this young artist face on as an appeal to separate from his roots and far surpass
his peasant parents' acting success. Troubles arise, however, when the new man is
too new, when it demands too big a departure from family, history, nature, and
personal identity. The ensuing splits, and confusion between the imaginary and the
real and the dissonance between the ordinary and the heroic are the stuff of a gut
check on the one hand or a complete escape from self on the other. Hongshen slips
into the latter and his long and lonely road back to self can be grim. But what an exceptionally convincing particularity, honesty, and sensuousness
director Zhang Yang, and his actors, bring to this journey. No clichés, no
stereotypes, no rigid gender roles, no requisite sex, romance or violence scenes,
no requisite street language and, to boot, no assumed money to float character acts
and whims. Hongshen Jia is in his mid-twenties. He's a talented actor,
impressionable, vain, idealistic, and perhaps emotionally starved. The perfect
recipe for his enablers. Soon he's the "cool" actor, idolized by youth. "He was hot
in the early nineties." "He always had to be the most fashionable." He needs
extremes, and goes in for heavy metal, adopts earrings and a scarf. His acting
means the arts, friends--and roles, But not the kind that offer any personal
challenge or input. And his self-criticism, dulled by the immediacy of success,
opens the doors to an irrational self-doubt, self-hatred-- "I didn't know how to
act" "I felt like a phony"--and to readily available drugs to counter them. He says
"I had to get high to do what director wanted." So, his shallow identity as an
actor becomes, via drugs, an escape from identity. Hongshen's
disengagement from drugs and his false life is very gradual, intermittent--and
doggedly his own. Solitude, space, meditative thinking, speech refusal, replace
therapy. The abstract is out. And a great deal of his change occurs outdoors---not
in idealized locations but mainly on green patches under the freeways, bridges, and
high-rises of Beijing. The physicality is almost romantic, but is not. The bike
rides to Ritan Park, the long spontaneous walks, the drenching sun and rain, grassy
picnics, the sky patterns and kites that absorb his musing are very specific. He
drifts in order to arrive, all the while picking up cues to a more real and
realistic identity. "I started to open up" he says of this period in retrospect.
And the contact seems to start with his lanky body which projects a kind of
dancer's positioning (clumsy, graceful, humorous, telling) in a current
circumstance. If mind or spirit is lacking, his legs can compel him to walk all
night. Central to his comeback is the rejection of set roles. To
punctuate his end to acting and his determination to a new identity, he smashes his
videos and TV, and bangs his head till bloody against his "John Lennon Forever"
poster. He has let down his iconic anti-establishment artist---but he's the only
viable guide he knows. He even imagines himself as John's son (Yoko Ono), and
adopts his "Mother Mary" as an intercessor in his "hour of darkness" and "time of
trouble." (the wrenching, shaking pain in the park--hallucinatory and skitzoid
ordeals) "Music is so much more real than acting" he says. And speaks of Lennon's
influence as "showing me a new way." In the mental institute, the life-saving
apples (resistance, nourishment) reflect Lennon's presence, as does Hongshen's need
to re-hang his hero's poster in his redecorated room. If Lennon's
influence is spiriting, Hongshen's father's influence is grounding. Although father
and son are both actors and users (drugs and drink), it is Fegsen's differences
from his son that underwrites his change. For the father is more secure in himself:
he accepts that he's Chinese, a peasant in a line of peasants, a rural theater
director. And he exercises control over both his habit and his emotions. It's this
recognizable identity that drives Hongshen to treat him like a sounding board,
sometimes with anger and rage, sometimes with humor (the blue jeans, Beatles) and
passivity. In his most crazed, and violent exchange with his father in which he
accuses him of being a liar, and a fake, he exposes more of himself than his
father: "all the acts I acted before were bullshit... life is bullshit." And to
Hongshen's emphatic "you are NOT my father," he softly replies, "why can't a
peasant be your father?" Under these two teachers and with much
additional help from his mother, sister, friends, inmates at the rehab inst., he
makes some tangible connection to a real (not whole) self. As the long term drug
effects recede, so does his old identity. Indebtedness replaces pride, trust
distrust. Integrity banishes his black cloud. All his edges soften. "You are just a
human being" he repeats endlessly after being released from the strap-down incurred
for refusing medicine. Back home, lard peasant soap is fine with him now. And his
once "rare and true friendships" begin again as is so evident in the back to
poignant back-to-back fence scene with his musician buddy. Hongshen says of this
movie: "it's a good chance to think about my life." And I might add, become a New
Actor, one bound to art and life. Like Lennon, he has gained success without a loss
of identity.
I loved this movie from beginning to end.I am a musician and i let drugs get in the
way of my some of the things i used to love(skateboarding,drawing) but my friends
were always there for me.Music was like my rehab,life support,and my drug.It
changed my life.I can totally relate to this movie and i wish there was more i
could say.This movie left me speechless to be honest.I just saw it on the Ifc
channel.I usually hate having satellite but this was a perk of having satellite.The
ifc channel shows some really great movies and without it I never would have found
this movie.Im not a big fan of the international films because i find that a lot of
the don't do a very good job on translating lines.I mean the obvious language
barrier leaves you to just believe thats what they are saying but its not that big
of a deal i guess.I almost never got to see this AMAZING movie.Good thing i stayed
up for it instead of going to bed..well earlier than usual.lol.I hope you all enjoy
the hell of this movie and Love this movie just as much as i did.I wish i could
type this all in caps but its again the rules i guess thats shouting but it would
really show my excitement for the film.I Give It Three Thumbs Way Up! This Movie Blew ME AWAY!
I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a
fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD
CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was
mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite
impressive. I would have to agree with some of the other comments here
which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable
character. *******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan
would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END
SPOILER***** Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and
innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly
Oscar worthy. I am sure this production will be nominated for other
awards.
I first saw this movie on IFC. Which is a great network by the way to see
underground films. I watched this movie and was thinking it was going to be pure
drama and a story line that doesn't hold water. But it really was a worth while
watch. The main character is in such rough shape, and you hate to see him deny
help, but no matter what you just can't hate him. His devotion to The Beatles and
John Lennon is a great metaphor for his life and the helplessness he feels. The atmosphere of the film is also great. At times, you feel like you can
see what he sees, feel what he feels in some situations. This movie does not leave
you wanting to know more, or disliking a loophole in the plot. There are NO
loopholes (in my opinion). I have always been a fan of foreign films, especially
now with movies being made so poorly in America. I really enjoy the foreign
settings because I feel it can take you on a trip, and sometimes understand a
different culture. This movie did all those things to me and more. Please watch
this movie and if you're new to foreign films, this is a great start.
I must say, every time I see this movie, I am deeply touched, not only by the most
painful four years of Hongsheng's life, but also by how his family deals with his
drug addiction. It is also true that getting addicted to anything, such as drugs,
alcohol, or pornography, cannot only hurt you, but also hurt your most important
people in the world: your family. Since family is the #1 priority in the Asian
culture, it takes guts for the circle to gather together and show one person how
much the family loves him/her. this is actually the first Chinese movie that I
actually enjoy, not for the fun of it, but the elements surrounding it (superb
acting, touching story, great direction) make this movie worth watching. What
stands out the most is that Hongsheng and his family act out the story themselves
instead of having some B-movie actor trying to imitate the real person. It shows
the genuineness of the movie.
My wife is a mental health therapist and we watched it from beginning to end. I am
the typical man and can not stand chick flicks, but this movie is unbelievable. If
you want to see what it is like for someone who is going through these type of
struggles, this is the movie for you. As I watched it I found myself feeling sorry
for him and others like him. ***Spoiler*** Plus the fact that all the
individuals in the movie including the people in the mental institution were the
actual people in real life made it that more real. A must see for
someone in the mental health profession!
I saw this film at the Rotterdam International Film Festival 2002. This seemed to
be one of the less popular films on the festival, however, as it turned out, all
the more interesting. The story, of an actor trying to come to grips
with himself and his environment after withdrawing from a drug addiction, is based
on actual facts. Moreover, the characters playing in the film are the real people
living this experience over again, this time for the film, which is partly set up
as a stage play. Not only do they all happen to be good actors, Jia Hongsheng's
parents are actors in real life as well, the methods used in highlighting their
relationship towards Jia are very effective. Jia Hongsheng is the actor
of some Chinese action films late eighties start nineties. Later you can see him in
great films such as Frozen and Suzhou River. In between these two career paths Jia
becomes a drug addict and looses all drive to act or even do anything productive,
except for making somewhat futile attempts at becoming a guitar virtuoso. I like the way the writer of the scenario choose to emphasize on his
behavior after withdrawal more than on the horror of drugs. We really feel the pain
and struggle Jia is in. At the same time we hate him for the way he treats those
around him. The film draws the viewer into a tiring pattern Jia seems to
be caught in, dragging with him his parents and sister who try to take care of him.
Because there are personal 'interviews' with the characters we feel like we are
getting to know Jia not only through himself but through others as well. The film has a heavy feel, but scenes of Jia cycling through Bejing and
partying with his friends lighten the tone. So does the bitter humor in a lot of
events throughout the film. The music is beautiful and stayed with me for a while
after. This is a film that might not easily appeal to many people but for those
interested in the more serious and modern Chinese film this is a strong
recommendation.
"Night of the Hunted" stars French porn star Brigitte Lahaie.In fact,many of the
cast members in this slow-moving production were porn actors at the time of its
frantic filming.This film is certainly different than Rollin's usual lesbian
vampire flicks,but it's not as memorable as for example "Lips of Blood" or
"Fascination".Lahaie plays an amnesiac hitchhiker who can't remember who she is or
where she came from.Most of the film takes place in a modern apartment
complex,where Lahaie is being held by some kind of medical group that's treating a
number of people with a similar condition.Anyway,she escapes from the monolithic
office tower where the affected people are held.On a highway outside of town,she
meets a young man,who stops and picks her up."Night of the Hunted" offers plenty of
nudity,unfortunately the pace is extremely slow.The atmosphere is horribly sad and
the relationship between Brigitte Lahaie and another asylum inmate Dominique
Journet is well-developed.Still "Night of the Hunted" is too dull to be completely
enjoyable.Give it a look only if you are a fan of Jean Rollin's works.7 out of 10
and that's being kind.
Even if you're a fan of Jean Rollin's idiosyncratic body of work, you will be
caught off guard by this exceptional foray into science fiction territory. For
once, there's not a single diaphanously gowned vampire girl in sight ! True to
tradition, the budget proved way too tight to realize the director's vision
entirely. Yet this is largely compensated by his obvious love of genre cinema,
dedication to his craft and sheer ingenuity. Jean-Claude Couty's atmospheric
cinematography makes the most of the foreboding locations and Philippe Bréjean
(a/k/a "Gary Sandeur") contributes a startling soundtrack that fortunately doesn't
resemble any of the sappy stuff he composed for hardcore. Shot in and
around a Paris office block before and after working hours, the film was largely
cast with porn regulars Rollin was already quite familiar with from his "Michel
Gentil" cash-gathering XXX efforts, most notably French f*ck film royalty Brigitte
Lahaie in the demanding lead. Playing Elisabeth (rather well, I might add), she's
picked up wandering a nearby highway one night by Robert (Vincent Gardère), driving
home at the end of a long work day. Barely able to piece together the string of
events that got her there, Elisabeth seems to lose her memories mere moments after
events occur, even forgetting Robert's name and heroic savior role before their
night flight comes to an end at his apartment. Prior to making love, she rightfully
describes herself as a virgin (further credit to Brigitte's thespian skills that
she can handle the line so convincingly, being after all one of the more active
adult actresses of the '70s) because she cannot recall a single touch preceding
his. Because of this nifty bit of context, the relatively long sex scene that
follows totally eschews the gratuity of other "commercial" interludes Rollin has
had to include in other works to assure funding. When Robert leaves for
work, he's inevitably erased from Elisabeth's feeble mind. A mysterious doctor
(comedian Bernard Papineau effectively cast against type) and his menacing
assistant Solange (striking porn starlet Rachel Mhas) move in on her during her
protector's absence and take her back to the place she turns out to have escaped
from. Here we get one of the movie's strongest scenes as she's re-introduced to her
roommate Catherine (the late Cathérine Greiner a/k/a hardcore performer "Cathy
Stewart" in a quietly devastating turn), both girls desperately supplying
fictitious shared "memories" for one another in a bid to outrun their inevitable
fate. That deterioration is not solely limited to the mind becomes painfully clear
when they are served lunch and Catherine's unable to control her movements in
trying to eat a spoonful of soup. It's also Catherine who gets to voice the
filmmaker's compromise with the demands of commerce as she urges Elisabeth to get
naked and hold her because sex is all they have left now that both mind and
physical faculties have deserted them. Several rather explicit - if not
quite hardcore - sex scenes make up the movie's mid-section and French porn
aficionados should recognize the likes of Alain Plumey (a/k/a "Cyril Val"), Jacques
Gateau and Elodie Delage, along with a blink and miss bit from future porno
princess Marilyn Jess whose rape at the hands, mouth and member of Plumey was only
present in the film's rarely screened XXX version FILLES TRAQUEES. The pivotal part
of Véronique, a girl Elisabeth almost seems to remember and whom she seeks to
escape anew with, is beautifully handled by the exquisite Dominique Journet - in
her unforgettable debut - who would go on to play a sizable supporting role in
Franco Zeffirelli's LA TRAVIATA. The six feet under ending reveals the
deteriorating condition to be the result of a nuclear spill, the quarantined
"patients" ultimately leaving a barely breathing empty shell, unceremoniously
disposed off in a fiery furnace. The final shot offers a particularly heartbreaking
variation on that of Chaplin's MODERN TIMES as Elisabeth, approaching complete
meltdown by now, and a wounded Robert stumble along the railroad bridge, clumsily
clasping each other's outstretched hands.
I was surprised how much I enjoyed this. Sure it is a bit slow moving in parts, but
what else would one expect from Rollin? Also there is plenty of nudity, nothing
wrong with that, particularly as it includes lots of the gorgeous, Brigitte Lahaie.
There are also some spectacularly eroticised female dead, bit more dodgey, perhaps,
but most effective. There is also a sci-fi like storyline with a brief explanation
at the end, but I wouldn't bother too much with that. No, here we have a most
interesting exploration of memory and the effect of memory loss and to just what
extent one is still 'alive' without memory. My DVD sleeve mentions David Cronenberg
and whilst this is perhaps not quite as good as his best films, there is some
similarity here, particularly with the great use of seemingly menacing architecture
and the effective and creepy use of inside space. As I have tried to indicate this
is by no means a rip roaring thriller, it is a captivating, nightmare like movie
that makes the very most of its locations, including a stunning railway setting at
the end.
I went into "Night of the Hunted" not knowing what to expect at all. I was really
impressed. It is essentially a mystery/thriller where this girl who
can't remember anything gets 'rescued' by a guy who happens to be driving past. The
two become fast friends and lovers and together, they try to figure out what is
going on with her. Through some vague flashbacks and grim memories, they eventually
get to the bottom of it and the ending is pretty cool. I really liked
the setting of this one: a desolate, post-modern Paris is the backdrop with lots of
gray skies and tall buildings. Very metropolitan. Groovy soundtrack and lots of
nudity. Surprising it was made in 1980; seems somewhat ahead of it's
time. 8 out of 10, kids.
I have certainly not seen all of Jean Rollin's films, but they mostly seem to be
bloody vampire naked women fests, which if you like that sort of thing is not bad,
but this is a major departure and could almost be Cronenberg minus the bio-
mechanical nightmarish stuff. Except it's in French with subtitles of course. A man
driving on the road at night comes across a woman that is in her slippers and
bathrobe and picks her up, while in the background yet another woman lingers,
wearing nothing. As they drive along it's obvious that there is something not right
about the woman, in that she forgets things almost as quickly as they happen. Still
though, that doesn't prevent the man from having sex with her once they return to
Paris & his apartment. The man leaves for work and some strangers show up at his
place and take the woman away to this 'tower block', a huge apartment building
referred to as the Black Tower, where others of her kind (for whom the 'no memory'
things seems to be the least of their problems) are being held for some reason.
Time and events march by in the movie, which involve mostly trying to find what's
going on and get out of the building for this woman, and she does manage to call
Robert, the guy that picked her up in the first place, to come rescue her. The
revelation as to what's going on comes in the last few moments of the movie, which
has a rather strange yet touching end to it. In avoiding what seemed to be his
"typical" formula, Rollin created, in this, what I feel is his most fascinating and
disturbing film. I like this one a lot, check it out. 8 out of 10.
Since this cartoon was made in the old days, Felix talks using cartoon bubbles and
the animation style is very crude when compared to today. However, compared to its
contemporaries, it's a pretty good cartoon and still holds up well. That's because
despite its age, the cartoon is very creative and funny. Felix meets a
guy whose shoe business is folding because he can't sell any shoes. Well, Felix
needs money so he can go to Hollywood, so he tells the guy at the shop he'll get
every shoe sold. Felix spreads chewing gum all over town and soon people are stuck
and leave their shoes--rushing to buy new ones from the shoe store. In gratitude,
the guy gives Felix $500! However, Felix's owner wants to take the money and go
alone, so Felix figures out a way to sneak along. Once there, Felix
barges into a studio and makes a bit of a nuisance of himself. Along the way, he
meets cartoon versions of comics Ben Turpin and Charlie Chaplin. In the end,
though, through luck, Felix is discovered and offered a movie contract. Hurray!
Despite the title and unlike some other stories about love and war, this film isn't
too sticky and pink, because love is as a rose: With thorns, that is. The four
leading actors set their characters realistic and with a good sense and balance
between the tragic and the down-to-earth. The music and lyrics of the
cabaret/chanson-esquire songs (sung b Keira Knightley herself) drag the viewer
deeper and deeper in the film, from one place to another, between the brutal war
and amongst the peaceful love. Some people may find it too much a biopic, but it ís
mostly a romantic story, even though it consequently follows the life of Dylan
Thomas and the triangular relationship which is steeped by joy and jealousy. London gets visualized from another angle for once, the bohemian life of
Dylan during the bombings of the Germans is set in a floating atmosphere of small
bedrooms, pubs and bars. The independent women, the soldier and the charismatic
poet are constantly swept in both feelings of love and anger. Maybe the
end is too twisted and hangs somewhat loosely to the rest of the film, but all in
all this is a great romantic story.
Felix in Hollywood is a great film. The version I viewed was very well restored,
which is sometimes a problem with these silent era animated films. It has some of
Hollywood's most famous stars making cameo animated appearances. A must for any
silent film or animation enthusiast.
A gem of a cartoon from the silent era---it was re-discovered by CARTOON NETWORK,
and was broadcast for likely the first time in decades, if ever. What
makes this so enjoyable are the varied cameos...Douglas Fairbanks is attacked by
giant mosquitos; Will Hays pays a visit as 'boss' of Static Studios; as well as
appearances by Chaplin, Keaton, and William S. Hart. The image of chewing gum
decimating the shoes of the populace (a money-making idea for Felix's near-bankrupt
shoe-=salesman boss) cannot be described--it must be viewed. A terrific cultural
gem.
This short is one of the best of all time and is proof (just like most of Charlie
Chaplin's work) that sound and color are not requirements for quality work. In
fact, this cartoon uses (and may have started) some of the gags and devices that
became standard in animation in later years, like caricatures of celebrities
(including the afore-mentioned Chaplin. While the characters are silent, they do
"speak", by use of word balloons, just like in the comics. Given that Felix started
out in newspapers as a comic strip, this device is a natural. The atmosphere and
style of the short is completely harmonious with that of the comic strip while
adding another dimension (literally and figuratively) and makes this short a
delight to watch. Well worth taking the time and effort to get. Most highly
recommended.
Felix is watching an actor rehearse his lines: "A ham, A ham! My kingdom for a ham
sandwich!!!" The dramatic guy that tells Felix he'll "have to sacrifice my art and
go into the movies." He's in tears. Felix just looks at him like he's nuts, and
shrugs his shoulders. The old guy tells Felix to "go ye forth" and find money to
finance a trip to Hollywood. Felix thinks, "How does he expect me to get the
money?" In minutes, of course (this is a cartoon), he spots a shoe
business owner putting up a "bankrupt" sale on his store. Felix comes up with a
plan to bail him out and the man promises the cat $500 if it works. Well, it does but the man wants to go alone and leave Felix at home. In an
outrageous scene, Felix transforms himself into a briefcase and that's how he gets
to Hollywood, transforming himself back to cat when they get there. We
then witness Felix's attempts at getting into show business. His audition scenes
are very funny, especially with his imitation of Charlie Chaplin. In addition there
are caricatures of some famous silent film stars and executives. In all, quite a
bit of material is in this 9.5- minute cartoon. It's amazing how much more you can
get in an extra 2.5 minutes, assuming most animated shorts are seven minutes in
length. At any rate, there were a number of laughs in here and more zany
things you could only see in a cartoon, like Felix have a sword duel with giant
mosquitoes! Crazy stuff.
While I can't say whether or not Larry Hama ever saw any of the old cartoons, I
would think that writing said cartoons, file cards, and some of the comics would
count for something. For fans of the old cartoon, this is pretty much a
continuation of the same, except with a few new characters - and a more insane
Cobra Commander. We still have all the old favorites too, but on a
personal note, one thing that always irritated me was this "Duke in charge" stuff,
when there are tons of other *officers* around instead. The battle
sequences are similar to the old series as well; the main trick here seems to be
the CGI. It's overall pretty good, if not a little over-the-top.
Errol Flynn's roguish charm really shines through in this entertaining and
exciting, but historically bankrupt biopic of the famous (and some would say
infamous) General Custer, that follows his career from his first day at West Point,
through the Civil War and out west to the battle at The Little Big Horn, all the
while butting heads with rival Arthur Kennedy and romancing pretty Olivia de
Havilland. Some might say that Flynn, who delivers a great, flamboyant
performance as the general, is basically playing himself playing Custer! A lavish production (that should have been in Technicolor) well directed by
Raoul Walsh, They Died With Their Boots On features some truly well-staged battle
sequences. Also, it's a real treat to see Anthony Quinn playing Crazy Horse. The previous year, Flynn played Jeb Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's George
Custer in Santa Fe Trail (also with de Havilland), another action-packed Warner
Brothers production designed to make you fail history class!
Warner Brothers tampered considerably with American history in "Big Trail" director
Raoul Walsh's first-rate western "They Died with Their Boots On," a somewhat
inaccurate but wholly exhilarating biography of cavalry officer George Armstrong
Custer. The film chronicles Custer from the moment that he arrives at West Point
Academy until the Indians massacre him at the Little Big Horn. This is one of Errol
Flynn's signature roles and one of Raoul Walsh's greatest epics. Walsh and Flynn
teamed in quite often afterward, and "They Died with Their Boots On" reunited
Olivia de Havilland as Flynn's romantic interest for the last time. They appeared
as a couple in seven previous films. This 140-minute, black & white oater is
nothing short of brilliant with dynamic action sequences, humorous romantic scenes,
and stern dramatic confrontations between our hero and his adversaries. One of the
notorious errors involves Colonel Philip Sheridan who is shown as the commandant at
West Point before the Civil War. Indeed, Sheridan was a lieutenant at this point.
In fact, the commandant was Robert E. Lee as the earlier Flynn film "Santa Fe
Trail" showed. Another historical lapse concerns Lieutenant General Whitfield
Scott; Scott was not the commander of Union troops throughout the Civil War. Warner
Brothers presented Custer as a drinker (probably because Flynn had a reputation for
drinking), but in real life Custer neither drank nor smoked. Nevertheless, these as
well as other historical goofs do not detract from a truly splendid film. "They Died with Their Boots On" opens with Custer riding into West Point
Military Academy arrayed in a fancy dress uniform with an African-American carrying
his luggage and tending his dogs. After the sergeant of the guard realizes that he
has turned out a honor guard for a future plebe instead of a high-ranking foreign
general, the sergeant turns Custer over to a ranking cadet Ned Sharp (Arthur
Kennedy of "City for Conquest") to take charge of him. Sharp plays a practical job
on Custer by installing him in the quarters of Major Romulus Taipe (Stanley Ridges
of "Task Force") who promptly runs Custer out. Naturally, the volatile Custer
attacks Sharp in a public brawl. General Phil Sheridan (John Litel of "The Sons of
Katie Elder") is prepared to dismiss Custer from West Point for conduct unbecoming.
As it turns out, Sheridan cannot expel Custer because Custer has not enrolled. Once
he enrolls, Custer establishes a mediocre academic reputation with alacrity to
fight and accumulate demerits galore. When the American Civil War erupts, West
Point graduates cadets who have not completed their education and rushes them into
combat. One of the last cadets hustled off to war is Custer. Avid as he is to get
into the fight, Custer encounters his future wife, Elizabeth 'Libby' Bacon (Olivia
de Havilland of "Santa Fe Trail"), and they pledge themselves to each other,
despite Mr. Bacon (Gene Lockhart of "Carousel") who detests the sight of Custer. It
seems that Bacon ran across Custer at a saloon and insulted one of Custer's friends
and our hero reprimanded Bacon. Meanwhile, back in Washington, Custer
desperately seeks a transfer to a regiment, but Major Taipe has him cooling his
heels. Custer befriends rotund Lieutenant General Winfield Scott (Sidney
Greenstreet of "The Maltese Falcon") and they share an appetite for creamed Bermuda
onions that becomes one of Custer's characteristics. Not only does Scott see to it
that Taipe assigns Custer to the Second Cavalry, but also Custer appropriates
Taipe's horse to get to his command. During the Battle of Bull Run, 21 July 1861,
Custer disobeys orders from none other than Sharp, strikes his superior officer and
holds a bridge so the infantry can cross it. Wounded in the shoulder and sent to
the hospital, Custer receives a medal rather than a court-martial. When Confederate
General Jeb Stuart threatens the Union Army at the Battle of Gettysburg, in
Pennsylvania, Scott is shocked by the chance that the South may triumph. When a
brigadier general cannot be found, Scott goads Taipe into promoting the first
available officer. A mistake is made and Custer is promoted. Incredulous at first,
Custer embraces the moment and cracks Stuart's advance. After the war, Custer idles
down and starts boozing it up with the boys at the local saloons. Sharp shows up as
a crooked railroad promoter and with his father they try to enlist Custer to serve
as the president of their railway so that they can obtain funds. Eventually, Libby
intercedes on his behalf with General Sheridan, who was in command of the army, and
gets him back on active duty as the commander of the 7th Cavalry. When he takes
command, Custer finds the 7th cavalry a drunken lot and is not surprised that Sharp
commands the liquor at the fort. Meanwhile, Custer has his first run in with Crazy
Horse (Anthony Quinn of "The Guns of Navarone") and takes him into custody. Of
course, Crazy Horse escapes, becomes Custer's adversary, and they fight. Once Custer has quelled Crazy Horse and the Indians, Sharp with Taipe as a
government agent conspire to destroy a peace treaty with the Sioux and other Indian
nations. They also see to it that Custer is brought up on charges for striking
Taipe in a saloon brawl. On his way to Washington, Custer discovers the perfidy of
Sharp and Taipe who have drummed up a gold strike in the sacred Black Hills.
Settlers rampage in and the Indians hit the warpath. Custer sacrifices himself and
his 600 men at the Little Big Horn in a slam-bang showdown against 6000 redskins.
"Stagecoach" lenser Bert Glennon captures both the grit and the glory. The long
shot of the 7th Cavalry leaving the fort at dawn is spectacular. As an added
premonition of Custer's imminent demise, Libby faints after he leaves their
quarters for the Little Big Horn. "They Died with Their Boots On" benefits from a
top-notch Max Steiner score that incorporates the regimental tune "Gary Owen."
If you keep rigid historical perspective out of it, this film is actually quite
entertaining. It's got action, adventure and romance, and one of the premiere
casting match-ups of the era with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in the lead
roles. As evident on this board, the picture doesn't pass muster with purists who
look for one hundred percent accuracy in their story telling. To get beyond that,
one need only put aside the history book, and enjoy the story as if it were a work
of fiction. I know, I know, that's hard to do when you consider Custer's Last Stand
at the Little Big Horn and it's prominence in the history of post Civil War
America. So I guess there's an unresolved quandary with the picture, no matter how
you look at it. There's a lot to take in here though for the picture's
two hour plus run time. Custer's arrival at West Point is probably the first head
scratcher, riding up as he does in full military regalia. The practical joke by
Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) putting him up in the Major's headquarters probably should
have gotten them both in trouble. Ironically, a lot of scenes in this
military film play for comedy, as in Custer's first meeting with Libby Bacon, and
subsequent encounters that include tea reader Callie (Hattie McDaniel). I hadn't
noticed it before in other films, but McDaniel reminded me an awful lot of another
favorite character actor of mine from the Forties, Mantan Moreland. So much so that
in one scene it looked like it might have been Moreland hamming it up in a dress.
With that in mind, the owl scene was a hoot too. As for Flynn, it's
interesting to note that a year earlier, he portrayed J.E.B. Stuart opposite Ronald
Reagan's depiction of General Custer in "Santa Fe Trail", both vying for the
attention of none other than Olivia de Havilland. In that film, Reagan put none of
the arrogance and flamboyance into the character of Custer that history remembers,
while in Flynn's portrayal here it's more than evident. But it doesn't come close
to that of Richard Mulligan's take on the military hero in 1970's "Little Big Man".
Let's just say that one was a bit over the top. The better take away the
picture had for me was the manner in which Custer persevered to maintain his good
name and not gamble it away on a risky business venture. That and his loyalty to
the men he led in battle along with the discipline he developed over the course of
the story. Most poignant was that final confrontation with arch rival Sharp just
before riding into the Little Big Horn, in which he declared that hell or glory was
entirely dependent on one's point of view. Earlier, a similar remark might have
given us the best insight of all into Custer's character, when he stated - "You
take glory with you when it's your time to go".
After working on 7 movies with director Mickael Curtiz (The Adventures of Robin
Hood are their best achievement), Errol Flynn got tired of his dictatorial
direction and decided to work with the great Raoul Walsh. This reunion is a happy
thing for cinematography. THE DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON is their first and best film
together. Raoul Walsh portrays the General George Armstrong Custer (Errol Flynn)
from his debuts at West Point, to the Civil War and finally at the battle of Little
Big Horn. It's true the film shows a too heroic portrait of Custer, but that's not
important. What is important, is the fact that we are transported with the passion
and glory carried by the characters. Who can forget California Joe, the great
"Queen's Own Buttler" with his song "Garryowen", the touching Mrs Custer (Olivia de
Havilland), the diabolic Sharp well played by Arthur Kennedy ? An
eternal blow remains on this epic and tragic freso.
I first viewed "They Died With There Boots On",about 1970 and though it has been
many years since,this film and its impression remain.the cast was good to excellent
and the lead man was truly heroic.When I first saw this film I knew the wisest as
well as the only real position to have was to enjoy this film as a rousing bit of
entertainment and then some.I felt then as I even feel now that the Silver Screen
does not as such provide for a true depiction of much of anything let alone The
Life of George Armstrong Custer,however the Director Raoul Walsh was to contribute
to the real value represented in this film when I watched a semi-documentary with
other great directors like Vincent Mennelli wherein these central figures talked
about there accomplishments with valuable comments providing a glimpse into the
Hollywood mind set.This is what I considered something of interest and where all of
this became terribly interesting and very enjoyable.Yet, there have been so much
made of all the problems with the silver screen and its story telling ability that
some of the enjoyment has been lost and perhaps you would find that to be true here
as well.Custer ranked 34 in a graduating class of...34.Much has been made of
Custer's final class ranking,but of the 68 cadets who entered the Military Academy
with him in 1857,half of them had already flunked out or quit by graduation
day,June 24,1861.It is suggested in the movie as the various instructors are
determining if a soldier is fit for command and then they come upon the name of
George Armstrong Custer and there is to be certain an exchange between the two
sides and here is where the Sargeant on Duty says in almost a low tone even to
suggest as if that came out by accident"His squadron would follow him to hell,"Your
at attention Sargeant,reprimands Tape.If Iam not mistaken when Flynn shows up at a
initial battlefield it acknowledged that Custer did not see action right away and
indeed he was doing work as a reliable attaché to not only Sheridan,but Hancocks
forces as well only to end up for a time with the Army of The Potomac under General
George McClellan.There is some truth to the audacity attributed to Custers
battlefield heroics as was illustrated when in a counterattack ,"young Custer
spurred his horse to the lead and boldly plunged in among the stunned
Confederates.As a lone Union Soldier surrounded by rebels,Custers audacity shone
through.He accepted the surrender of several enemy soldiers,including a rebel
captain.Yet most outstanding was that in this action he personally captured the
very first Confederate battle flag taken by the Army of the Potomac.This notable
act of courage marked him as an officer of great battlefield promise."Robert
L.Bateman-Armchair General.There is a problem here and that is the telling of the
story and the truth as to George Armstrong Custer,the story is good Hollywood
entertainment perhaps even great entertainment but for whatever reasons all that
could be told was changed for entertainment purposes.Though this maybe jumping the
gun it might be well to know that Tom Custer was to lose his life at the "Little
Big Horn" only a few feet from where George Custer was to die as well.They were
brothers and Tom Custer to this very day holds a honorable distinction of being
amongst a very small group perhaps only 3 others to have been awarded the Medal of
Honor twice in his military career.The list of engagements that the motion picture
shows indicate that Custers indeed was an active young officer.He was not with
Union forces at either Chancellorsville or for that matter Fredericksburg however
he was with them at the Battle of Antietam and at that point in time he was
actually promoted to Captain by General McClellan but that was not to last as
McClellan was soon to be replaced due to the historical fact that The Army of The
Potomac had the means,and the information(discovered wrapped around some cigars was
General Lee's plans to split his forces)and yet he failed to act for some 17
hours.It can be speculated that the war could of been over then and there had that
occurred but when McClellan failed to act President Lincoln replaced him
permanently and the promotion was lost as a result. Custers greatest victory may of
in fact come at Gettysburg,Pa.His forces which occupied an area called cemetery
ridge at the field at Gettysburg in the summer of 1863 were able to defeat a Jeb
Stuart Led Cavalry of some 6,000 rebels with but a force of 2,300.I Think the
heroics at Gettysburg by Custer are worth some discussion.There is speculation had
in the movie that Custers appointment was a blunder, well you better guess again
because not only did Custer have men in his corner but he established a petition to
present to the Governor of the State of Michigan which by the way was relatively
new to the Union Cause and where preparing to form Cavalry regiments.Though Custer
was severely admonished for that kind of shenanigan when he showed up in all that
Gold Braid it was not by accident as you would be led to believe.The truth be told
Custers defense at Gettysburg prohibited Jeb Stuart from having lunch at the Unions
rear stores and vitally protected that flank.This action by the way occurred and it
was timed to coincide with Picketts Charge so to make for the greatest likelihood
of success.It was a critical victory and Custer was at his bravest and best.His men
did follow him to hell and lived to tell about it.
I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a
fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD
CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was
mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite
impressive. I would have to agree with some of the other comments here
which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable
character. *******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan
would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END
SPOILER***** Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and
innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly
Oscar worthy. I am sure this production will be nominated for other
awards.
I blame "Birth of a Nation" myself - for commencing the long-running tradition of
Hollywood travesties of history, of which there can be few greater examples than
this. Apart from getting the names of Custer and his 7th Cavalry, Crazy Horse and
the Sioux and President Grant spelt right, the geography correct and the fact that
Custer and his men were indeed wiped out to a man, the rest just takes hyperbole
and invention to ludicrous limits. Throw in some downright hackneyed scenes of the
purest exposition, (try Custer and his wife's learning of the phony "Gold Rush" to
excuse the invasion of the Sioux territory, Custer's testimony in front of Congress
pleading the rights of the Red Indians and to top it all, Custer's storming into
the president's office to beg to return to his post), honestly there's plenty more
of the same, some of these scenes almost comical in their corniness... ...And yet,
and yet, it's still a great actioner with Flynn as dashing as ever, DeHavilland as
beguiling as ever, the young Anthony Quinn getting a start as Crazy Horse and
director Walsh as barnstorming as ever in his depiction of crowd scenes and of
course the tumultuous action sequences. Ford taught us in "Liberty Valance" to
believe the legend before the truth. Here I think we're closer to the legend of the
legend but hey, it's only a movie and a rollicking, wonderfully enjoyable classic
Hollywood movie at that!
BEING Warner Brothers' second historical drama featuring Civil War and Battle of
the Little Big Horn, General George Armstrong Custer, THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON
(Warner Brothers, 1941) was the far more accurate of the two; especially when
contrasted with SANTA FE TRAIL (Warner Brothers, 1940), which really didn't set the
bar very high. ALTHOUGH both pictures were starring vehicles for Errol
Flynn, there was a change in the casting the part of General Custer. Whereas it was
"Dutch", himself, Ronald Reagan portraying the flamboyant, egomaniacal Cavalryman
in the earlier picture, with Mr. Flynn playing Virginian and later Confederate Hero
General, J.E.B. (or Jeb) Stuart; Errol took on the Custer part for THEY DIED WITH
THEIR BOOTS ON. ONCE again, the Warner Brothers' propensity for using a
large number of reliable character actors from the "Warner's Repertory Company" are
employed in giving the film a sort of authenticity, and all is really happening
right before our very own eyes. Major roles are taken by some better known actors
and actresses, such as: Elizabeth Bacon/Mrs. Custer (co-star Olivia de Havilland),
Ned Sharpe (Arthur Kennedy), Samuel Bacon (Gene Lockhart), Chief Crazy Horse
(Anthony Quinn), "Californy" (Charlie Grapwin), Major Taipe (Stanley Ridges),
General Phillip Sheridan (John Litel), Callie (the Bacon's Maid, Hattie McDaniel).
 THE rest of the cast is just chock full of uncredited, though skilled
players such as: Joe Sawyer, Eleanor Parker, Minor Watson, Tod Andrews, Irving
Bacon, Roy Barcroft, Lane Chandler, Spencer Charters, Frank Ferguson, Francis Ford,
William Forrest, George Eldridge, Russell Hicks, William Hopper, Hoppity Hooper,
Eddie Keane, Fred Kelsey, Sam McDaniel, Patrick McVey, Frank Orth, Eddie Parker,
Addison Richards, Ray Teal, Jim Thorpe (All-American, himself), Minerva Urecal,
Dick Wessel, Gig Young and many, many more. THE film moves very quickly,
particularly in the early goings; then sort of slows down out of necessity as the
story moves along to the Post Civil War years, the assignment of Custer as a
Colonel in the 7th Cavalry and the ultimate destiny at the Little Big Horn, in
Montana. Under the guidance of Director, Griffith Veteran, Raoul Walsh, the film
hits a greatly varied array of emotions; from the very serious, exciting battle
scenes and convincing historical scenes; looking as if they were Matthew Brady
Civil War Photos. As with most any of Mr. Walsh's films, he punctuates and
expedites the end of many a scene with a little humor; but not going overboard and
thus risking the chance of turning the film into a comedy (farce, actually). AS previously mentioned, this is much more factual than its predecessor,
SANTA FE TRAIL (last time we'll mention it, honest Schultz, Scout's Honor!).
However, that is not to say that it wasn't without a few little bits of "Artistic
and Literary License; as indeed, just about any Biopic will have. It would be
impossible to make any similar type of film if indeed every fact and incident were
to be tried to be included in the screenplay. Perhaps the most erroneous inclusion
as well as the most obvious invocation of Literary License is that business about
Custer's being accidentally promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. It just
didn't happen that way, yet the "gag" both helped the film to move along; while it
underscored the whole light, carefree feeling that permeated the early part of the
film. DIRECTOR Walsh and Mr. Flynn collaborated in giving us what would
seem to be a characterization of this legendary Civil War Hero that was very close
to the real life man. And they did this on top of the recreation of an incident,
being the Massacre by the Lakota Sioux, the Cheyenne and the Fukowi of Custer and
his 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. At the time of its occurrence, June 25,
1876, "Custer's Last Stand" was as big an incident and shock to the Americans'
National Psyche as were the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) or
the Atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic Fascists to New York's Twin Trade Towers
and the United States' Armed Forces' Headquarters in the Pentagon, Arlington,
Virginia on September 11, 2002. JUST as so many films of that period of
WORLD WAR II (and the years immediately before), there were so many incidents in it
that were, if not intentionally done, were demonstrations of virtues that would be
needed in time of another Global Conflict, such as we were in by the time of THEY
DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON was finishing up its original Theatrical release
period. POODLE SCHNITZ!!
When one stops to recollect upon the frequent on screen teaming of Errol Flynn and
Olivia DeHavilland, "They Died With Their Boots On" (1941) is most likely the film
remembered best. It is the sweeping saga of General Custer (Flynn) - told from the
time he enters West Point military academy and falls for the luscious Elizabeth
Bacon (DeHavilland), through his tenure during the American Civil War, and finally
with his death at Little Big Horn. Director, Raoul Walsh mounts his historical epic
on the laurels of highly questionable recanting of historical texts, rewritten by
screen writers Wally Kline and Aeneas MacKenzie, until truth and fiction are warped
all out of proportion. Hence, the battle against Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn)
is portrayed as a crooked deal between politicians - California Joe (Charley
Grapewin) and a spuriously absent corporation which wants to reclaim the land
Custer gave to the Indians through the systematic genocide of the Nation's first
peoples. Flynn, who cleverly plays Custer as though he is one part
Arnold Schwartzenegger to two parts Albert Schweitzer, has never been more ignoble.
He literally oozes charm and sex appeal from every pore that easily melts the heart
of his loyal heroine. Resident Warner stock players, Arthur Kennedy and Sidney
Greenstreet deliver marvelous cameos that appear to have far more depth and
character than is actually written into the material for them. Overall,
then, despite its loose rendering of history in favor of a good romantic yarn,
"They Died With Their Boots On" is ample film fodder for a Saturday matinée or
Sunday night cooing with one's sweetheart. Warner's DVD is pretty nice looking.
Although film grain is often obvious, the gray scale has been very nicely rendered
with deep, solid blacks and very clean whites. Some fading is obvious during scene
transitions. The audio has been very nicely cleaned up and is presented at an
adequate listening level.
The historical inaccuracies of this film have been well documented. It was never
intended to be serious history but an entertaining saga and there it succeeds.
Errol Flynn was never better as this role was tailored for him. Olivia DeHavilland
was never more beautiful. Arthur Kennedy never more villainous. Anthony Quinn never
more noble than as Crazy Horse. It had much humor and pathos and held your interest
throughout. The one historical aspect I found most glaringly inaccurate was the
final "Last Stand" which occurred on the banks of the Little Big Horn. The film
version was filmed in a desert with no river in sight. However, I still consider it
marvelous entertainment typical of Hollywood's golden age.
It's true that "They Died With Their Boots On" gives a highly fictionalized account
of George Armstrong Custer's (Errol Flynn) life and career, but a remarkable one,
especially with regard to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Because it is not a
given that a 1941 movie tries to portray both the US-American cavalryman and Native
American leader Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn) in a favorable light. I'm almost
tempted to say that "Little Big Man" in its unqualified anti-Custer stance seems
unbalanced by comparison. Further, one should not be mislead by the title of the
picture this isn't just a movie about the Battle of the Little Big Horn, it's a
movie about that shows the unreliable West Point cadet, the famed Civil War hero,
the Indian fighter, and, last but not least, the husband. The movie
begins with Custer's time at the West Point military academy, where his
recalcitrance and insubordinate behavior lead to frequent demerits. During a
punitive military exercise, he meets his future wife, Elizabeth Bacon (Olivia de
Havilland), who, like Custer himself, is a native of Monroe, Michigan. Custer
intends to court her, but the outbreak of the Civil War calls him away. Custer's
legendary bravery is shown in a sequence of battle scenes, the greatest of which is
devoted to his engagement with legendary Southern cavalry general Jeb Stuart during
the Battle of Gettysburg. While on leave, he travels to Monroe and courts
Elizabeth, who promises him her hand in matrimony. Immediately after the war,
Custer and Elizabeth Bacon are married. With the Civil War over, Custer
is demoted, doesn't get a real command, and has to go through the painstakingly
slow process of promotion in the small, professional American army. As he starts to
drink, his wife intervenes in his behalf with former general-in-chief Winfield
Scott. Custer is given the command of the US 7th Cavalry, which he trains to be an
elite unit. Neither Custer nor Crazy Horse are desirous of battle, but greedy
businessmen and corrupt politicians decide to build a railroad through Indian lands
in clear violation to earlier treaties. Custer explicitly acknowledges the justice
of Crazy Horse's cause, but rides into battle to do his duty as a soldier, exposing
the conspiracy of the moneyed interests in a letter he writes on the eve of
battle. "They Died With Their Boots On," though short on historical
accuracy, is as good as war movies and Westerns in the 1940s got: Both Custer and
Crazy Horse are played by major actors, neither the Indians nor the Southern
Confederacy are denigrated, and the courtship scenes with beautiful Livvy de
Havilland are just charming. The only minus, and that's why I can't give this
picture a full 10, is the undercurrent of racism in the portrayal of African
American servants; Elizabeth's servant Callie is the stereotypical, overweight,
good-natured, superstitious black mammy. It is also interesting that the
movie does not find fault with either Custer or Crazy Horse, but with the greed of
the railroad companies pressuring Washington politicians with semi-criminal methods
into breaking assurances they had given to the Native Americans. Just a couple of
years later, the insinuation that American entrepreneurs could even think of doing
anything remotely questionable would probably have been taken as a hint that the
film makers were communist sympathizers. Needless to say that "They Died
With Their Boots On" omits the fact that Custer's overly aggressive tactics often
bordered on the foolhardy, greatly overstates the importance of his engagement with
Stuart, and doesn't mention the lack of reconnaissance prior to the Battle of the
Little Big Horn. Nevertheless, Custer was seen as a war hero by his contemporaries
and had some spectacular exploits to point to in the Battles of Brandy Station,
Gettysburg, Trevilian Station and others, though his feats of arms were not as
decisive for the Civil War as "They Died With Their Boots On" suggests. In any event, "They Died With Their Boots On" is a well-made war movie with
Western elements, three outstanding performers (Flynn, Quinn, and de Havilland),
and offers a positive view of Native Americans as well as a negative one on big
money, which wouldn't be seen in major Hollywood productions for decades to come.
It would deserve a 10 if it weren't for the racist minstrelization of African
Americans.
The film is excellent. One of the most noteworthy things about it is that Flynn's
performance is superb. This is worth stressing, as he was often derided as an actor
by Bette Davis et al. I remember the scene where Flynn gets Arthur
Kennedy drunk in order to take him to his doom at the Battle of the Little Big
Horn. The cold, calculating look on Flynn's face as he does so is extraordinary -
much better than the much vaunted Spencer Tracy or many other stars could have
done. The other thing to note is the excellent performance by George P.
Huntley Jr as Lt "Queen's Own" Butler. It is baffling why he stopped making films
shortly afterwards - one would have thought that he would have been set up for
years after as a character actor.
Now this is more like it!One of the best movies I have ever seen!Despite it made
very well on all aspects,this movie was put down solely for not being too
historically accurate.Loosen up!There are tons of historical movies out there that
were forgiven for not being too historically accurate and many of them do not even
come close to how grand,how entertaining and how captivating this movie was!Now
this is what a movie ticket is all about!You will get exacty what you want from
this movie's genre and all naysayers are those with the anti-Flynn syndrome.This
conservative rooted syndrome is very closely related to the anti-Elvis,anti-
Ali,anti-Clinton,anti-Kennedy syndromes,usually caused by fear of charming
individuals who have unconventional beliefs.If the viewer of this movie is open
minded and has the ability to separate politics from art,you will find this movie
not only one of the best classics,but also one of the best movies of all time.I
rate it the second best western ever, right behind Wayne's The Cowboys........
This movie is good for entertainment purposes, but it is not historically reliable.
If you are looking for a movie and thinking to yourself Òh I want to learn more
about Custer's life and his last stand', do not rent `They Died with Their Boots
On'. But, if you would like to watch a movie for the enjoyment of an older western
film, with a little bit of romance and just for a good story, this is a fun movie
to watch. The story starts out with Custer's (Errol Flynn) first day at
West Point. Everyone loves his charming personality which allows him to get away
with most everything. The movie follows his career from West Point and his many
battles, including his battle in the Civil War. The movie ends with his last stand
at Little Big Horn. In between the battle scenes, he finds love and marriage with
Libby (Olivia De Havilland). Errol Flynn portrays the arrogant, but
suave George Armstrong Custer well. Olivia De Havilland plays the cute, sweet Libby
very well, especially in the flirting scene that Custer and Libby first meet. Their
chemistry on screen made you believe in their romance. The acting in general was
impressive, especially the comedic role ( although stereotypical) of Callie played
by Hattie McDaniel. Her character will definitely make you laugh. The
heroic war music brought out the excitement of the battle scenes. The beautiful
costumes set the tone of the era. The script, at times, was corny, although the
movie was still enjoyable to watch. The director's portrayal of Custer was as a
hero and history shows this is debatable. Some will watch this movie and see Custer
as a hero. Others will watch this movie and learn hate him. I give it a
thumbs up for this 1942 western film.
Naturally, along with everyone else, I was primed to expect a lot of Hollywood
fantasy revisionism in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON over the legend of Custer.
Just having someone like Errol Flynn play Custer is enough of a clue that the
legend has precedence over the truth in this production. And for the most part my
expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way). Yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the
Custer story, I was struck by some of the points made in this movie that, sometimes
subtly but nevertheless solidly, seemed to counter the typical clichés of manifest
destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in Westerns of the early 20th
century. For instance, even while this film attempted to whitewash it's
hero, certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the
real-life Custer: 1) His initial entrance at the West Point front gate,
in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character. 2) His miserable record at West Point, which seems to be attributed as much to
Custer's cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor;
there are moments in the way Flynn plays Custer at West Point where he seems
downright stupid. 3) Custer's promotion to General is not only presented
as a ridiculous mistake, but it plays out as slapstick comedy. I half-expected to
see the Marx Brothers or Abbott and Costello wander into the scene. 4)
Custer's stand against Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant
military tactical leadership, but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky. 5) Custer's drinking problem is certainly not ignored. And
although the music and some of the ways the Indians were shown in this film were
certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage, it still
came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why
the Indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land,
and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the Black Hills squarely at
the foot of the white man. In fact, no one can argue that the clear villain of the
piece is not Anthony Quinn as Sitting Bull, but Arthur Kennedy & Co. as the white
devils making the false claim of gold in the Black Hills. Sure, that part of the
story is true, but I didn't expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a
movie like this. And one other thing: usually in these films it is the
Indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the
basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near
alcohol. In this movie, it is actually the troops of the 7th Cavalry, and not the
Indians, who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way. All in all,
this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the Hollywood bunk.
As a history of Custer, this insn't even close (Custer dies to help the indians? I
am sure the other members of the 7th Cav weren't consulted in THAT decision.) But
as a western, this is fun. Flynn looks, and acts, the part of the dashing cavalier.
And the "Garry Owen" is always nice to hear!
So keira knightly is in it...So automatically we compare this film to attonement.
Aside rom the fact that this film is also wartime and her appearance is uncanning,
these films are totally different. The Actors work well, i think one
good thing is there is no memorable person, they are a team. If you want
a film where things happen, then id advise another as the story of this film is
about human interaction and their physche's damaged by their experiences and how
their lives are intertwined. This film have genuine interaction, perfect
pause moments that make you hold your breath. No its not exciting, but it is
gripping if you can empathise with these characters. At moments i wondered if this
film may have been better as a theatrical play rather than a movie. We expect a lot
from movies as everything is possible, and yet with theatre we allow for
interaction and rely on belief. There are things wrong with it if your
looking for a blockbuster, if you look for nothing and allow the film to take you
in, move you, allow yourself to forget these stars, and not to judge them as actors
but let them become people, you will truly ind yourself moved. GO ON!!
give it a go!
Although "They Died with their Boots On" is not entirely historically accurate it
is a very entertaining western. Not only is Flynn the perfect Custer, the character
actors are superb. Besides the action portion of the movie Flynn and DeHavilland's
love scenes are very touching and believable.(Flynn and DeHavilland were very fond
of each other in real life). Flynn was always so tormented for being not taken
seriously if only he knew that there were very few actors who could play the
characters he played and play them well!
Errol Flynn at his best as Robin Hood of the West, fighting military red tape,
confederates , indians and carpetbagger business crooks singlehanded to his great
and final heroic end. Not to forget the ever reliable O. de Havilland as Lady Mary
of the west. Never try to link this story to the facts and the real persons, it
doesn't work out. Just enjoy it, because nobody ever claimed to make documentaries
when Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn co-worked.
The saving grace of this film is its humour. Playing up to the strengths of their
star, Warner Brothers cast their version of General Custer as a cocky, dashing,
irreverent prankster with a romantic streak and an unexpected strain of idealism;
it was Robin Hood all over again, and Flynn blossomed in the role. All his best
action pictures made use of his talent for mischief and comic timing, and this one
was no exception. It also benefits from the return of former co-star
Olivia de Havilland, despite an earlier agreement to break the partnership; the
part of strong-minded Libby Custer is a better role than the sweet love-interest
types she had grown tired of playing for the studio in Flynn's later films, and
after seeing the script he had specifically requested de Havilland be cast so that
she could do justice to the part. In this final collaboration, she piles all her
considerable acting skill into what is, at heart, basically a romping adventure
movie, and the screen chemistry is rekindled -- for once, she and Flynn get the
chance to develop their characters beyond the initial romance into an old married
couple, to equally winning effect. The Flynn/de Havilland pairing and
the streak of comedy are what have provided this film's durability, when most of
Flynn's other Westerns -- held in such affection by the contemporary American
public, although allegedly not by their star -- have long since been forgotten. The
action scenes are fairly cursory (despite, ironically, the death of an extra in a
fall during one of the filmed charges) and the villains of the piece turn out,
schoolboy-fashion, to be the same people who were horrid to Our Hero on his very
first day at West Point, and thus continue to frustrate him throughout his career.
It cuts down on the cast list, but it's a trifle too morally convenient. However, these are quibbles largely irrelevant to a film that never set out
to be more than a rousing piece of entertainment. Ably aided and abetted by a
sterling group of supporting players (memorably including Anthony Quinn in an all-
but-wordless role as the Sioux leader), Errol Flynn gallops his way through the
plot courtesy of his usual arsenal: charmingly sheepish looks, unexpected
sweetness, mischievous twinkles, flash-point indignation, cheerful fellowship and
sheer high-octane charisma. He's a reckless braggart, but you can't help but like
him. And it's hard to go away without the tune of "Garryowen" threading its jaunty
way through your ears for many days thereafter. This is one of Flynn's
lasting hits; it also contains a surprising amount of good acting amongst the fun,
and is a film worthy of being remembered.
this is awesome!!! there is no partnership quite like Errol, and Olivia. there love
is genuine! I'm 24, yet this flick is as captivating now as I'm sure it was 60
years ago. Raoul Walsh is an under-rated genius, his direction is so sweeping, so
broad, yet so intimate. the last scene between colonel custer (Flynn), and his wife
(de havilland), almost brought me to tears (Not easy for a 24yr old guy!!), its so
heart-wrenching. there is also a deep Christian message implicit here, the faith
Custer has in taking your glory with you, and the trust, and fidelity of his wife
to the extent of letting him go, in order that he fulfils his moral duty to protect
the innocent civilians from certain massacre. there is no movie that deals with
these issues quite like this. a must-see for anyone who wants to look at this
defining moment in American, and military history, from the inside. patriotic, for
all the right reasons. i knew Errol Flynn was a star, and De havilland was a screen
legend-this only confirms my suspicions that they are among the very greatest!
George Armstrong Custer is known through history as an inept General who led his
rgiment to their death at the battle of Little Big Horn. "They Died with their
boots on," paints a different picture of General Custer. In this movie he is
portrayed as a Flamboyant soldier whose mistakes, and misdeeds are mostly ue to his
love for adventure. Errol Flynn plays George Armstrong Custer who we
first meet as an over confident recruit at West Point. Custer quickily
distinguishes himself from other cadets as beeing a poor student who always seems
to be in trouble. Somehow this never appears to bother Custer and only seems to
confuse him as he genuinely does not know how he gets into such predicaments. In
spite of his poor standing, he eventualy graduates and becomes an officer in the
United States Army. Through an error, Custer receives a promotion in rank. Before
this can be corrected, he leads a Union regiment into battle against the
Confederates. His campaign is successful and Custer becomes an unlikely national
hero. Custer returns to his hometown, marries his sweetheart, Libby who is played
by Olivia De Havilland. Libby is a very supportive understanding wife who
steadfastly stays by his side and follows him into the frontier as he assumes
leadership of the Seventh Regiment of the Cavalry. Custer becomes a man of honor
who strives to keep peace with the Native Americans. To prove his intentions, he
enters into a treaty with Crazy Horse, the leader of the Sioux . When that treaty
is jeopardized by a conspiracy to spread a false rumor of gold being found in the
Black Hills, Custer sacrifices his own life as well as the lives of the men under
his command to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent settlers. Errol Flynn dominates each scene in which he appears. He successfully portrays
Custer as being flamboyant, arrogant, romantic and funny depending on the mood of
the scene. Olivia De Havilland's depiction of Libby Bacon Custer as the love of his
life lets us see his tender, more gentle side. The Chemistry between DeHavilland
and Flynn, who had acted together in several other movies, is so smooth and it
almost makes the viewer feel like they are playing themselves and not the parts of
Custer and his wife. The other actors portrayals of their characters truly enhance
the performances of Flynn and De Havilland. Anthony Quinn as Crazy Horse, Sidney
Greenstreet as General Winfield Scott , Arthur Kennedy as Edward Sharp are among
the other actors whose roles have made this movie entertaining. The
reviewer would rate this a 4 star movie. While it is not historically accurate, it
is very entertaining. The movie has a little bit of everything. It has adventure,
comedy and romance, so it appeals to a large variety of audiences. The casting of
the characters is excellent and the actors give believable performances which makes
you forget it is largely based on fiction instead of fact. The reviewer especially
likes that the Native Americans were not shown to be the bad guys but just showed
them as wanting to protect their sacred land. 
Whether one views him as a gallant cavalier of the plains or a glory hunting
egomaniac, debates about the life and military career of George Armstrong Custer
continue down to the present day. They Died With Their Boots On presents certain
facts of the Custer story and has taken liberty with others. He did in
fact graduate at the bottom of his class at West Point and got this overnight
promotion on the battlefield to Brigadier General. His record leading the Michigan
Regiment under his command was one of brilliance. It was also true that
his marriage to Libby Bacon was one of the great love matches of the 19th century.
Libby and George were married for 12 years until The Little Big Horn. What's not
known to today's audience is that Libby survived until 1933. During that time she
was the custodian of the Custer legend. By dint of her own iron will and force of
personality her late husband became a hero because she would not allow him to be
remembered in any other way. I think Raoul Walsh and Warner Brothers
missed a good opportunity to have the Custer career told in flashback. Olivia
DeHavilland should have been made up the way Jeanette MacDonald was in Maytime, and
be telling the story of her husband and her marriage from the point of view of
nostalgia and remembrance. Even then the cracks in the Custer legend were
appearing, but if done from Libby's point of view, they could be understood and
forgiven. Sydney Greenstreet gave a fine performance as General Winfield
Scott. The only problem was that Scott had nothing whatsoever to do with Custer, he
was retired and replaced by George B. McClellan in late 1861 while Custer was still
at West Point. I'm not sure they ever met. But Greenstreet does a good
characterization of the ponderous and powerful Winfield Scott. A nice Mexican War
story should have been what they gave Greenstreet instead for his very accurate
portrayal of old Fuss and Feathers. The film though is carried by one of
the great romantic teams of cinema, Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland. This was
the last of eight films they did together. The last scene they ever did for the
cameras was Libby's farewell to George as he leaves to join his regiment for what
will prove to be his last campaign. Both their performances, Olivia's especially,
was a high point in their careers at Warner Brothers. We know through history that
Custer is riding to his doom, that and the fact that this was their last screen
teaming give this scene such a special poignancy. If your eyes don't moisten you
are made of marble. As history They Died With Their Boots On leaves a
lot to be desired. As western adventure that successfully mixes romance with the
action, you can't beat this film at all.
great historical movie, will not allow a viewer to leave once you begin to watch.
View is presented differently than displayed by most school books on this subject.
My only fault for this movie is it was photographed in black and white; wished it
had been in color ... wow !
I saw this film over Christmas, and what a great film it was! It tells the story of
Custer (played by Errol Flynn) during and after his graduation from Westpoint.
Although I've heard that the film isn't very historically accurate (Hollywood never
is) I still enjoyed it as I knew little of the real events anyway. I
thought Errol Flynn was brilliant as Custer and has since become my favourite
actor! His acting alongside Olivia De Havilland was brilliant and the ending was
fantastic! It brought me close to tears as he and Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) rode
to their deaths on little big horn. I had always known that Errol Flynn
was a brilliant actor as he was my dads favourite actor, and I grew up watching his
films as a child. But it wasn't until I watched this film that I realised how great
he actually was. I'll give this film 10 out of 10!!
Although this film changes reality to make it more heroic and entertaining,
sometimes fantasy is more enjoyable than real life, and also nothing could be more
real than Errol Flynn playing Custer. This remains the best film made about Custer.
The music of Max Steiner is magnificent and also all through the film the Irish
song "Gerry Owen", which was a favourite of Custer is played. The film should have
more villains, because they try to concentrate all the bad guys in Arthur Kennedy.
The relationship between Flynn and De Havilland flows like in no other off their
films together, and director Raoul Walsh with his experience in outside scenes with
a lot of actors is at his best.
This is a wonderful film as a film - it gets an 8 out of 10. As a filmed piece of
accurate history...one wishes to be more loving, but it is a 5 out of 10. And I
think I am actually being very charitable. What was he like - that man
of horse and saber who was the youngest "boy" general in the Union Army of the
American Civil War, and ended dying with all his command in the greatest military
victory of the North American Indian tribes? Opinionated, militant, bumptious,
bloody-handed, ambitious, clever, too-clever, Indian-foe, Indian-friend(?), and
national hero. His death in 1876 was treated as a national tragedy and pushed him
into a position of fame equal to Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, and Grant/Lee, and
Sherman/Jackson. It is only with a growing awareness of the mistakes made in his
career - the overly ambitious hot-spur, that his reputation declined. Yet to this
day, George Armstrong Custer remains the best recalled figure in our history's
military annals to lose his last battle (I can't really think of a similar one -
maybe General Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, forced to stay with his men on the Bataan
Death March - but Wainwright survived the March and the Second World War). Custer has appeared in more films than far better generals, due to the
Western adventures and Little Big Horn. Pity that the details of the real career
were never handled so lovingly as Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn handled them in this
film. But even in 1941 the legend was still potent. Olivia De Haviland portrayed
Libby Custer, who was recently pointed out in another film review on this thread
survived George until 1933, so her effective handling of the story was still in
place eight years later. Custer was seen as our wayward but brave knight errant,
and with the shadow of World War II looming closer we had to keep the myth and bury
the truth. John Ford would have fully understood this and approved it. So we get the view that he was a hot-spur, but he was patriotic. Although almost
pushed out of West Point by demerits (which was true), Custer was in the class of
1861, and it would have been really stupid to be picky about such a fighter that
year. You see, most of the so-called military talent from West Point (from Robert
E. Lee down) was southern, and joined the Confederacy. The Union needed every
northern "Point" man they could find. Custer's Civil War career should
be given closer study - he was attached to the staff of General - In - Chief George
B. McClellan, and distinguished himself in the Peninsula Campaign and other eastern
front warfare. But he was a cavalryman - and he would rise under the watchful eyes
of Grant and Sherman's buddy Phil Sheridan in the latter parts of the war. In
particular he served with dash and distinction at the battle of Cedar Creek, which
ended the threat of the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley. It also hit Custer
hard on a personal level (his close West Point friend, Stephen Ramseur, joined the
Confederacy and rose to a position like Custer - mortally wounded, Custer sat with
Ramseur all through the latter's last night alive). Following the war
things fell apart. He wanted to make his brevet - Major Generalship permanent (it
wasn't, as it was a battlefield promotion). They only had a Lt. Colonelship to give
him in the shrunken army along the frontier. He tried to play politics, making the
error of supporting President Andrew Johnson on a political trip in 1866, and
finding most Northerners hated Johnson as an inept idiot. He supposedly admired the
Indians (he certainly was eloquent in writing of them and the West), but he caused
a genuine military massacre in 1868 of Indian women and children that ended with a
court martial. Later, during the 1870s he would support Indian claims against a
ring of politicians (that went up to the Secretary of War, William Belknap) who
bought and sold Indian trading posts for profit. It ruined Belknap, and left a
black eye on the Grant Administration. It put him into the doghouse with Grant and
Sherman (who was Belknap's former commander), and Sheridan barely saved his career.
Then he was sent on the final Big Horn Campaign. And immortality arrived. That career is worth a real film, but would it be too critical? Should we
hold a man of the 1850s - 1876 to the standards of 2007? Would we like that done to
us in a hundred years? Certainly it could happen, but I'm not sure we'd like it. Custer (1941 style) fit Flynn like a glove, with his giving the closest to
a "dance" performance in any of his major films. His final movie with Olivia De
Haviland is underlined with a melancholy due to the fate of the hero's character.
In support actors like Sidney Greenstreet, Stanley Ridges, Arthur Kennedy and
Anthony Quinn did very nicely as friends, foes, or even treacherous sneaks
(Kennedy). As an entertaining piece of myth making it remains high - but as a study
of a complex military hero it is not what it should be.
Can you capture the moment? When first you hear rain on a roof? Some things are
beyond the sum of their parts, expressing the poetry of life. The things that
matter. Poet Dylan Thomas captured the seemingly inexpressible "A good
poem helps to . . . extend everyone's knowledge, of himself and the world around
him." (Bob Dylan named himself after him). So why has it taken so long to make a
film of the great Dylan Thomas? A simple biopic could have missed the point. Writer
Sharman Macdonald has taken a different, better approach. In The Edge of
Love, she creates the world of passions and complexities that fill the poems so we
can swim in them. The lives of four friends. Dylan, who lusts and loves to the
full. Wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller), his feisty support. War-hero William (Cillian
Murphy), who saves him from a street brawl. And then there's his childhood
sweetheart. Vera. Dear Vera. Take your breath away Vera. She's Caitlin's closest
friend. William's wife. And, like a muse, the 'star' in Dylan's dark sky. It all kicks off in the 1940 London Blitz, with bomb shelters in the
Underground. Enter Vera (an impressive Keira Knightley) under makeshift stage
spotlights. She meets Dylan for the first time again in years, her heart is
flushed. Their eyes shine through the smoke of the room. The purity of their former
passion. Dylan (native Welsh-speaker, Matthew Rhys) is no sanctified, sanitised
poet. Master of his vices he must experience them all fully. He introduces his
beloved wife then continues to woo Vera. The Edge of Love is a visual
treat. The soundtrack leaves you wanting for more. Performances are possibly the
best by these actors in their careers. As a lush love story it's pretty good. As an
insight into Dylan Thomas and the reality of poetry in all our lives, not bad at
all. And as a tribute to a great man, inspiring. The production has been
at pains to project the spirit of Dylan Thomas without compromising historical
accuracy too much. Dramatic tension involves a pull between artistic freedom and
conventional morality. Audiences looking for an experience based on the latter may
be disappointed. And it will play less well to audiences whose boundaries are those
of Albert Square. Sharman Macdonald seemed aware of the headstrong
nature of artistic freedom and its limits when she spoke to producer Rebekah
Gilbertson (granddaughter of the real William and Vera). "Think of all the things
that you don't want me to write about," she said," because I have to have carte
blanche." For Macdonald, the limits were if she should cause offence to Dylan's
memory. But for many artists, especially men, the limits are those which wife and
family could set on them. A woman is not going to let lofty ideals interfere with
practical common sense issues, and will even put her children's interests before
her own (This occasionally happens the other way round, as when towering genius
Virginia Woolf refused to let loving Leonard bring her down to earth - in The
Hours). In spite of the tension between Caitlin and Vera, these two
women become closest buddies. It is one of the main (and very beautiful) themes of
the film. The film's colours tell a story in themselves. In a drab,
wartime Britain, Caitlin and Vera are vivid highlights in an ocean of grey. Shortly
after meeting Vera's lit-up-in-lights stage persona, we encounter Caitlin through
her searing blue eyes, sparkling in a darkened railway carriage. Her dramatic red
coat cuts a dash through streets of colourless homogeneity, triumphing on a
beautiful staircase as she reunites with Dylan. But Vera's lipstick red brightness
is less enduring. For her, marriage is second-best, even when she has become
possessed with genuine love for her husband. Outstanding cinematography
extends to using montage to juxtapose images, in a manner similar to poetry's
juxtaposition of unrelated words to create further meaning. Horrific war scenes in
Thessaly are intercut with screams of Vera in pregnancy. Giving birth or is it
abortion? We are not told immediately. Pain is universal and goes beyond time and
place to our present day. Constant echoes of Dylan's poetry throughout
the film lead us beyond earthly opposites. It reminds me of Marlon Brando reading
TS Eliot in Apocalypse Now. A light beyond the horrors of the world. A different
way of seeing things. "I'll take you back to a time when no bombs fell from the sky
and no-one died ever," says Dylan to Vera as they walk along the beach.
Elsewhere, Caitlin recalls childhood with Vera: "We're still innocent in Dylan,"
she says. There's a time to leave your knickers at home or share a
universal cigarette. (Not literally, perhaps.) A time to be inspired. Enjoy what is
possibly the best British film of the year.
The Custer Legend, a la Warner Brothers Epic. There's no casting against type here,
with the flamboyant Flynn as the flamboyant Custer in this rousing tribute, not
only to Custer, but to the men of the 7th Cavalry. The story traces the life of the
famed 'Boy General" from his turbulent days at West Point to his final fight at the
Little Big Horn. Great liberties are taken with facts here, and we are presented
with a Custer that is much more sympathetic to the plight of the redman than
history relates. But this one is done on such a grand scale, the battle scenes
alone provided employment for every extra in Hollywood. Down beat ending and all,
this is great fun!
All in all, an excellent movie from that time and source (coming from Warner
Brothers as it was peaking in craftsmanship and style just before WWII), provided
you don't take it at all seriously. The movie really makes no claim to being
historically accurate, and is certainly no more or less accurate or believable than
say, JFK. (This one may actually be more honest about it, though, as it essentially
admits along the way that it's not to be taken as particularly fact-based, but more
of a stylishly semi-heroic portrayal.) It's worth noting that audiences of the time
were no more naive about the story than we are today; the NY Times review conceded
that audiences would "dismiss factual inaccuracies sprinkled throughout the film,"
described the biographical account of Custer's life as "fanciful," and pointed out
that the presentation of Custer's motivations regarding the final events were at
odds with various historical accounts. They could have really gone overboard in
building up Custer, one supposes, but they succeed admirably in depicting him as
not necessarily the sharpest or most diligent guy around, but appropriately
determined, principled and inspirational. Flynn and DeHavilland, doing
their 8th movie together in 7 years (and their last), are so comfortable together,
and play off each other so easily at this point, that it's not too difficult to
overlook how thinly their courtship is written here. With a first-time pairing, it
would be hard to imagine what could really draw Elizabeth to Custer, but these two
make it work. The movie is also missing their director from their previous seven
films together (the greatly underrated Michael Curtiz), but given that he had
worked with them on the previous year's similar-themed Santa Fe Trail, it's
understandable if he chose to opt out of this one. (They all started together with
Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade - both terrific - so we can't
really blame them if they started having a tough time keeping it all fresh.) Raoul Walsh, the director here, is certainly more comfortable with the
action sequences - which are outstanding - and everything else outdoors. The
interior scenes are a little more uneven, but the studio craftsmen succeed in
compensating for that very well, as does Warner Bros' outstanding cast of "usual
suspects" and new faces (Greenstreet, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn, Arthur Kennedy,
etc). I would have liked it better if Kennedy's character had been a bit less
standard (I generally like his work), but here he seems to be hitting roughly the
same notes in every scene; the part could have been better written - and I suppose
they might have been unsure of what he could handle, as he'd only been in films for
one year (Walsh probably took him for this after doing High Sierra together). Various highlights include the depiction (probably imagined) of the genesis
of "Garryowen" as the cavalry theme. The last half hour is particularly
outstanding, especially with the parting of the leads echoing the end of their
screen partnership, followed by the final battle scenes. A thoroughly rousing
adventure. 8 of 10
Dashing Errol Flynn brings his usual flair for drama in this historically flawed
but entertaining film of the life of George Armstrong Custer. The dashing, jovial
Flynn essays Custer from his days at West Point as a reckless, headstrong cadet,
through the Civil War years in an extraordinarily generous and partisan
interpretation of history, and finally as the nonpareil Indian fighter whose
blunder at the Little Big Horn is excused as a sacrifice by Custer of his command
as a way of exposing the corruption of government officials and post traders as
well as a protest of the unfair treatment of the Plains Indians. Olivia de
Havilland, Flynn's co-star in several other films, scores as the devoted, adoring
Libby Bacon, and Anthony Quinn looks the part as the fierce Sioux chief Crazy
Horse. The film's battle scenes are excellent. The Civil War battles are brief and
are shown as several vignettes in which Custer, seemingly supported by just a
handful of troopers, hammers the Confederate army into submission. Custer's last
fight against the Indians is a grand spectacle, a savage clash between red men and
white, with no quarter given in a wild mix of military might between determined
fighting men. Great direction, cinematography, casting and wonderful music by Max
Steiner make this film a Hollywood classic.
I had seen this movie as a kid and loved it. I loved how spunky and full of energy
Nikki is, and how she mostly ruins Louden's perfect yuppie life and corrupts him
and turns him on to her crazy ways. As a kid in the 80's I saw New York exactly the
way it was portrayed in this movie, the domain of Madonna's character, with wild
animals running rampant and hideous bald men chasing people around and causing
havoc. Now as an adult I find I love the movie for the same reasons, and even more
so for the love story woven into the crazy antics of Ms. Nikki Finn. Although I
would still love to go anywhere and find an indoor atrium like in this movie. Pure
beauty and genius.
Nicole Finn (Madonna) is just being released from prison. Although she is ordered
to go by bus to Philadelphia, she wants to stick around the place she was arrested.
This is because she claims she has information that would clear her record. Louden
(Griffin Dunne) is assigned to escort her to the bus by his future father in law.
Louden will be driving around the city anyway (in his future mother in law's Rolls
Royce), picking up the wedding ring and a rare big, big cat for an eccentric
collector. Nicki, however, starts the ensuing mayhem as soon as she jumps in the
Rolls to take over the driving. Between big cats, taxi drivers, hit men,
bridesmaids, and a wedding cake with guns, lawyer Louden knows he's not in Kansas
anymore. Is there a way out of the madness? This film is a wild trip down comedy
avenue. Madonna and Dunneare perfect foils to each other, making their connection
uproarious, as they play out their roles as an ex-con and an uptight, button-down
lawyer, respectively. The script is laudable in it's ability to send the viewer
into fits of hysteria as one implausible scene gives way to the next one, and the
next. Everything secondary, from the supporting actors to the scenery to the
costumes, are also quite nice. If you know someone who is in need of a jolt of joy,
rent this movie for them. You will both be cheerio pronto.
i have to rate this movie at a 10. i'm sorry but i think it's classic comedy. then,
if you're rating it to other Madonna movies...well, what? you wanna tell me it
wasn't her best movie ever? didn't Mira Sorvino win an Oscar for almost the same
performance not ten years later? please, this movie deserves much more credit than
it gets. plus, i like to think of it as an A+ sociological study into the
lifestyles of the 80's. remember when you could shoplift from Sam Goody and Cartier
in the same day? remember when women wore bushy eyebrows proudly? so it was no
"Last Emperor", it was still good. there are certain movies i'd be willing to watch
everyday. three, actually, that pep up my day and make me smile. if you like "Who's
That Girl?" then i'd also recommend "Party Girl" and "Romy and Michelle's High
School Reunion".
I haven't been a fan of Madonna for quite sometime now, however, I thought I would
comment on this film. This film mistaken. One of them, as well as
Madonna, was panned by the critics. They were highly mistaken and many potential
viewers were turned off by the bad reviews. First, Madonna does an
excellent job in this movie which was one of her first. She plays a ditsy blonde in
the film, she is far from a ditsy blonde in real life. Most critics were somewhat
prejudiced by her singing fame and didn't give her a fair shake. When you view this
film I hope that you understand that the accent and the goofiness is just acting.
She was absolutely hysterical as was the film. Griffen Dunne is another
person who was not given a fair review in the film. If you take a look at his
filmography, you will see he is quite an accomplished actor. As far as
the movie itself, this is something similar to pretty woman, but came 3 years
before the Roberts, Gere success. It's a goof-ball comedy with lots of site gags,
slapstick and one liners. Some of the comedy is deadpan and takes a comedy
aficionado to really appreciate the more subtle humor. I know this
doesn't tell you much about the movie, however, I hope this helps dispel any belief
that this is a poor movie. It is absolutely worth renting for an enjoyable night of
great fun. Peace. Gary
Nikki Finn is the kind of girl I would marry. Never boring, always thinking
positively, good with animals. Okay, as one reviewer wrote, a bit too much
peroxide, lipstick, and eyebrows (Only Madonna could get away with that). But
that's why I love Nikki Finn, she's not your ordinary girl. She makes things
happen, always exciting to be around, and always honest. Sure, she steals, but she
doesn't rob or murder (unless you're out to do her in). She knows which rules can
be broken and which ones should be obeyed. She knows what to take and what can't be
stolen. If you need a favor from her, she's in 100%. Bottom line: She knows how to
enjoy life. Nikki is always loving (which is why she has a way with wild animals),
and completely dedicated to those she loves, and who love her. Who's
That Girl? She's the girl for me.
When I see a movie, I usually seek entertainment. But of course if I know what
genre the move is, then I will seek what it is meant to do. For example, if it is a
deep film, I expect the film to rile thoughts up in my cranium and make me ponder
what it is saying. But Who's That Girl? is not a deep film. But it is entertaining,
nonetheless. It's a campy sort of film that's a joy to watch. There's barely a
boring moment in the film and there are plenty of humorous parts. I've watched it
when I was younger. The cast is always entertaining as usual. I had a small crush
on Griffin Dunne even though he wasn't the typical male heartthrob at the time.
Haviland Morris also stars. And late Austrian actress Bibi Besch is here too!
Overall, a delight!
Why does everyone feel they have to constantly put this movie down? It is cute and
funny (exactly what it is meant to be). Madonna wasn't out to prove herself as an
Oscar calliber artist with this movie anyhow! She was just doing what the character
called for, and she did it well. I loved her in this movie; it is my second
favorite Madonna movie after Evita. The soundtrack is excellent too. It is no
better or no worse than any cheesy 80's flick. To all the critics, just don't take
it so seriously and you might have fun watching it. Madonna is a goddess!!!
In this TV special Jon is the one who needs a life. The highlight of his day is
counting the tiles on the ceiling and rearranging his sock drawer. Not content with
this forever, Jon takes Garfield to a self help group in order to meet people. How
many people will be interested in a loner 20-something who's best friend is a cat?
 After several failed attempts at getting a girl, including one
cringeworthy dance scene that rivals David Brents' fusion of Flashdance and MC
Hammer in The Office (Disco's dead?, says Jon), he is more than shocked to find a
cute girl who is as much as a jerk as himself. Naturally, they get on
but Garfield is worried that John will forget about him and prefer having kids to a
cat. Fortunately Jon's new girlfriend is allergic to cats. With slicker
animation than past TV specials, this feels like a longer episode of Garfield and
Friends.
This movie is so good! I first seen it when i was six, then i bought it recently
and i still love it, im 15 now. Plus, the acting was great, and Madonna is my idol
and she did a phat job! Alot of people didnt like this movie, and i still to this
day dont understand why.
One of the funniest, most romantic, and most musical movies ever; definitely worth
renting/buying especially if you have a taste for older style of cinematography. The animals and the songs alone will make you smile while watching the
movie. A definite must for Madonna fans. :o)
For late-80s cheese, this really isn't so bad. There are a lot of pretty funny
throwaway one-liners ("That was grand theft!" - "Thanks!") and Madonna gives a fine
performance; nothing award-worthy here, but that goes for Razzies as well as
Oscars. I'm curious to know if the movie would have been better received if she had
used her regular (pre-British influenced) speaking voice rather than the hyper-
Bronxy accent used instead. Oh well. As a side note, I got to meet one of the
actors who played one of the motorcycle cops through my work; he said that it was a
fun film to work on but gave me the sad news that the actor who played Buck the UPS
delivery guy died about a year after Who's That Girl
Fantastic, Madonna at her finest, the film is funny and her acting is brilliant. It
may have been made in the 80's but it has all the qualities of a modern Hollywood
Block-buster. I love this film and i think its totally unique and will cheer up any
droopy person within a matter of minutes. Fantastic.
I had seen this movie before, but I could not remember it was this fantastic: it
has a fun plot, Madonna fumbles around the city with pumas etc. causing a
commotion. And the music is just perfect! And the happy ending! Who´s that girl is
a great choice for a romanticist like me. In my opinion this could be even the best
Madonna movie I have ever seen! 10/10
If this film had been made in the 50's or 60's, critics and fans alike would have
praised it. I myself, enjoyed the film from beginning to end. It's not a timeless
piece, and has not aged well over the years, but it is enjoyable to watch,
nonetheless. As for Mrs. Ritchie's acting in the film? Not the best on the planet
-- but it adds to the film's unique slapstick comedy-aspirations, and showcases
Madonna's (often underrated) sense of comedic timing. Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an
ex-convict who was framed for a crime she didn't commit. Griffin Dunne plays the
hapless future groom/puppet who is sent to escort her from prison to the bus
station, where a series of unfortunate events occurs, thus creating the plot. (And
there *is* one, folks!) Give the film a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised at
how funny it really is.
Madonna gets into action, again and she fails again! Who's That Girl was released
just one year after the huge flop of Shangai Surprise and two after the successful
cult movie Desperately seeking Susan. She chose to act in it to forget the flop of
the previous movie, not suspecting that this latter could be a flop, too. The movie
received a bad acceptance by American critic and audience, while in Europe it was a
success. Madonna states that "Some people don't want that she's successful both as
a pop star and a movie-star". The soundtrack album, in which she sings four tracks
sells well and the title-track single was agreat hit all over the world, as like as
the World Tour. The truth isthat Madonna failed as an actress 'cause the script was
quite weak. Butit's not so bad, especially for those who like the 80's: it's such a
ramshackle, trash, colorful and joyful action movie ! At the end, it's very funny
to watch it.
I am really sad that that this film has got so much negative criticism. I think it
is a nice little comedy and really funny. The humour in this film is kind of warm
and innocent and I like it. I also like Madonna's character and I do not agree that
she played herself. She has created a character and a sympathetic one. My favourite scenes were the fighting scene on top of the sinking car and where
Madonna climbs over the fence in a fancy dress to claim her love. The humour in the
film has a slightly syrrealistic touch and perhaps it is not everybody's cup of
tea. But it's their problem, not of the film. I found this film
wholesome and sunny. In fact, the day I first saw it I was incredibly sad for some
reason and this film lit up my day. And Madonna can act. Just take off your glasses
of negative thinking.
"What's his name?" "Loudon." "Loudon what?" "Clear." That gag still gets
me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released. I loved the film back
then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day,
and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the
dialogue. Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she
didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge. Griffin
Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fiancée's father (John
McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the
bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public
relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty,
some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the
way. Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to
watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me
(hence only 8/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal
voice. This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days,
perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while
Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fiancée. Yes, it's predictable,
yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily
sit down and watch it 100 times more.
I love this movie!! Sure I love it because of Madonna but who cares - it's damn
funny!!! *ALANiS Rocks*. When I first saw this film in the theatres back in 1987, I
thought it was all out hilarious! Madonna is so funny and I love her dubbed accent
and wacky/funky look. The all-time funniest part is when Madonna(Nikki) screams at
a man who is about to get into a taxi. And also when Griffin Dunne(Louden)trips and
falls at the apartment interview scene. **ALANiS Rocks**. Madonna's character Nikki
steals/shop lifts and fools people throughout the whole movie - her hilarious
antics are enough to keep you on the floor the whole time. "Didn't rob nothin',
when you rob a store you stick up the cashier. We busted a few tapes, there's a bit
of a difference" I love that!!! It's classic. ***ALANiS Rocks***. I don't know why
this movie got slammed the way it did. I see nothing wrong with it - course maybe
if you're a huge Madonna fan then whatever she does is just awesome. Anyone out
there who wants to see some funny, classic entertainment then watch "Who's That
Girl?" And another very important fact that of which should be known to all man
kind or at least to all that exist, ALANiS will always "rock ya" completely to the
end! So does Madonna in this film, and just entirely! Her acting is superb!
[CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!] Garfield and his owner Jon Arbuckle were in a
rut. They basically had no life at all. All they did was lay around and count the
ceiling tiles. Jon even organized his sock drawer according to color and fabric. He
needed a life. So he consults a book on the subject that tells him to meet a woman.
A singles' bar was a great place to start. Unfortunately, when the music started
and Jon hit the dance floor, we see what made disco die: Jon killed it. Jon next
tried to pick up girls at the video store. He ended up feeling down in the mouth.
Literally. The laundromat was no prize either when Jon and his would-be date get a
glimpse of each other's underwear. Jon tried to act all buff at the beach, but soon
he angered a real buff guy, which left Jon feeling, once again, down in the mouth.
Literally. Jon then tried to pick up girls walking and jogging by. No avail. Jon
pulled out a guitar and sings the blues. Unfortunately when he mentioned his cat
being fat, a fat man walked up and stomped Jon's guitar. It was hopeless. Fortunately for Jon, an ad flashed on the TV: an ad for Lorenzo's School
for the Personality Impaired. It guaranteed a lifeless person to get a life in a
few easy steps. Jon and Garfield attend the class. The building didn't exactly look
the same way it did on TV, nor did Lorenzo act as peppy as he did on TV. Jon sat
next to a pretty girl named Mona. So while Lorenzo taught his lessons of
introducing yourself, checking your pulse, and pretending to speak a foreign
language, Jon and Mona get to know one another. They leave together, forgetting all
about Garfield. At home, Jon and Mona just sat on the porch and talked. Garfield
was jealous of Mona for fear that she would take Jon away from him. Garfield
envisioned the future: Jon and Mona get married, she moves in, and soon she gives
birth to a little Arbuckle who is overjoyed at pulling Garfield's tale. Back to the
present, Garfield would not stand for it. He tried to get Jon to get rid of Mona,
until she started scratching behind his ears. But then Jon learned that Mona was
allergic to cats. So that was basically the end of their relationship. But they
still saw each other every now and then, and Garfield was sure to be with
them. Another hilarious Garfield TV special! This one was made during
the run of TV's Garfield and Friends. Garfield was slimmed down somewhat. SOMEwhat.
Since hie early 1980's cartoons. The scenes of Jon trying to pick up chicks is
funny, so is the one where the fat guy stomps on Jon's guitar. Good ol' Lorenzo
Music is back as Garfield. Thom Huge is Jon. Frank Welker (The third man of 1,000
voices) is Lorenzo. And June Foray (The woman of 1,000 voices) is Mona. If you like
Garfield, then I recommend you see Garfield Gets A Life today! It, along with Here
Comes Garfield, and Garfield on the Town, were just released on DVD! So check them
all out today! You are guaranteed a good time. Hey, has Garfield ever let you down
before? -
Don't listen to what the critics have always said about this cute, charming little
movie. Madonna is GREAT in this clever comedy. I worked at a video store for
several years and suggested this movie to lots of customers- no one EVER brought it
back and screamed at me for telling them to rent it. Everyone always enjoyed it.
It's actually a great movie for kids, too.
I kid you not. Yes, "Who's That Girl" has the distinction for being one in a string
of Madonna's films that bombed, but I actually liked this movie more than
"Desperately Seeking Susan". In "Susan", Madonna's character is relegated to being
second-fiddle to Rosanna Arquette and is not given much to work with. No disrespect
to Rosanna, but in WTG Madonna plays this zany, outrageous character, only done in
an 80s style. While it may seem "cheesy" today, this is actually one of Madonna's
best and one of her most underrated films. Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an
ex-con who is sent to the slammer for a crime she didn't commit. She's being
released from jail after four years of good behavior. Griffin Dunne, who is also a
very underrated actor, plays Louden Trott, a lawyer who has the unpleasant task of
picking her up from jail to take her to the bus station. Of course, when these two
get together, that's when the madness happens. Sir John Mills has a small role as
the rich businessman who has a huge mansion in the middle of Manhattan with a
rainforest(???) on his roof. This movie parodies everything. Rich
people, the sleazy characters who live in Harlem and totally destroy Louden's
Rolls-Royce, the gay cops who follow Madonna and Dunne around town, and Dunne's
stuck-up fiance Wendy Worthington who has purportedly slept with every cab driver
in New York City (played by Haviland Morris, who was Jake's girlfriend Caroline in
Sixteen Candles). Hilarious! Plus, Dunne is also in charge of a rare breed of
leopard reminiscent of "Bringing Up Baby". Plus, Madonna had a great platinum
blonde 80s look back in those days and the movie has a great soundtrack. Throw this
all into the mix and you have the zaniness of WTG. Madonna is the queen
of deadpan acting. There are times in the movie where she says a line totally
straight and surprisingly, it turns out to be funny! That's how some of the best
comedy should be played - straight. Madonna should have done more comedy and it was
a shame that she did not choose to do so. Later on she became much more
controversial and got into more of the dark, sexually-charged roles in the
notorious movies "Body of Evidence" and "Dangerous Game". Some people
say Madonna cannot act, and that is fine, people are entitled to their opinion, but
I believe the real problem is that people cannot see the difference between Madonna
playing a character on film, instead they still see only Madonna and that is main
reason why she is given more respect for her music than for her movies. It's still
a fun, screwball comedy of the 80s. Not for everyone, I'm sure some of you will
dislike it, so I would recommend it mainly for Madonna fans, but you never know,
you might be surprised and like it! Interesting note: One of Madonna's
friends from her early-80s New York club days, Coati Mundi, who plays Raoul, was a
member in the bands Kid Creole and The Coconuts and Savannah Band.
If you like Madonna or not, this movie is hilarious!! I am a Madonna fan and did
see this in the theater at the time of its release. However, over time it has not
lost its silliness and pure fun. Sure there are some bad lines & cheesy acting but
the whole film is just a screwball comedy with Madonna actually carrying the whole
film with great bombast. She is cute,funny, and is the only comedic role of her
movie career. Madonna usually just plays 'herself' in roles but watching her as
Nikki Finn in this film, she really seems like somebody else for once. Of course
the film is directed by James Foley (who filmed the dramatic and haunting 'At Close
Range' with Sean Penn & Christopher Walken) and co-stars Griffin dunn ('After
Hours') who is also brilliantly cast and has fun with the material. The story is
nothing genius and don't expect some climatic ending but if you are ever in the
mood to watch a fun, clean, 80's romp or if you are a Madonna fan than this is a
MUST SEE. The Soundtrack is also very notable and contains 4 Madonna songs: the #1
hit "Who's That Girl", the #2 hit "Causing A Commotion" and the beautiful and one
of her best ever ballads "The Look of Love''(Top 10 Hit in the UK) and "Can't Stop"
a left over pop ditty from the 'True BLue' sessions the year before. It is only on
VHS but will soon be available on DVD.
So, Madonna isn't Meryl Streep. Still, this is one of her first films and a comedy
at that. Give her a break! Sure, the movie is mediocre at best and pales in
comparison to its earlier counterpart w/ Katherine Hepburn, Bringing Up Baby. For
what it is, though(a piece of fluff), it's quite a bit of fun to watch. I've yet to
hear anyone that slams Madonna's acting skills back it up w/ evidence or even
adjectives other than "awful", "bad", or other such vague descriptive words. If you
wanna see bad acting or justify the argument that singers should stick to singing,
how about Whitney Houston?? She's had the most undeserved commercial success of any
actress in history and couldn't act her way out of a hatbox. The American public
obviously cannot discern the difference between a credible performance in a movie
and star power. I think Madonna has always been at least credible in her movies.
Get real people. Madonna-bashing is so 90's.
I saw this movie the day it opened in NYC, at the Ziegfield. At the time Madonna
was not quite the cultural icon she is now. She had a couple of hits, was very good
in "Desparately Seeking Susan" and I had tickets to see her in concert at Giants
Stadium. "Who's That Girl?" gives Madonna an actual role to play, which
is not just a variation of her own personality. She does the madcap/heroine routine
better than you might think. Griffin Dunne is very well cast as the man around to
witness all the shenanigans. The story involves a huge cat named Murray,
a bride-to-be who has slept with every cabbie in NYC, a mean father-in-law, and a
key. There are a lot of car chases and cops trailing their path. All the elements
of a screwball comedy intact. Sir John Mills is seen briefly. He shares
a glass of champagne with the leads and has the greatest apartment on the Upper
West Side, complete with a rain forest and everything. Compared to most
Madonna movies (the ones I've been able to tolerate anyway), this is fantastic. On
its own, its not that bad. 6/10. PS The concert was lousy.
Watching this little movie is a sheer delight from start to finish. The story is
always entertaining, the tension never loosing up. The whole cast is wonderful. The
teaming of Walken and Bracco works to perfection, it is almost like an echo of a
classic screwball romance. Bracco is very sexy and really funny as the scam artist
who fights for her independence. For some reason they gave Walken a very strange
make up and the weirdest haircut I can imagine it's sort of a parody of the one
Burt Lancaster had in Elmer Gantry. For me it added to the pleasure. It's the first
movie I saw Miguel Ferrer in, probably one of the most under-appreciated movie
actors of his generation. He's very good in a small role as Bracco's pimp. Even the
Jamaican thugs are a sight to behold. I can highly recommend this movie.
I LOVED this movie. You can't buy it, rent it, or find it... but it's a
keeper. Wonderful chemistry between Braccho and Walken... and
Ferrar.... Terrific non stop action and reactions.... loved it. I've watched my pirated copy maybe 6 times in the last decade... each time
showing it to someone who never heard of it. Find this movie and watch
it. So many films are on TV over and over again - without any of the
wit and style of this little film. I didn't know it was made for TV...
my copy is an 8 track I pirated years ago... I hope it lasts.
A quite easy to watch tale of 2 thieves, with that love/hate type relationship
between them. Chrisopher Walken stars and is very good as the silent rogue with a
scam bigger than he's letting on.
It's strange how the least known movies sometimes end up amongst the best you've
seen. This movie has all the elements of a standard modern day thriller, guns,
techno, baddies, cash, etc, and yet it stands out from your average Hollywood also-
ran. I would credit this to two very charismatic people. Christopher Walken has a
cool confidence and Lorraine Bracco is one of the warmest and sexiest women I've
ever seen on screen. Another major reason why this film stands out is coz the
setting shifts to Jamaica after the beginning. The Jamaican resort is so beautiful
you'll wish you were there sitting by the pool at night, with a Run'n'Coke. . . .I
know I did. I'm very glad I saw this movie - it was just too nice to miss!
Finding this piece sandwiched between a stale prequel and a rehashed 80s machomovie
on a UPN affiliate's midday Saturday program would be misleading. It deserves
better and definitely uses its talented leads' best attributes to its maximum
advantage. Bracco and Walken team to provide a movie that while perhaps predictable
to those familiar with their genre, do the streetwise, 'troubled minds' routine
that they are so good at portraying. For a chance to ride a psychological roller
coaster a la Fuqua's "Training Day," dive back into the world of early '90s TV
movies to find "Scam"!
I am a huge fan of Harald Zwart, and I just knew that I had to see this movie, even
though I can't say I'm a soccer fan. But watching this just filled my heart with
joy, and I had a great time in the movies watching it. Bjørn Fast Nagell
does a tremendous job directing this movie, and even though you notice the main
characters are new at acting, they grow with the movie and makes it what it is.
Even though it is supposed to be a soccer movie, there is surprisingly little
soccer in it. The whole idea is to show the six guys making up the word N O R W A Y
on their trip to the World Cup in soccer playing in Germany this year. If you're only gonna see one Norwegian movie this year, this is the one..
This was a great movie! It was a completely enjoyable adolescent fantasy. So what
makes a movie great? Technical details? I think that if that were the sole
criteria, our culture would be the poorer for it. So this movie is to "The
Godfather" as new wave music is to Mozart. The point is, it is one of the best
movies of it's type I've seen. The women are all beautiful (as are only seen on
California beaches when movies are being made). It has a little of everything, a
kind of battlestar gallactica meets baywatch meets the playboy centerfold video
meets Wayne's World. There is plenty of charm and a reasonable (albeit predictable)
storyline that keeps you interested until the next bit of eye candy graces the
screen. Joe Estevez may not have his brothers career, but does a good job of
bringing focus to the story as the eternally adolescent Uncle Bud. Contains plenty
of expected absurdities such as female rock band playing without the guitars
plugged in. (Was that intentional?) If you're attracted to the box, rent the video,
you won't regret it. As is promised, it is good non-violent erotic fun!
Is this a bad movie? Of course, what were you expecting from a movie
called "BEACH BABES FROM BEYOND"? It is a "BABES in BIKINI" movie and
has no pretensions of being otherwise. Given, this is not "A ROOM WITH A VIEW" or
"SCHINDLER'S LIST." If you wanted a film like "A Room With a View" then you would
not be looking at Beach Babes from Beyond. But if you are looking for a good Babes
in Bikini movie with almost no plot, this is the one for you. This flick delivers
on what it promises and then some. It is pure 100% adolescent fun. There
were lots of BABES in and out of bikinis. The movie was quite funny and great to
watch. These were some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen on home
video. Every high school kid should watch at least one bad movie like
this. This is actually one of the most memorable movies I have ever seen. So
unashamedly, I say again...If you are going to watch only one "Babes in Bikini"
movie, this is it.
I`ve seen this movie twice, both times on Cinemax. The first time in it`s unrated
version which is soft-core porn at it`s best and the second time in a trimmed down
(cut all the sex and most of the nudity out) version which was entertaining in a
typical beach movie sort of way. The unrated version has a tremendous sex scene
with Nikki Fritz, a dude and a bottle of oil which is out of this world (no pun
intended). Unfortunately, in the trimmed version that scene is almost completely
chopped out, as are all the other sex scenes. Rated or unrated it is still fun to
watch all the siblings of bigger stars (Stallone, Sheen, Travolta, etc;) trying to
act. We also get appearances by B-queen Linnea Quigley and Burt Ward (Robin from
the old Batman series).
This is a cut above other movies of the genre: genuinely suspenseful, intelligent,
brilliantly acted and visually stunning. Yes, the plot can be confusing - but
that's partly what makes it pack such a punch. Watch it twice if you can. You'll
get almost as much out of watching it when you know the twist than you do from
watching it the first time. Don't be put off by the fact that this film
comes from Korea, a country not too familiar to most Western audiences. While there
are elements of the film that are culturally specific, the underlying themes are
all too universal - guilt, anger, loss, madness and retribution. All of these are
handled superbly by Lim Su-jeong as Su-mi, the lead character. Also worthy of
particular mention is Yum Jung-ah, who delivers a deeply creepy and unsettling
performance as the stepmother. While it has its scary moments, this is
not really a horror flick as most people would imagine it. It's more a
psychological suspense story with an element of mystery. It grips you from the
start and will keep you guessing until the end - and possibly beyond!
We open in a doctors room of some sort. A girl is escorted to a seat across from
the doctor. He asks her questions. Silence follows. He continues to ask questions,
ignoring the girls obvious traumatised atmosphere. The story is about
two girls who are taken home, after spending some time in a mental home after an
'incident' that happened before hand. They are greeted on their arrival by their
trying-way-too-hard-to-be-nice-but-so-totally-evil Stepmother, who the girls
obviously hold resentment for. As time goes on at home, the evil Stepmother finds
new ways to torment the girls. And, to top it all off, there is a vengeful ghost
that is far from helping the girls' recovery... This film is amazing. It
has twist, turns, and definitely leaves you a lot to think about without not making
sense. The relationship between the two girls is so heartwarming, it almost makes
you cry at some points (I know I had a teary moment of two, specifically 'the
cupboard scene'). But what I love most about this film is the total feeling of
dread all the way through to the rolling credits. The soundtrack is faultless, the
furnishings in the house, and the use of colour are fantastic. A pure joy for the
eyes. This is a definite must-see for all Asian Movie Fanatics. Or ANY sort of
movie fan! An easy 10/10.
This is one of the best movies I have ever seen... It's so full of
details and every time you see it you'll find new things... Like then the father is
in the shower but still only hears one voice, and when the girls flute, they can't
do it at the same time cause then there would be two girls, and there aren't.
 I have some problem finding out, about in the middle of the movie their
"Uncle" visit them, but why does his wife freak out?!? Else a fantastic movie.!!!
The best Asian movie ever. I hope people will enjoy it. There have been
so many movie, where the main character is skit-so (The machinist, Secret Window
and so on), but this movie is way better than them!!!
"Tale of Two Sisters" has to be one of the creepiest films I've seen recently. In
the end there is no actual supernatural element, despite what one is led to expect
throughout the film. The story seems to be about two sisters, who, upon returning
to their father's home after some sort of absence (later revealed to have been a
stay in a mental institution) are forced to deal with not only a seemingly
schizophrenic and possibly bi-polar stepmother who lashes out at the younger of the
girls when the mood strikes her and cheerfully tells them she's prepared a special
dinner at another time., but some presence as yet unexplained. It is later revealed
that the younger sister is dead, and exists only in the troubled minds of her older
sister, who was unable to save her, and her step-mother, who was callous enough to
let her die. Much about the specifics of the strange family is not revealed in the
film, but it definitely leaves a viewer with a creepy feeling and a nagging hint of
confusion. Definitely not light viewing; watch this one when you really want to
think about what you've seen. It's a hell of a puzzler.
Another Asian horror movie packed with intense, and creepy moments. Another Asian
horror trademark is the complexity of the plot, which is here as well. MAJOR
SPOILER WARNING! The movie starts pretty simple - two sisters go to live
with their dad and stepmother after being put in a mental institution after their
mother hanged herself. The sisters seem very hostile towards their mother -
especially the elder one - and they seem to ignore their father. All goes smoothly
until the mother locks the young sister in the wardrobe and the elder sister tells
her father. Then it hits you, "your sister has been dead for years now" It turns
out the older sister is still not recovered from the death of her mother and what
we didn't know is that the wardrobe the mother was hanged in fell on the younger
sister and killed her as well.As for the stepmother she is the alter ego of the
older sister - revealed when the stepmother (actually the sister's alter ego) is
sitting on a couch when the real stepmother walks in! I hope it has been made
clearer for confused Asian horror fans out there. Finally - my favourite
scene is the scene where the father invites friends over for dinner and one of the
friends starts to choke which erupts into a panic attack. Very creepy! 7 out of 10
What can I say about this film that won't give you any preconceived notions when
you see it? Very little. The plot has to do with the return from hospital of a
teenage girl after she broke down. What follows after that is the movie. It is one
of the creepiest most mind blowing films of the past several years. Everything
about the film is just slightly off center and leaves you feeling ill at ease well
after the film has ended. It is not a perfect film. The film has problems in its
final half hour which make an already confusing story, even more confused.(If
you've read any number of other comments here on IMDb and elsewhere you'll know
that a great deal of time has been spent trying to unlock what actually is going
on) I'm not sure what I actually think of this film beyond the fact that it scared
me and disturbed me in ways that most well known horror films ever have. If you
like horror, and don't mind not having everything clearly summed up I suggest you
try this since it will more than likely make your skin crawl.
Disgused as an Asian Horror, "A Tale Of Two Sisters" is actually a complex
character driven psychological drama, that engulfs the viewer into the problems of
a seemingly normal family. I was really surprised at the depth of this movie.
Director Ji-woon Kim's decision to focus more on telling a story rather than
providing cheap scares, has proved a correct one. Creating one of the most
ingenious new horror movies. "A Tale Of Two Sisters" tels the story, as
it's name suggest of two sisters Su-mi and the younger Su-yeon, who after spending
time in a mental institution return home to their father and apparently abusive
stepmother. From then on we witness how the sisters deal with their stepmother's
gradually rising aggression and erratic behavior. To say what would happen next
would be to be spoil the entire experience. So I'll just leave it at that. The plot is very tightly written. With the characters nicely fleshed out. Ji-woon
Kim's focus on a small cast offers a much more detailed view on them and their
relations to one another. Furthermore each of the four main cast has a vastly
different role and type of character. From the protective Su-mi, the weaker Su-
yeon, the visibly uninterested father to the stepmother's frantic and later deadly
behavior. There is great sense of mystery, with a lot of the plot not revealed up
into the end and even after that the movie still leaves a great room for
interpretation. Even after watching it once, the viewer will be compelled to see it
at least once more so that he can gain a better understanding to it. The
actors superbly fit their roles. It is especially hard to create strong, emotional
scenes in psychological movies but it is a great joy when one succeeds in creating
them and this is a prime example of such a feat. Ji-woon Kim's direction is slow
paced and gripping, building up tension for the film's horroresque scenes. While
few in number those moments are strong and quite frankly terrifying. The
cinematography and score are top notch further helping to establish an atmosphere
fitting that of a psychological film. "A Tale Of Two Sisters" is a
demonstration how the horror genre is in fact so much more than a simple thrill
ride. With it's strong focus on character and mystery this is one complex movie
that could easily seduce you in watching it again and again just so that you can
understand it better.
This was one of the few Norwegian movies I actually looked forward too see. It
started of as a few commercials with a motley bunch at football matches. Then they
made a movie out of it. The leads are not pros (and you can see that) but they
still do a very good job and the movie all in all blew me away. Norway
is known for making crappy movies (no offense)but I had a good feeling about this
one. Even thou I'm not interested in football I wanted 2 see it. the story is a lot
better than expected and the laughs just keep piling up. there are loads of cameos
from Norwegian celebrities and players. the characters are well portrayed and you
feel for them. IF You're EVER GONNA SEE A NORWEGIAN MOVIE. LET IT BE THIS ONE!!!!
typically, a movie can have factors like "arousing", "good feel", "sense of
purpose", "plot", etc. There's always something that can be taken out of movies,
its just a matter of how compelling the reason is, for me to own it in my
collection. 'Tale of two sisters", as they call it when it was released in my
country, has tremendous feel and an eventually (mostly) self-explaining plot. i
love horror movies that revolve around a house. titles that come to mind are "The
Others", "The Haunting", "The haunting of Hell House". this movie will be a another
great example that i will remember. the movie had extremely rich colour, in the way
the house was decorated, in the clothes that the characters wore, in the open-skied
daylight scenes that is in contrast to most horror movies, which, typically makes
use of desaturated tones and gloomy environs (think Honogurai mizu no soko kara,
Dark Water, which is another show i like) that gives this film a sense of
aesthetics and joy when it wasn't in its, more, gripping moments. the characters
are extremely believable. this may be partly attributed to the familiar setting of
this movie. maybe domestic issues are easier for both myself as well as the actors
to identify with, and the actors become their characters with exceptional finesse.
the director toys with timelines, in order to give the audience the story in bits
and pieces, allowing them to come to their own terms of interpretation, instead of
presenting everything in a linear fashion. this is a positive aspect of this film,
in my opinion, and, perhaps, it is my interpretation of this movie that allows me
to find it enjoyable. i would definitely look out for this on DVD.
I must say I'm an avid horror movie fan, and currently I can't get enough of
foreign horror. Since US horror really depends too much on gore. This
movie is fantastic. This movie reminded me a lot of M. Night's SIXTH SENSE. The way
the film was directed was great. The director took his time to set everything up.
It took about a good 40 mins just to set the movie up into a horror movie. I
thought the movie was just a drama. This movie just builds up and the pay off isn't
too much. I've never done this before, but this is the main reason I
liked the movie.... I actually screamed out loud because one scene just startled
the hell out of me... which is kinda pathetic.... but for a film to do that, it's
great.
The idea is not original... If you have seen such kind of story before, you would
know what the ending would come out after watching for the first twenty minutes...
the script, the positioning of the actors and the screening is too obvious... If
you haven't seen such story before, it is definitely a good experience, you will
enjoy the twist at the end...don't forget to watch it again after you know the
"truth", you will even more enjoy the plots... Even though I have a right guess at
the very beginning, I still couldn't help stick on my seat till the end... Conclusion: A must see!! This one from Korea is better than any recent movies of
the genre from Japan...forget Hollywood! Don't miss it!!
If you consider yourself a horror movie fan, chances are you've seen Hideo Nakata's
Ring and Dark Water. They're superb, and Ring's making its way smoothly into
Hollywood (maybe Dark Water will be adapted soon too?). While Ring is almost 100%
pure heart pounding and nerve breaking, a tale of two sister is both nerve breaking
and mind twisting. Along with The Other I consider this Korean flick a
brilliant and smart ending horror movie. The only flaw this movie has is some
consider its first 20 minutes rather slow. It's actually typical with Korean and
Japanese movies. I consider it carefully planned rather than slow, think of it as
"calm moment before the storm". With thorough introduction of characters, imho
viewer will get involved more intimately with the character, one of Korean and
Japanese movies strongest point. Like Ring, a tale of two sister doesn't
overdo ghastly appearance. Rather they let our mind do the intimidating job itself.
That way it's scarrier and horrifyingly classy at the same time. I won't be
surprised if Hollywood remakes this movie after bringing Ring and Grudge/Ju-On
over(This flick is not that good by the way, I rate it 5.5). Don't miss it!
To most of us, life is an unfolding process of love. For others like Soo-mi,
however, it is dominated by darkness and fear. Based on the Korean folk tale Jangha
and Hongryun, Kim Ji-woon's brilliant Gothic horror story A Tale of Two Sisters
revolves around two sisters, Soo-mi (Lim Su-jeong), and Soo-yeon (Mun Geon-yeong),
who are part of a dysfunctional family that live together in a creepy Victorian-
style mansion. Feeling alienated from the world, they cling to each other for
survival with the older Soo-mi obsessively protecting the younger Soo-yeon against
danger. For Soo-mi, however, not coming to terms with the circumstances surrounding
her mother's death means mental illness and a mind at odds with reality. While we may recognize staples such as haunted houses with apparitional
sightings, doors that open and close on their own, a cruel and overbearing
stepmother, and other events of high strangeness, A Tale of Two Sisters superbly
explores deeper psychological meanings including the inability to let go of inner
demons and the misplaced desire for revenge. Soo-mi says "Do you know what's really
scary? You want to forget something. Totally wipe it off your mind. But you never
can. It can't go away, you see. And... and it follows you around like a ghost."
There is a time line but it is left for the viewer to unravel. The plot cannot be
summarized, only suggested and the film keeps us wondering whether what is
happening on screen is objective or subjective. In the film's opening,
Soo-mi, an obviously disturbed young woman, is being questioned by a doctor in a
setting that looks like a mental institution. When the doctor asks her to describe
what happened "that day", the film flashes back to when Soo-mi and Soo-Yeon return
to the home of their father Moo-hyeon (Kim Kap-su) and stepmother Eun-joo (Yum
Jung-ah). The stepmother is hostile and resentful and the father is passive and
distant but it is obvious that it is Soo-mi who is really hurting. As the girls try
to readjust, they are constantly frightened by a presence in the house, which may
be nightmares or supernatural occurrences. Soo-mi sees a figure at the
foot of her bed that hovers over her and oozes black blood, a dinner scene in which
the guest apparently sees a ghost hiding under the sink and goes into convulsions,
a monster emerges from between the legs of one of the sisters, people mysteriously
disappear from photographs, and many other maniacal schizophrenic devices to keep
the viewer dangling on the edge of insanity. While we sense that much of the story
is the projection of someone's mind, we do not know whose and the film keeps us
constantly challenged, at least until an important clue is offered in the film's
second half. Shot in gorgeous low-light cinematography, A Tale of Two
Sisters has a unique elegance and other worldly beauty that transcends all the
scares, and there are plenty. It is haunting in more than one sense of the word and
its images may stare back at you when you least expect or want them to. While the
film may not offer the weary traveler much in the way of light, it shows us where
we can end up if we opt for the darkness. In the words of a wise observer, "Blame
is never the answer - whether it is blaming yourself or others. Rather, the answer
lies in stepping out of judgment entirely - both of yourself AND others.
Forgiveness and understanding have great power of healing."
Three words: Piece of Art. This film is just great. It's beautiful, sad,
frightening and thought-provoking at the same time. The score constantly stays in
my head, the acting is wonderful the scenery scary and beautiful at the same
time. It was more by chance than on purpose that I saw this movie. At
the time I decided to watch this movie I was just bored and read lists of Asian
films, which maybe good. Well, I saw the title "A tale of two sisters" which
sounded very interesting. Then I read the summary of the plot and decided "You
don't just watch this film, you've gotta buy it". Said, done. I bought this film
and was hooked from the very first minute. The plot kept me interested
from the beginning till the end; the twist near the end of the film made me scream.
I really didn't see something like this coming. And the ending scene made me
cry...it just made me cry. It was so sad. Well, I recommend this film to
anyone who wants to see a film that combines an interesting plot, with scary scenes
and atmosphere. Although you should be aware of the fact that the ending is, as I
mentioned before, a very sad one. But this just fits in the mood of the film,
doesn't it?
If there is such a thing as beautiful horror, this film is one of the best in this
genre. It is a horror movie, which despite not being void of gore scenes relies
more on psychology and masterful building of the tension in order to create
thrills. And it is one of those movies so beautifully filmed, where each scene is a
full world of symbols and details, all serving the scope and genre that it can be
called but beautiful. It is not an easy story, with two sisters
returning to their father and step-mother mansion after having spent some time in a
psychiatric institution. They cope hardly with the death of their mother and they
try to protect a world of theirs, defending them against the adult world. So the
film seems to be at its most external layer. Actually the film slowly evolves to
something very different, at slow pace, but no frame is lost to convey the sense of
thrilling beauty, so I will not say much more. Watch it, it is one of the best in
the genre of Far East horror films that conquered recently the world cinema and it
really shows that they succeeded to do it for good reasons.
Let me just say - I love the horror genre to the extent that I see every single one
that I can get my hands on regardless (except really low quality b-movie horrors
which I could do without) and recently have become a big fan of Eastern horrors.
Little did I know that a Korean horror would be the one that tops my list beating
off heavyweights such as the Japanese Ringu (or the American Ring), or even quality
US movies such as the Sixth Sense and The Others, and the widely acclaimed Hong
Kong horror 'The Eye'. Previously 'The Ring' had stood as my favourite
horror but it seems to me that I prefer the beauty of 'The Tale of Two Sisters' any
day - the story is extraordinary and rather open to interpretation thus allowing
repeat viewings although chances are you'll want to watch this again and again just
because the movie is so masterfully shot... the story is likely one of the best in
the genre to date. The acting is top notch too from the entire cast and the scares
when they come have the potential to rattle you like anything within the Ring - I
did find myself glued to the screen at those points unable to take my eyes off. Still I am glad it didn't come back to haunt me later that Sadako/Samara
did from the Ring - after all such feelings are unpleasant and The Tale of Two
Sisters leaves you with an uneasy feeling, but one that hopefully won't leave you
without sleep but leave you satisfied that you have seen something quite special.
But do remember.. if you don't understand the plot after the first viewing, a
repeat viewing is more than advised.. I personally didn't have time for this since
it was late so I flicked through scenes on the DVD, some numerous times until I had
a good synopsis in my head and after looking on the net, seemed Ihad pretty much
nailed it on the widely agreed interpretation. And the satisfaction from solving a
puzzle like that is wonderful. All in all - a masterfully crafted horror
that is unlikely to produce the same 'level' remake (its been purchased by
Dreamworks) simply because of the Korean content and everyone is advised to catch
this in the theaters or on DVDs while they can... its one of the best you will get.
Unfortunately due to the type of movie this is, there is no way to even talk about
the story without spoilers so its best to do what I did - watch it without knowing
a single thing except its 'a tale of two sisters'! And be prepared for something
that is unlikely to be matched for some time.
This movie certainly deserves to be placed within the genre of horror, but not for
obvious reasons. The horror of "A Tale Of Two Sisters" lies not with sudden shocks
or large helpings of CGI guts and gore; it is a psychological horror movie which
piques the viewer's curiosity from the start and builds a suspenseful aura of
mystery and questions throughout. Best of all, the ending does not provide a clear
answer, pushing the viewer to analyse what they have seen and make up their own
mind about what really took place. Do not be put off by the seemingly
slow pace at which the movie begins, and don't expect to be jumping out of your
seat immediately. This is not the conventional hack-and-slash movie with orchestral
stings designed to make you scared of nothing in particular. "A Tale Of Two
Sisters" slowly builds an atmosphere of terror, a terror of the unknown and a fear
of things which evade explanation until the very end. Even when the final
conclusion is revealed, it is not so heavy-handed and obvious as to make the entire
film fall neatly into place. The movie requires its viewer to reflect back on what
they have seen and to try and square this with the frightening revelation of the
final scene. Some things will still be open to interpretation, and this is one of
the joys of watching a film such as this. The true fear of "A Tale Of
Two Sisters" lies not in shocks or conspicuous scares; it is a psychological, gut-
wrenching horror that defies convention and expands a genre to proportions hitherto
unexplored by the traditional horror film. It is no exaggeration to say that this
film stands apart even from the so-called 'Asian Horror' genre. Indeed, it would be
a mistake to align "A Tale Of Two Sisters" with films like "Ringu" and "The
Grudge". This movie can be understood from a variety of standpoints, some requiring
no suspension of credulity, others embracing the supernatural wholeheartedly. Whichever way you choose to interpret this film, it is one that demands an
open-minded approach, rewarding viewers regardless of their preconceived notions on
Asian cinema or horror in general.
Every high praise word fell way short before the height of this movie. This movie
is the true example of how a psychological horror movie should be. The
plot seems to be a bit confusing at first viewing but it will definitely explain a
bit about what's going on and you really want to view it for the second time. But
after second viewing you will start to join the pieces together and then you will
know how amazing a movie can be. A word of advice for slasher flick fans
stay away from this movie. This is not your dumb ass teenage slasher movie, in
which you just switch off your brain and sit in front of the screen just to see big
b**bs and lots of blood. If you want to heighten the psychological
horror factor of this movie then watch it all alone with a great home theater
system that supports Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1ch, without any of your ill mannered
friends that crack jokes on a really tense situation. And don't forget to switch
the light off. My points on different aspects:- Direction =
9/10 Acting = 8/10 Atmosphere = 10/10 Sound Effect = 9/10 Total = 9/10
I hate football!! I hate football fans! I hate cars! but this film was the funniest
thing I have seen in quite some time. I was given the great opportunity
to see this film at the weekend, and all I have to say is I laughed till I cried,
and when is it going to be available in the UK and Denmark. Girls, this is one
football film you will need to see, its hilarious! The fact that this
film started out as some crazy commercial for a telephone company is just amazing,
the guys may not be well known actors, but this is good down to earth real humour,
with real people, and I for one applaud them for taking this to the screen. WELL DONE!
The finest short I've ever seen. Some commentators suggest it might have been
lengthened, due to the density of insight it offers. There's irony in that comment
and little merit. The acting is all up to Noonan and he carries his thankless
character perfectly. I might have preferred that the narrator be less
"recognizable", but the gravitas lent is pitch perfect. This is a short for people
who read, for those whose "bar" is set high and for those who recognize that living
in a culture that celebrates stupidity and banality can forge contrary and bitter
defenders of beauty. A beautiful short film. FWIW: I was pleased at the Picasso
reference, since I once believed that Picasso was just another art whore with
little talent; like, I assume, most people - until the day I saw some drawings he
made when he was 12. Picasso was a finer draftsman and a brilliant artist at that
age than many artists will ever become in a lifetime. I understood immediately why
he had to make the art he became known for.
Many horror fans complain that horror has scarcely progressed in the last twenty
years. I was inclined to agree with this until the influx of Asian horror films, a
trend which has admittedly grown dull. However, it has produced some true classics,
and A Tale Of Two Sisters, for me at least, stands out as an exceptional piece of
cinema, and perhaps the best horror film in a very long time. Based
vaguely on a Korean folktale, it tells the sad story of two mentally-troubled
sisters residing with their father and stepmother. After experiencing a few
problems on their first night back at home, they determine to stick together and
deny their stepmother access to their close relationship. The tension rises and
there is the inevitable snap. But what happens after this requires more than a pair
of eyes, as the story takes several twists, and the scares become more emotional
and quite real. By the end, you may need a few moments to absorb it all and piece
it together in your own mind, but it is exactly this pairing of horror and mystery
that pushes it beyond the definitions of these genres and makes it an instant
classic. One to watch again and again, if only to work it all out.
This isn't so much a review of A Tale Of Two Sisters as it is a discussion of some
of the smaller plot details, so I advise you NOT to read this review if you haven't
seen the film, because doing so will absolutely ruin a few surprises for you. In a way A Tale Of Two Sisters is far from original, at least from a purely
superficial aspect - some of its iconography is taken straight from Ring or Dark
Water, while the storyline itself (especially what Brendt Sponseller calls the
"rubber reality" aspect of the narrative) is reminiscent of films like Fight Club
(lead character interacts with someone created in their mind), Mulholland Drive
(character creates alternate reality in a psychogenic fugue), as well as other
minor aspects of Lost Highway, Jacob's Ladder, and basically every film under the
sun dealing with mental illness, plus Amenabar's films (The Others, Abre Los Ojos),
Memento (particularly with regards to the torturous nature of memory), et al.
Thankfully all these similarities do not detract from the film's overall emotional
impact, and I personally found A Tale Of Two Sisters an extremely moving and
rewarding experience. Many people have commented on the "confusing"
nature of the narrative, but I personally found the storyline to be fairly self-
explanatory, even if it is in part portrayed in a non-sequential manner. The
narrative only becomes confusing for some because, midway through the final third,
the story switches from a purely subjective setting (ie. Soo-Mi's warped perception
of reality) to an objective one, with a flashback at the end explaining the origins
of Soo-Mi's nervous breakdown and subsequent mental illness. The shift in emphasis
is bound to throw some people off guard, but structurally I found it somewhat
reminiscent of aforementioned Mulholland Drive (even though we're not dealing with
a character's perception of reality via a dream but instead their own schizophrenic
tendencies - something which, in turn, reminded me of another Lynch movie, Lost
Highway). To be honest, I don't really regard A Tale Of Two Sisters as a Horror
movie as such, but rather a tragic story of a family's breakdown as well as an
honest look at a character's mental illness (and I hasten to add that fans of
psychoanalytical cinema are going to love this film). That aside, the
cinematography in A Tale Of Two Sisters is incredible and visually this is one of
the most beautiful films I've seen this side of Wong Kar Wai's 2046. The
performances are also fantastic without exception, and I expect to see more of the
four lead actors in the future; not to mention the music, but then east Asian films
without a great soundtrack seem to be few and far between these days. It's very likely that some people will look past the finer artistic points of A
Tale Of Two Sisters and simply dismiss it as "yet another Asian horror film",
oblivious to its aesthetic beauty and honest psychoanalytical approach. But then
each to their own. If you can ignore some of the film's platitudinous aspects and
simply take it for what it is at heart, ie. an extremely tragic, heart-breaking
story, then I see no reason not to recommend it.
I watch many movies, but presently my genre number one is Asian horror. I have just
bought this DVD and I initially found "Janghwa, Hongryeon" an intriguing but
confused film, since I had not understood many parts of the story. But I saw in
IMDb Board a message titled "Explanation of a Masterpiece (all your questions
answered) Faster load", written by opiemar, and I was really impressed with the
high quality of the explanations this user provided to viewers like me that missed
points of the story. I would like to congratulate opiemar for his excellent work
and suggest him to write a correct summary of this movie in IMDb to help and guide
other viewers. In the end, I agree that "Janghwa, Hongryeon" is a great
Korean film, but I do not give ten in my vote because very few people can afford to
see the same movie more than once, like this film demands, and without the great
support of opiemar, I would not be able to understand the story as a whole. I
intend to see this movie again in a near future. My vote is eight. Title
(Brazil): "Medo" ("Fear")
Two sisters, Su-mi (IM Soo-jung) and Su-yeon (MOON Geun-young) return home with
their father (Kim Gap-soo). Eun-joo (YEOM Jeong-ah) welcomes them but Su-mi's
manner is bitter to her. Su-mi hates Eun-joo because the father let her act like
the house wife after the sisters' mother died. Seeing her attitude, Eun-joo is
getting to treat the sisters coldly and there grows a tense atmosphere among
them. As if called in by the atmosphere, series of mysterious things
occur in the house. When Su-mi is hanging her dress in her wardrobe, there have
been already hung a lot of dresses of the same design. When she put her diary into
a drawer, she finds another diary of the same kind there. When she is sleeping in
her bed with scared Su-yeon, a nightmare awakes her and she finds a woman standing
on her -- and a hand dangles out of the woman's skirt! Mysterious things
occur to the other people, too. On the evening of next weekend, Eun-joo's brother
and his wife visit the family and they have a dinner together. Eun-joo cheerfully
talks about a crazy man she met when she was a child, but nobody is interested in
her talk. She says the crazy man annoyed the brother, but he says he doesn't know
anything about the man. Listening to their talk, the brother's wife has
a panic. After the dinner, the conflict between Eun-joo and the sisters
becomes at its worst. Eun-joo pulls Su-yeon into a wardrobe and locks her in it.
Su-mi saves the crying-out sister and complains to their father what Eun-joo has
done to his daughter. But his response is unexpected. "Give me a break." says he
angrily, "Su-mi, please. Don't make me tired any more." And the
following words out of the father's mouth are more shocking than what they have
seen in the house. To tell the truth, I hate horror movies. Although I
seated myself at a theater because my intuition told me the movie was something
different, I was regretting what my curiosity had made me act when it started
showing. The regret, however, had changed into joy for expectation ten minutes
later. This film is a tragic mystery more than a horror -- painful more
than horrible; beautiful more than sensational. That may have a hard core horror
fan disappointed, but for a mystery fan like me, this film is a must see. (9 out of
10)
I first saw this film two years ago in the cinema, and fell in love with this dark
tale of two brooding teenage sisters coping at home in their large country house
with their father and step-mother. Their relationship with their step-mother is
strained to say the least, with the step-mother appearing to be increasingly
becoming unstable in her battles with the younger girls. The film though slants
with Oriental style ghost effects and horror, which adds a strange and unsettling
aspect to the story that on first viewing is not clear, but is all the more
intriguing. The direction is incredibly good, and the acting is
stunning, with the step-mother in particular incredibly good swinging from one mood
style to another in the film. The large house adds eeriness, and there are enough
points in the film where you will jump out of your seat. This film to me clearly
shows why Korean cinema is possibly the best most original in the world at the
moment. You simply don't get anything like this in the Western World, sadly,and
really i can see it being influential on film makers around the world in the next
decade. Highly recommended viewing in my opinion, a real joy and
scare...
I just saw "A Tale of Two Sisters" last night and really enjoyed it. I've been a
big fan of Asian horror films recently and think that this is a strong entry from
South Korea. There aren't many jump out at you scares as in the usual American
horror film, but the director does maintain the off-kilter and foreboding mood very
well, especially in the awkward character interactions with each other. Most of the
scares are more conceptual and plays on everyone's "there's something under the
bed" fears from when they were a child, but in this case, it's the closet and the
sink. I also liked how the director was able to capture just how dysfunctional this
household is through scenes such as the first dinner that the characters have
together. He's also good at revealing people's inner life and fragility through
simple scenes such as the stepmother wiping off her make-up in the mirror or her
sitting in front of the flickering TV. I think this film is mainly an exploration
of guilt and the consequences of living with that guilt hanging over you. MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD (DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE TWISTS
OF THE MOVIE REVEALED) I was following the story pretty well, but did start getting
confused during the bag dragging part. However, I think the flashback at the end
definitely tied everything together. The film is very much like "The Machinist" in
the way two of the character's joint guilt eventually leads to mental breakdowns
and delusions. Here's my interpretation of the film. The Su-Yeon that we
see after the girls supposed return to the house is either the delusion of Su-Mi or
the actual ghost of Su-Yeon that only Su-Mi can see and interact with. The initial
stepmother that we see is, in my opinion a delusion of Su-Mi. There is a real
stepmother, however, and she first appears in the film when she's wearing the gray
pantsuit. I believe it's the real stepmother that the father is talking to on the
phone throughout the first part of the movie and she doesn't appear until he pick
her up and brings her to the house. The stepmother before that point is imagined by
Su-Mi (perhaps part of her split personality?) That explains the bizarre dinner
party sequence when the stepmother's brother looks at her like she's crazy and
doesn't remember anything that she recounts. I think it was Su-Mi acting out her
stepmother part of her split personality. The film shows this later in the bag
dragging scene and scenes such as the stepmother wiping her make-up in the mirror,
which is revealed later to actually be Su-Mi wiping her make-up in the
mirror. I think the ghosts in the house aren't entirely imagined by Su-
Mi, and are either of Su-Yeon or the mother or both. In the final flashback, it is
revealed the Su-Yeon was wearing the green dress and had the hairpin in her hair
when she died. This is the green dress that they showed before on the ghost sitting
at the dining room table while the stepmother was looking under the sink. Also,
it's the hairpin that Su-Yeon was wearing in the flashback that appears on the
floor when the stepmother is looking under the sink. The real
stepmother, in the end, gets punished by the ghost of Su-Yeon who comes for in a
scene a little bit like The Ring. After that, the flashback scene ties it all
together in terms of how both the stepmother was mainly responsible for her death,
while Su-Mi unintentionally played a supporting role. I wonder if the
"mother" that Su-Yeon sees when she goes up to her room to cry, in the flashback,
is a ghost already. Perhaps by that point the mother had already killed herself in
the closet. That's left ambiguous. Other things that are suggested, but
not clearly explained in the film is that it seems like the stepmother, at some
point, was a nurse, perhaps taking care of the mother and somehow may have
contributed to her death too. It's not clear when her relationship with the father
began and whether it caused the mother to kill herself. It's also suggested that
the mother had mental issues too, requiring a nurse. The stepmother alludes to this
when she tells Su-Mi, you're beginning to take after your mother. I don't think she
meant just physically. Also, if we accept that the initial stepmother
that we see is actually Su-Mi, then there's the suggestion of incest too, since the
father sleeps with her. Is that why Su-Mi freaks out and shouts, "Don't touch me"
each time the father reaches for her in a later scenes? Is that the "filthy things
that you've done" that she alludes to in a later conversation with the father? This
film is interesting in it's capacity for different interpretations. A few of the
scenes, however, were kind of derivative, such as the woman in the black crawling
around scene, which reminded me of the herky-jerky movements of Kayako in the Ju-
On/The Grudge films. Also, the final scene where the stepmother finally gets her
just desserts is reminiscent of The Ring. Furthermore, just the idea that some
characters may be ghosts is taken from "The Sixth Sense" or "The Others". Overall, I enjoyed it, however, and it will be interesting to see how the
Hollywood remake (that's already in production) turns out. I have to be honest, I
liked both "The Ring" and "The Grudge", so I'm not one of those snooty types who
insist that remakes can't be good too. One remake that I'm really excited about is
"Dark Water" coming out this summer. I haven't seen the original Japanese version
yet, but both films are definitely on my to-see list.
This review is long overdue, since I consider A Tale of Two Sisters to be the
single greatest film ever made. I'll put this gem up against any movie in terms of
screenplay, cinematography, acting, post-production, editing, directing, or any
other aspect of film-making. It's practically perfect in all of them a true
masterpiece in a sea of faux "masterpieces." The structure of this film
is easily the most tightly constructed in the history of cinema. I can think of no
other film where something vitally important occurs every other minute. Quite
literally, Ji-woon Kim seems to have made a movie that practically taunts the
viewer to dissect it on the most detailed of levels. A seemingly insignificant
object may be shown a rack of dresses, two diaries, a drop of blood emanating
from a floor crack, a bottle of pills, etc. but upon meticulous inspection turns
out to be so much more a clue that helps to make sense of that particular scene
(or perhaps the movie in total), which almost always contributes a stirring
reflection upon the psychological concepts that lurk in the background until the
viewer's intelligence prompts them to spring to the forefront. Such an event might
occur a handful of times during any other movie, but in A Tale of Two Sisters such
events occur in such a rapid-fire, relentless fashion that the viewer must watch
the film in a perpetual state of alertness, lest they miss something important. In
other words, the content level of this film is enough to easily fill a dozen other
films. How can anyone in their right mind ask for anything more from a movie than
this? It's quite simply the highest, most superlative form of cinema imaginable. The most commonly cited criticism of A Tale of Two Sisters is nicely
summarized by Zaphod B Goode, who falsely claims that the story is an incoherent,
unresolved mess that uses confusion to instill a false sense of intelligence
because it does not provide a final set of facts underlying the intriguing
questions. He posits that Ji-woon Kim tossed up a dozen possible explanations and
left it at that. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. A
Tale of Two Sisters provides a series of unassailably objective facts that help the
viewer to identify the EXACT occurrences of each and every scene of the film. If
our good friend Zaphod had been paying attention, he would have noticed for
example the series of obvious flashbacks which provide enough factual information
to make sense of the film. These flashbacks convincingly contradict Zaphod's
assertion of complete subjectivity. The objective elements of A Tale of Two Sisters
are so obvious to anyone willing to see them that the mere assertion of a lack of
objectivity can only call into question the patience of a viewer who apparently
does not want to put forth even the slightest effort whatsoever to see them. Can
Ji-woon Kim really be faulted for the impatience of viewers who lack the desire to
understand his film? I think not. Please note that I will not insult the
intelligence of critics such as Zaphod that cannot "get" A Tale of Two Sisters,
because it really has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence as much as a lack
of persistence. The movie spells itself out so effectively that the only possible
explanation for confusion is a lack of effort on the part of the viewer. Yes, this
film does require a rather significant amount of puzzle-solving, but the pieces fit
together to create a beautiful picture. You need only put them together. Remember,
the screenplay was written by someone with the picture already in mind he simply
separated the pieces and placed them skillfully throughout for the purpose of
providing a magnificent cerebral exercise that when completed bestows an
ultimate form of satisfaction and state of awe. Don't misunderstand me.
There are films that seem to start with an incomplete picture and try to create a
puzzle that is insoluble by design. Spider Forest (2004), Perfect Blue (1998) and
Donnie Darko (2001) are perfect examples of this. A Tale of Two Sisters is not.
It's ironic that Zaphod claims Darko to be more masterfully constructed than A Tale
of Two Sisters, especially considering that Darko not only provides almost NO
objective facts but also a twist ending that is the quintessential deus ex machina
cliché that could be dropped at the end of any movie ever made in order to provide
the ultimate in faux intelligence. I'm ashamed of myself for mentioning the two
films in the same sentence, but the contrast is an important one. Although it does
perplex me that Zaphod would cite a movie that crumbles when exposed to even the
slightest intellectual effort as a way of criticizing a film that only becomes
discernible thru a significant application of intellectual effort. He apparently
likes his "intelligent" films in the most superficial form possible. This is
evident when he makes 17 consecutive questions in his review that are answered
quite convincingly by the film itself. Just read the threads by Opiemar within the
IMDb A Tale of Two Sisters Discussion Forum. Anyone who carefully reads those
threads and still asserts a lack of an objective solution to this film may as well
stop watching intelligent films altogether because the answers are so damned
OBVIOUS. I'd like to say more, but I've come to my 1,000 word limit. All
that has been said here needed to be said. So be it now said!
I love horror films, but I think they work way better when they hide a dramatic
impact behind (The Devil's Backbone, The Exorcist, for example). This is that kind
of film, and it's not only eerie and terrifying when it has to be, it is also
really beautiful. A Tale of Two Sisters starts really slow, so if you're in a hurry
to see ghosts in the first 20 minutes you will be disappointed. Actually this is
not a ghost story though there are some. It's something more complex, and it's
done in such a way that it beats Ringu and The Grudge out of the ring no sweat. A
Tale is a way more clever film than those huge cultural hits, because it really
cares for its characters, and the direction is flawless. Every detail in this film
will leave you breathless if you're the kind of person who loves to pay attention
to details while watching a movie. The acting is superb, specially from the
stepmother and the main girl. Those two are worth the price of the ticket alone. Do
yourself a favor and watch this awesome film.
Perhaps I'm one of the only avid horror fans who thinks that the recent overload of
Asian shockers is so over-hyped! Films like "Ringu" or the "The Eye" which are
praised all over the world simply didn't convince me and they looked more boring
than frightening. Well, this blunt opinion doesn't go for the South Korean gem "A
Tale of Two Sisters". This is a stylish and utterly complex psychological terror-
tale that REALLY gets under your skin! The plot, based on a local folklore tale,
might be a little too confusing to get this film listed among the all-time greatest
genre achievements, but the atmosphere and tension-building surely provokes
feelings of great respect. This is one of those few films that are impossible to
label: the events in "Two Sisters" qualify as mind-bending horror as well as
intense family drama and a deeply psychological portrait. Besides a mesmerizing
story, "A tale of Two Sisters" also has all the great elements that I feel are
usually missing in Asian horror films like compelling music, good acting and
innovative camera-work. The mansion were the family events take place is
brilliantly illustrated like a truly creepy place where secrets and danger lurk
behind every door. Several sequences (like the dinner with relatives or the nightly
appearance in the girls' room) are pretty much the ultimate in eeriness. They
really made me feel uncomfortable and I do like to believe that I've seen my share
of spooky horror. "A Tale of Two Sisters" is a terrific movie-adventure and a
definite must see for Asian film fanatics. A little warning for people with a short
attention-span, though: this movie forces you to have your eyes and ears focused at
at all time. It's also a film that requires repeated viewing, even though no one
will never really "get it" for a full 100%.
The Beauty. The Terror. The Poetry. The Horror. The Innocence. The Guilt. Maybe that's just about all I should write in this comment for A TALE OF
TWO SISTERS. The best thing is to just watch this movie without knowing anything
about it. I myself didn't even know one single thing about the history of the two
girls when I went into this movie. I just took a look at the nice cover-art, didn't
even read the synopsis on the back and popped it into DVD-player. I only knew that
it won several prices on festivals around the world and that it came highly
recommended. The DVD-cover read "The Most Frightening Film since THE
RING, THE GRUDGE and DARK WATER". Though the frightening-part might be right, you
can forget about the rest, because the only thing A TALE OF TWO SISTERS has in
common with those movie is... a ghostly apparition with long black hair. It's even
a bit unfair to compare it with those famous Japanese movies, because this Korean
movie has a lot more to offer and is in fact a bit more complicated and intelligent
than those others. This movie simply is a small masterpiece, and here
are some reasons (without telling anything about the plot): The movie itself caught
me off guard at least two times with clever surprise-twists. And just when you
think you've had the conclusion (whether you get it or not, that's irrelevant for
the moment) and you think the movie will end... this movie goes on a bit longer.
The cinematography is amazing, using bright colors during the day and dark shades
at night. The camera-work is excellent with the director sometimes choosing
impressive, if not, innovating angles. Some shots are pure poetry (e.g. the top-
shot with the two sisters at the lake). It all looks very stylish. There are only
four main characters, but the intrigue surrounding them is intense. The story
itself starts a bit slow, but there's a lot of variety in tone and emotions to keep
it interesting. There was even one scene (when the girls took off towards the lake)
that suddenly had me remembering Peter Jackson's HEAVENLY CREATURES. But when the
horror kicks in, it's quite effective. There are also a few successful surprise-
scares in it. Damn, I jumped right up from my sofa. The musical score is great, and
at times when it's not supposed to be scary, I couldn't help but noticing that it
had sort of an Italian feeling to it. A bit strange for a Korean movie. But
nevertheless, a great score. So much care went into every detail of this film,
including a perfectly balanced surround sound. I also think that calling
A TALE OF TWO SISTERS just a horror movie is giving it not enough credit. It's more
a mysterious horror-drama that works both on a psychological and supernatural
level. No matter how you look at it, this is Asian horror that ranks way up there
amongst the finest. It might not be gory, but it gets pretty scary at times and the
subject matter is pretty disturbed. So if you haven't seen it yet, then find a
copy, pop it into your DVD-player, go with the flow and make sure you give this
movie your full attention for it's 110 minutes running time. There, I
hope I did a good job praising it without spoiling anything.
Hehehe. This was one of the best funny road movies ever! I laughed so I fell out of
the chair. With many Norwegian and foreign celebrities playing themselves. Harald
Zwart is the producer, known for films like Agent Cody banks and of course One
Night at McCool's. It is about Norwegian crazy fans, going to the world
cup in Soccer in Germany 2006. And all sort of crazy fun that comes with it. It was
hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing. I haven't had so much fun in ages. Rumors say
it will come a number two, but I do not know. It will be hard beating this one. recommended to everyone! It is a must see film. I was suppose to see it at
the cinema, but I had work at the times it where shown. And been trying to rent it
for a month, but all the time rented out. Got it today on DVD. Well worth it.
"A Tale of Two Sisters" is a brilliant South Korean psychological horror that left
me speechless.The film offers some delicious moments of ghastly horror and is
extremely creepy.The small cast of actors is truly excellent,with lead Im Soo-jung
being especially memorable in the lead role.The direction by Kim Ji-woon is well-
handled and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous.The plot is slightly
confusing,but some scenes are wonderfully eerie.The action is rather slow,but I was
not bored in the slightest;I was extremely curious and intrigued.The house,where
the film takes place looks incredibly menacing and isolated."A Tale of Two Sisters"
is along with "Ringu" and "Kairo" one of the most original Asian horror films I
have ever seen.Watch this masterpiece as soon as possible.My rating:10 out of 10.
The recent history of Hollywood remakes of ghost/horror films from the East has
been dismal. This film will inevitably suffer the same fate, so get a copy on e-bay
or similar. It is well photographed and the sound is superb. Viewing on
a good screen and with a good 5.1 or DTS enabled sound system is recommended.
Obviously it is subtitled, so if that puts you off, then I wouldn't bother with
this. Dubbing rarely works and simply would not do here. It is also
genuinely frightening, with excellent performances from a cast who will be
unfamiliar to Western audiences. I would particularly single out the stepmother
character, who was utterly brilliant. The ending will have you wanting to watch it
again, if you can cope. The plot is relentless, and offers no comforting moments of
release along the way. If I do have a small criticism, there is perhaps
a detectable influence in certain scenes from the Japanese version of The Ring. We
have, however, accepted straight copies of other peoples' ideas for Western films
for years, and so my point is a limited one which did not prevent me from giving it
10/10. I believe most fans of this genre will derive huge "pleasure" from this film
which I for one hope goes down as a classic.
'A Tale of Two Sisters', or 'Janghwa, Hongryeon', is a true masterpiece. Brilliant
psychological thriller, heart-wrenching drama, and gripping horror all wrapped up
in one beautifully orchestrated package. From the intricate plot, to the beautiful
cinematography, to the absolutely perfect casting, every aspect of this film is
extraordinary. For fear of revealing too much concerning the plot, I
will just say it is very satisfying. While it may appear to be a little difficult
to understand at first, it does a good job of explaining things in the end. And
whether you prefer psychological thriller, drama, or horror, I promise you will not
be disappointed. From a technical standpoint, its nearly flawless. The
set, the cinematography, lighting, and especially the soundtrack, all are
captivating. The waltz seemed an odd choice at first, but proved to be an ingenious
choice. As for the casting, we're talking absolute perfection. I'm Su-
jeong is totally convincing as the defiant, yet troubled Su-mi. Mun Keun- yeong is
equally convincing as her emotionally traumatized sister Su-yeon. These two girls
were magical on the screen. I will certainly be looking into their other films.
Yeom Jeong-ah is deceitfully cheerful and hauntingly evil as the stepmother.
Finally, Kap-su Kim gives an excellent performance as the weary, broken
father. I truly love this film. If you have yet to see 'A Tale Of Two
Sisters', I strongly recommend locating a copy. It is a real gem, worthy of
anyone's collection. (10/10)
This movie was an excellent acted, excellent directed and overall had an excellent
story. Ive had real life experiance with a boy like 'Radio'. At the football
program in my town, weve had a mentally challenged boy every year practice, travel,
and have fun with the football team. This movie is really true and i can identify
with it 100%. A boy like 'Radio' just needs to feel like they belong to something;
they need to feel like their life is worth living. Thats how 'Radio' feels and
thats why that type of program is set up at my high school. This is a very touching
movie that im glad has been brought to the big screen. My dad and I loved it and i
will always remember this for being a movie that tells a riveting story of the
goodness and kindness of man!
Call it manipulative drivel if you will, but I fell for it. Sure, there could have
been more character development. Yeah, there could have been better cinematography
and less of a constant "movie of the week" score, but Ed Harris was impeccable,
Cuba Gooding adorable and touching, and let's face it people, in real life, how
many of us really get to know the motivation of others. Not many. We did get a
little glimpse into the coach's motivation (a very provocative dialog in my
opinion, not to be soon forgotten) so in my opinion, this was a lovely tribute to
one human being who broke out of his "comfort zone" to reach out to another human
being, and in the mean time, touched the lives hundreds more. A lesson we all need
to me reminded of. Why is it that the right thing to do is so often the hardest
thing to do? I recommend this beautiful little movie to anyone with a heart. You
won't be disappointed. And bring your Kleenex. 8/10
Radio will have you laughing, crying, feeling. This story based on a true story is
the perfect movie for a couple to view. There's enough for both. cuba Gooding
Jr.portrays the title character to perfection. His performance is worthy of an
academy award nomination.The compassion of the movie is obvious. The movie evokes
many emotions. I sincerely enjoyed this film.
Excellent performances and a solid, but not overplayed story, helped this movie
exceed my expectations. This movie was far better than I was expecting after some
of the reviews I had read - but frankly those reviewers just got it wrong. Very
inspiring and uplifting. Highly recommended!
I thought this was a really well written film. I've heard of Radio the person
before this movie was even created and I can't begin to describe how good Cuba
Gooding Jr was in it. It will make the women cry, everyone laugh, and most everyone
will leave smiling.
 Having read the unemployed critic's, review, I went to a screening of
"Radio" not knowing what to expect. Thankfully, the unemployed critic now appears,
to me anyway, a frustrated film director/movie critic. His review is callous and
totally uncalled for! This is a movie that will make you laugh, it will
make you cry and in the end it will give you a moment of pause! To
paraphrase a line delivered by Actor Ed Harris in the final Barbershop scene
"...and all this time that we thought we were teaching Radio, truth is...He was
teaching us. He treats us all the time, like we wish we treated each other, some of
the time!" Yes the movie tugs at the heartstrings. Yes it is emotionally
manipulative and yes Cuba Gooding Jr. (In an Oscar worthy performance) is a little
over the top at times (See the Christmas day dance scene) but you know what? SO
WHAT! Every once in awhile the community of America needs to be reminded what
tolerance can do for our great country. We need to be reminded how great we CAN
be. This is a solid cast. I was particularly pleased to see S. Epatha
Merkerson, portraying Radio's mother, do something outside of Law and Order. I
always wondered, is Ms. Merkerson a great actor or is it the quality of writing
delivered buy a strong cast on Law and Order. After watching this movie, it is easy
to see that she is indeed a very fine actor. Also joining the cast in
small but important and powerful roles is Alfre Woodard as the Principal, Debra
Winger in a career-resurrecting role of Coach Jones's wife and Chris Mulkey as
Protagonist, Frank Clay. We cannot over look Ed Harris's performance as
Coach Harold Jones. After reflecting on this movie and having grown up in the Deep
South my self, It is hard to truly appreciate Mr. Harris and his contribution to
this film. As Coach Jones, Ed delivers a quiet, rock solid performance, that of a
man on a mission. Coach Harris will not let the town or circumstances divert him
from what he knows in his heart, is the right thing to do. If you see
this movie, make sure you hang around for the end credits. You will be in for a
treat as the real James Robert 'Radio' Kennedy, now in his mid 50's, is shown,
still leading the T.L. Hanna Football team on to the field every Friday
night. One final note. If you were a teen in the mid to late 70's, this
movie is worth the price of admission, for the sound track alone!
Cuba Gooding Jr. is back on top! Jesus, he did a great job in this film! I LOVED
this movie. Its one of those feel good movies that makes you want to run out and
volunteer at a mission or something. Anyway, I would recommend seeing this movie in
a heartbeat! Well worth the price of admission. And as for Cuba Gooding Jr., just
give him his next Oscar right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in
the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core
fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and
nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian
producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully
hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines),
soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely
watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of
my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc
and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece.
I just got home from seeing "Radio." I've not seen such an inspiring story in a
long time. My kids are ages 8 and 5 and I would like to take them so that they may
"feel" the message as I did - you should seek to find the best in people and love
them for who they are, not judge them for their differences. Cuba Gooding, Jr. and
Ed Harris both deserve Academy Awards for this movie. I don't know why we can't
have more movies like this, rather than the junk that is served up at theatres on a
daily basis.
This is a very moving movie about life itself. The challenges a handicapped person
must face in a land that expects perfection is brought to the forefront for all to
see and hopefully understand. It should teach the bigots of society that we are all
humans, and while some of us are gifted with a mind, heart and sound body, there
are decent human beings that exist in the world that are not as lucky, or maybe,
we're the unlucky ones. We don't always see the beauty in the world because we're
wrapped up in our 'blind' ambitions, and see it only in one light "what can this
world do for me!!!". Maybe we all wish we were like Radio, a loving happy
individual...who loves everyone.
As one who frequently goes to the movies, I have to say that this has been one of
the most impressive movies I have seen this year. Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr.
gave outstanding performances allowing viewers to get lost in the various emotions
and really feel for the characters. It is nice to occasionally see a movie that
does not depend entirely upon special effects but allows the characters of the
story to touch the human psyche on many levels. I wish Hollywood would produce more
movies of this calibre.
Cuba Gooding,Jr. will win the Oscar for BEST ACTOR in 2003.And Ed Harris will win
for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR. What a beautiful and poignant film it is but be sure to
bring along a box of tissues because if this film doesn't get to you, then you have
ice water in your veins. It was 1976. The setting was in South Carolina
and the Civil Rights Act was about ten years old. We have a white high school
football coach and teacher, Ed Harris. Then there is a black retarded frightened
but pleasant fellow, Cuba Gooding, whose greatest possessions, including a radio,
are piled into a shopping cart which is also used as his bicycle. Ed
Harris takes a keen interest in the fellow for a reason explained much later on in
the film. He gives Cuba the nickname "Radio" and what follows is an absoutely
riveting, engrossing, poignant exploration of the human soul. The movie
is nothing short of a masterpiece.
Inspired by True events, Radio is one of the best acted, heart felt dramas I seen
widely released in sometime. It definitely is one of the year's best films of 2003.
 Radio stars Ed Harris, who is Oscar worthy nonetheless in this film, as
football coach Harold Jones. Coach Jones has been teaching football all his life
and loves the game. However Coach Jones does not spend much time with his wife and
daughter played by Debra Winger and Sarah Drew. One day Radio, played by Cuba
Gooding Jr., in his best performance since Men of Honor, comes by the football
field while the coach's team is practicing for the game. Some members of the team,
then tie up radio and throw him into a building. They then bang on the building and
finally Coach Jones suspects something is wrong. He comes over and helps Radio, who
is frightened, and from that point on Coach Jones and Radio shares a very special
bond. Radio becomes the highlight of every football game and really enjoys
participating in the football games and at school events. He also becomes Coach
Jones's main interest in life over football which at first was his main priority
before both his family and Radio. The movie deals with all sorts of real
life problems including what your priorities are life, accepting people for who
they are even if they are different, death, and family relationships. The movie
touches upon all those issues and more and is extremely well done and director
Michael Tollin should be very proud of this film. The thing I liked most about
Radio was how real it felt. The performances were like watching something in real
life occur right before your eyes. Radio had a great mix of comedy and drama. Some
parts were quite funny yet other parts were very serious and sad. In
conclusion, I feel that Radio was very overlooked by Critics only getting average
reviews. They must have there heads up there butts because its amazing how this
film can only get 2 star reviews and something like school of rock can get 3 or 4
stars it doesn't make any sense to me. Also the performances as I mentioned before
are top-notch and Oscar worthy. In my opinion, both Ed Harris, who I think is
underrated as an actor, and Cuba Gooding Jr. should both get some kind on
nomination for this movie. Radio is one my favorite movies of the year and gives me
reason to still see some of the big Hollywood movies. My final rating for Radio is
a 9/10.
Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ed Harris are touching. This movie is really surprising. It
was enjoyable from start to finish. The story is about mentally
challenged man who helps out with a football team. 
This is a movie you'll either love or hate. I loved it. If you are looking for
suspense, great special effects, action, sophistication, cynicism, etc. you won't
find it in this movie. It is a feel good movie, sentimental, positive, uplifting.
The heroes of the movie are Coach Jones (played by Ed Harris), a man of strength
and integrity, and Radio (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) a mentally retarded man who finds a
way to contribute to his world. I guess I didn't find this movie to be "sentimental
hogwash" as so many did, because it felt very real to me. I know people like these.
I've seen jocks who think it's fun to pick on the vulnerable. I've seen men of
integrity stand up for the vulnerable. I've seen people who think high school
football is serious business. I've seen people who know what really is important in
life. Any of these people could have been people I knew. I did laugh; I did cry. I
left the movie feeling good, remembering that there are people like Coach Jones and
Radio in my world. If there aren't people like them in yours, you might not like
the movie. If you don't like a movie that shows the better side of human nature,
you'll hate it.
Radio was a very good movie, and honestly, i never cry in movies. But it had me
pretty close to tears. It really got to me when Radio's mom died and he just
wouldn't get out of his room. I felt really sad about how, if you were mentally
retarded, you wouldn't really be able to understand death. I really liked the
movie, and It's a must see.
I'm normally not a Drama/Feel good movie kind of guy, but once I saw the trailer
for "Radio", I couldn't resist. Not only is this a great film, but it also has
grreat acting. Cuba Gooding Jr. did an excellent job portraying James Robert
Kennedy, a.k.a. "RAdio." Ed Harris also did a fantastic job as Coach Jones. I was
pleasantly surprised to see some comedy in it as well. So for a great story, great
acting, and a little comedy, I give "Radio" a 10 out of 10!
Radio is a true story about a man who did what he felt, in his heart, was the right
thing to do. The viewer will be compelled to wonder what he or she would have done.
The adversity that coach Jones and Radio both faced was both tragic and
predictable. People did not understand; nor did they want to understand. But in the
end, the power of circumstance forced people to understand and appreciate so much
more than they did before it happened. Radio is a mentally challenged youth who
understands very little, besides three of the most important things the are too
often forgotten as we mature: Intuition, compassion, and love. Coach Jones is a
high school teacher who cannot ignore the plight of the underdog who is just trying
to play a bad hand of cards in the best way that he knows how. It was sad the way
coach Jones and Radio met. The practical joke that terrified the life out of Radio
was enough to make you want to severely punish, not only the boys involved, but
every boy who knew what was going on and did nothing about it. However, on the
positive side of the scale, the incident led to a friendship that would influence
so many lives in the kind of way that most of us believe only happens in the
movies. This movie is a real life fairy tale and not to be missed. Ed Harris was
his usual brilliance. Gooding was flawless. Radio is an inspiration.
Despite some really scenic locations in the orient and some sporadically energetic
music by Franco Micalizzi, this film doesn't quite reach the level of Joe D'Amato's
similar efforts while staying just about as trashy. The author of the original book
"Emmanuelle: The Joys of a Woman", Emmanuelle Arsan, directed and had a smallish
role in this film, which mostly pornographically showcases a very young Annie Belle
as she gets in a variety of oddball sexual situations. Her boyfriend, played by
ZOMBIE's Al Cliver actually approves of her sleeping around and even persuades her
to continue her practices even after the two of them are married! Orso Maria
Guerrini drops by as a professor who is oh so usually married simultaneously to two
women, one of whom is played by Arsan herself. Despite beginning promisingly and
having a few hilarious lines of dialog like "can you see me with the naked
eye?" ... "I can see you better naked!", the film shambles along plotlessly up
until the less-than-spectacular finale. Much like D'Amato's EMANUELLE AND THE LAST
CANNIBALS, the main characters are all in search of some lost tribe, but don't get
your hopes up, there's no violence at all in this film, and not much sex either for
that matter. Just a lot of nudity and silly dialog. I couldn't help but find some
appreciation for this little film, if only for the completely cornball logic the
film goes by.
'Radio' is a beautiful movie based on a real story of the mentally challenged James
Robert Kennedy, nicknamed 'Radio', and the football coach from the T.L. Hanna High
School, Harold Jones. Cuba Gooding, Jr. is excellent as Radio! I would
never imagine to see him in a serious performance, specially because most of the
movies I watch with him are comedies. Ed Harris is great as Harold Jones, but this
actor IS great, so this is not anything new. The mentally challenged
young man called James Robert Kennedy, always walk around the T.L. Hanna High
School, without bothering anyone and almost not noticed. One day, when the
football's ball is throw near him, he decides to stay with the ball, for the
impatience of Johnny Cash, one of the best players from the football team and also
one of the most unpleasant guys you would ever met. One day, Cash decides to punish
James, mocking him with other football players and even go so far as to tie him
up. When coach Jones discovers that horrible act, he stays angry and
punish all the team, deciding for this day on to help James, who gets the nickname
'Radio' because of his passion for radios in general. The movie shows
how Radio becomes an adept assistant, helping the team train despite hardships from
the players, and even getting respect from basically all the people who lives in
the small city. I would recommend this movie for everybody who wants to
watch a real and beautiful story. It has a life lesson,specially showing us how a
person can make a difference, even not being what we call ''normal''. Radio has a
big heart and is incapable to hate anyone, and that's a thing that we all should
apply to our daily lives.
Can a mentally challenged black youth be a catalyst to unite people in a South
Carolina town? The answer appears to be that in spite of his handicap, James
Kennedy, understood much more than what he was given credit for and went to become
a fixture in the sports scene. Also, the film is saying how many of us overlook
people with problems that can be helped if only we have the patience Coach Jones
showed to the young man because of his own guilt in his heart. "Radio",
directed by Michael Tolllin, is a formula film inspired on a true story. Yet, the
movie is not a complete failure because of the inspired performances the director
was able to get from his wonderful cast. Coach Jones is instrumental in
getting the young man, who is called Radio because his passion for collecting them,
involved in sports, a passion he discovers in this retarded man who has had only
hard knocks in his young life. Coming from a poor background, Radio, lives with his
mother who is protective of him and questions the coach's intentions. Radio is seen
by the school kids as a mascot, at first, then, his sunny disposition wins him the
acceptance of everyone because he is a good person without an ounce of malice in
his body. The film owes a lot to Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. who make
a great pair as the coach and Radio. Mr. Harris, one of the best actors of our
times is never boring in anything he graces with his presence. He gets the essence
of the principled coach who sees the possibility to make amends for something that
bothers him from his past. Cuba Gooding Jr. is also at his best portraying the
mentally challenged young man. The supporting cast is excellent. S.
Ephata Merkerson, one of the best actresses of her generation, does interesting
work as the mother of Radio. Alfre Woodard, another good actress plays the high
school principle with style. Debra Winger, only has a few scenes in the film. "Radio", while being sentimental, will warm anyone's heart because it shows
how we tend to see some people are in our society that we know nothing about and
how quick we are to judge them. Michael Tollin puts a lot of ideas in the proper
perspective for us.
Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. where cast perfectly in this film. It's a heart-
warming story that reaffirms the belief that we can all make a difference if we
just care. I think there was a lot of realism with the characters. The screenwriter
didn't incorporate racism in the film in a way that most films do, which I thought
created a more realistic story line. Writers tend to inject incidents of
racism in an attempt to create realism but usually go overboard. There
are so many towns like this one where people of different races live harmoniously.
Ed Harris should have been nominated for an Academy Award because he was great as a
leader and coach, realistic as a father and showed a warm caring side when helping
Radio.
This was unusual: a modern-day film which was ultra-nice. In fact, it was so nice
it bordered on being too hard to believe in parts. As I watching this based-on-a-
real-life story, I was thinking, "nobody is this nice, this tolerant." Mainly, I
was referring to Ed Harris' role as "Coach Jones." I think they went a little
overboard on his character, but that's better than the reverse: showing him worse
than what he was in real life. Odd to see Harris playing the role, too, since he
has a long resume of playing nasty, profane characters. Anyway, I never
complain about a nice, feel-good film, and it is nice to see a bunch of well-
meaning, kind people. Those folks direct their friendship, love and compassion to
"James Kennedy," better known as "Radio," a mentally slow high school kid played by
Cuba Gooding Jr. The story takes place in the mid 1970s in South Carolina. Gooding
does a nice job with the role, too. However, like Sean Penn's role of a mentally-
challenged man in "I Am Sam," an hour-and-a-half of a character like this is
plenty. After that, the loudness of those guys gets tiresome to hear. Note: It was interesting in one of the documentaries on this DVD to find out
that, in real life, in took years for "Radio" to make his transformation, not
months as shown in the film.
Not much to it but a validation of small town values and the embracing of a
mentally challenged young man into its heart. I read some of the reviews
and was surprised at some of the hostility it engendered. I felt Cuba Gooding
handled the part with dignity and respect unlike Sean Penn's drooling fool
portrayal in "I am Sam." The fact that this is based on a true story
makes it all the more heartwarming. Sports are taken seriously in small town high
school America (and elsewhere, I suspect) and I felt the portrayal of these
competitive students opening their hearts to one less fortunate rang true, at least
for me. The coach was never forced to choose between his daughter and
Radio but rather came gently to the decision himself under Radio's loving and open
ways. Very well done to all. 7 out of 10. Debra Winger, we need more of
you in pictures!
Corniness Warning. As many fellow IMDb users already know, I'm not a corny, cheesy
person. If you don't want to read this kind of review, then go. To tell
you the truth, you're hearing this from a man who laughed through Titanic and
almost broke his parents' tape from continuously rewinding the propeller
scene. ---Spoilers--- One day, I went off to the theatres
with two friends to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, last year in August. The
boring trailers rolled on until one started off so calmly. It was for Radio. The
moment I saw the trailer, I just had to see this movie on opening weekend. When
that weekend rolled along, Scary Movie 3 was out too so many teenagers were there
waiting in line that Friday night. It turns out the movie sold out and those teens
were so desperate to see a movie, they went and also sold out Good Boy and Radio. I
couldn't get a ticket and the following weeks, I was busy with more important
things. About 5 months later, my friend rented Radio. He let me borrow it and I
watched it in my room. I'll tell you this now, this is the ONLY movie I have ever
seen that got me crying EVER. When Radio's mother died, it just came out
automatically. The next day, I went off to Blockbuster and bought the DVD. Well enough of my stupid personal story, let me tell you about the movie. Cuba Gooding Jr. stars as a mentally challenged man nick-named Radio. Ed
Harris co-stars and this movie is directed by Mike Tollin. Based on a true story,
Radio is a teenager who has a life by spending most of his day alone. He goes
around with a shopping cart picking up whatever he can and is always carrying a
radio around. He's got his own collection. At the end of every day, he goes home to
his mother. He never went to school until later in the film. One day, Radio passes
by the local high school while the football team is practicing. A football flies
over the fence and Radio picks it up and continues on. Ed Harris plays Mr. Jones,
the football coach. They meet and this is the life of Radio. Throughout
the whole movie, Radio and Coach Jones spend quality time together, both teaching
each other things. It is beautiful to see how the movie goes to the highest joys,
the lowest lows, and just seeing Radio live his life. You will laugh, cry, and live
the life of Radio with him. This movie holds a special place in my heart along with
Toy Story and others. This is a must-see for the whole family, by yourself, or if
you're someone who just wants a great drama. Radio is one of the most beautiful
movies I have ever seen. Radio will never be forgotten by me. Never. As
Ed Harris' character said greatly near the end of the movie: "We're not
teaching Radio, Radio is teaching us." My Rating: 8/10 Eliason A.
This is one of the best films I have ever seen! How anyone can knock this movie
just befuddles my imagination! First of all, Gooding's and Harris's performances
were simply spectacular, especially Gooding. That is the only way I can describe
the acting: spectacular! You have to imagine how difficult it would be to play a
character like that and pull it off; then you see Gooding, and his performance was
magical. As for the plot, since it was based on a true person, it goes where the
lives of the characters go. For all the action buffs, it might be a little slow,
but then it's not an action film. I definitely give this movie a 10. It deserves
nothing less!
EXCUSE ME!!! HellOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CUBA GOODING,Jr. Should Have Won An Oscar
For His Portrayal In This Film!!! He WAS the film! While the film may be lacking in
some areas, Cuba was awesome... and for me, this is the best role that he has ever
played! The scene in the movie where he finds out that his mother has died made me
break down and cry IN THE THEATER!! I guess I could really relate to this film
because I saw the same treatment of people just like that at my own school growing
up... what a tragedy! Getting to see the "real" Radio and coach at the end of the
movie was really special too! If you can watch this movie and not be moved to
tears, you need a heart check! If you liked "Simon Birch" and "The Mighty", you'll
love "Radio" too! I wish they made more movies like this...Radio is the Real Deal!
The fact that the movie is based on a true story contributes to a better and, of
course, more realistic experience and keeps the viewer focused on the basic theme
of the movie. The story is filled with unexpected twists which keeps the viewer at
all times from figuring the ending out. In one moment you think that something
happens to Coach Jones or Radio. Well it does, but certainly not what you'd
expect. The film becomes at no point boring or too sentimental and the
acting performances by Ed Harris & Cuba Gooding Jr. are some of their best in my
opinion. The ending puts a long lasting smile on your face and makes you wonder if
what you are doing is right. Well I guess that was what Michael Tollin & Mike Rich
were trying to do. First-class movie. Esbjørn Nordby Birch. Denmark.
Spoilers !!! To understand what really happened first you have to be a warrior, to
stay alive in real war, to think off-line,analytically,critically and not linear.
Otherwise you will come to false conclusions that Maj.Gray was dumb or unstable
person. Truth is something completely different. He was firm hardened veteran and
only way he could be killed by Capt. O'Malley is that he wants her to kill him. It
was his way out. He choose it. He was not man who will retire. If you've never been
on a first line you can't understand it. He intentionally prepare his own suicide.
First he seduced Mary Jane, than intentionally acted as a dumb, than stageed argue
- shutting incident before witnesses (to protect her later after she done what he
wants her to do if it comes to trial), than gave her son a bullets (to assure he
could load her gun later), came that night, loaded her gun, woke her up, put her
gun in her hands, acted as he was attacking her, after shot first time he raised
knife and cried "One kill" so she shot him again and before died he put knife off
like he was trying to took him back again after first shot. He also gave her a
message with his last cry. "After first kill everything will change inside your
mind and destroy your life, this is the the only way for me to die as a man, yet to
be killed by somebody I love is my choice and my only prerogative, war and army is
not what you thought so far, grow up finally and save your life till you can". She
left military life at the end. She did understand him. And he did not die in vain.
The man who helped him to prepare all that and after to carry out the trial and the
outcome of that trial was Col. Sam Doran with help of Lt. Tim Macy. Macy didn't
know what is really going on and what will be the outcome but did what he was
expected to do. He took photos of Mary Jane and Maj.Gray by order of Col. Sam Doran
who gave that order because Maj.Gray asked him to do that. After she refused to
leave army (what Col.Doran asked her to do) Col. Doran convinced prosecutor to
charge her with a premeditated murder (he knew she cant be found quilty) instead of
manslaughter (there was some possibility to be found quilty) with taken photos.
Col.Doran also suppress argue-shutting incident to escalate to prevent prosecutor
to have any doubt about premeditated murder charge but let it be revealed during
the trial what greatly influenced the jury. I have no doubt about outcome of that
trial. Why Col. Doran did that way? Because he will do anything Maj.Gray ask him to
do. Why? Because he saved his life on a battlefield. Why Mary Jane choose to go to
trial? Because she was a person who have integrity, a principles. And that is why
Maj.Gray choose her. It has to be somebody deserving, somebody honourable. Keeping
his secret about what really happened that night she also prove her honour. Miroslav
Gorgeous Annie Belle in her prime stars in this adventure/sex movie. She wears her
hair in a buzz cut that is bleached platinum. She and her boyfriend are visiting
some tropical Asian paradise. They have decided to keep an "open" sexual
relationship, which is played out on their journey to find a secret society/tribe
where the people live one year and then are reborn in some kind of ceremony. The
scenery is gorgeous, deep vast green gorges and jungles are explored. The imagery
is very similar to that of the movie "Black Emanuelle". It is rich and colorful.
Recommended!
This movie reminded me of the live dramas of the 1950s- not like the recent
"Failsafe", which seemed more of a stunt than anything else, but a TRUE moral drama
that is both engaging and thought-provoking. Anne Heche is more than credible as
the army officer having an affair with her superior, played by Sam Shepard, and
Eric Stoltz is wonderful as her lawyer defending her against the military
establishment. I found myself waiting for THEIR affair to begin, if only because
they look so good together. This movie is apparently based on a true story, and
it's a relief to be asked to think about real issues for a change. Directed by Christopher Menaul, who also did The Passion of Ayn Rand (with Stolz)
and the Prime Suspect series, this is a movie with panache and style and is
absolutely worth seeing.
Certainly this film has the ring of truth about it, as it purports to be based on
actual occurrences at a Marine base. It deals with the attempted cover-up by the
local Marine commander of unacceptable conduct by a Marine major which resulted in
his being shot to death by his former girl friend, a Marine captain. The man and
woman had been lovers, but the captain attempted to break off the relation when she
discovered her boy friend was married. He continued to stalk her, going so far as
to fire his side arm in her direction at one time. Finally he broke into her home,
attacked her with a knife, and was shot twice with her service pistol and killed.
The civilian prosecutor ruled the killing self defense, but the Marines decided to
charge the captain with murder. The major, you see, was a decorated hero from
Vietnam, and an old friend of the commanding colonel at the Marine base. The
captain, too, had made some enemies in her motor pool command, rejecting some male
advances in a very butch style. There is considerable psychological
freight motivating and controlling the actions of the principal participants in
this drama, which the very capable cast gets across nicely. The director and
editor, however, seem determined to obscure the happenings as much as possible with
frustrating flashbacks and shifting points of view. You're lucky if you know where
you're at most of the time. Bear with them, though; it's a worthwhile story as the
captain's court martial trial unfolds, and it seems every man's hand is against
her, even her attorney at times. The verdict? Well, after all, this is
rather a suspense story, so you'll have to see for yourself. There is a kind of
"pacifist" message folded into the film, but forget about that. Sure, "war is
hell", but sometimes it can't be avoided. We'll need those Marines then, even if
they aren't always the best champions of fair play internally. As Kipling says in
his poem "Tommy Atkins": "It's Tommy this and Tommy that, And Tommy wait
outside. But, it's room for Mr. Atkins, When the troopship's on the tide."
Excellent cast, story line, performances. Totally believable. I realize the close
knit group that exemplifies the Marine Corps. But this movie brought fear to my
heart. The marines let principles be damned. It seems that this film was based on
real life incidents. It shows how difficult it is to go up against the
establishment. Anne Heche was utterly convincing. Sam Shepard's portrayal of a gung
ho Marine was sobering. And Eric Stoltz as her attorney was so deft balancing his
loyalty to the Corp but also his loyalty to his client, while high above on his
tightrope. He knew what his true course of action had to be. But he was pulled
apart by his immersion in the Marine tradition, loyalty to the Corps above all
else. I sat riveted to the TV screen. All in all I give this one a resounding 9 out
of 10.
The Man Who Knew Too Much{1956}is a remake of a film that Alfred Hitchcock made in
England in 1934 with the same name. In my opinion, his later effort is far
superior. Many critics and fans of Alfred Hitchcock will argue that the remake is
mediocre and doesn't have the spine tingling suspense of the original with Peter
Lorre. In both films the plot is essentially the same, except the original is set
in Switzerland and the remake in Marrakech . It tells the story of a married couple
{James Stewart and Doris Day}vacationing with their young son and meeting a
suspicious man, that is very curious about their past. It just so happens, he's an
agent that's looking for a couple involved in a plot to assassinate a world
leader.Then he gets stabbed in a Marrakeck market because of it being found out
that he's a spy,and proceeds to fall into Stewart's arms.Dying,he tells him the
whole story of the assassination plot.Stewart and Day then find out that another
couple they met were the couple the agent was looking for and have kidnapped their
son.The film contains excellent performances by Stewart and Day,in a straight
dramatic role,as worried and frightened parents.This film proved that Doris Day
could act in suspenseful dramas as well as carefree musicals.The direction by
Alfred Hitchcock is top-notch.The film keeps you on the edge of your seat every
minute.The scene in Albert Hall is a classic.The original is so slow-paced and
drab.I don't know how people can compare the two.Just watch the remake and you'll
enjoy it.I give the movie a 9 out of 10.
Unfortunately, due to a sluggish start, I can't say that this is one of Hitch's
best films. It very excellent none the less. The film stars Jimmy Stewart and Doris
Day as parents who get caught up in a political assassination plot and must try to
get their kidnapped son back. They both give excellent performances, not surprising
of course. Really, however, I was most impressed with Hitchcocks amazing use of
music. The climax at the Opera house was fantastic, and using a live orchestra to
create music and suspense at the same time was pure genius. Absolutely fantastic
suspense came out of that scene. Also, the use of Doris Day singing "Que Sera,
Sera" was excellent. Especially when it is transposed on scenes at the end of the
film. So, this film to me ends up being Hitchcocks best use of music that I have
seen to date. Unfortunately it had a slow start, or I could have recommend this
film a little more highly. Even then, it is still well worth a look. 8 out of 10.
This is another enjoyable and entertaining Hitchcock film. James Stewart and Doris
Day are incredible in this movie. Bernard Herrmann appears as himself near the
climax. The scenery and locations are great, except the one scene early
on where the background was obviously fake, which doesn't make sense to me since
scenes before and after were in the same setting and they were real location shots.
I've heard that Hitchcock did this on purpose sometimes. The reviews for
this movie seem to be mixed. I think this is a better than average Hitchcock movie.
Very entertaining and it has a great light comical scene at the end. I
rated this movie 8 out of 10. 
Some people say the pace of this film is a little slow, but how is this different
from any other Hitchcock movie? They all move very deliberately and, as a point,
have spurts of suspense and brilliant montages injected through it. This movie
gives us just the right amount of comic relief which make the suspense scenes seem
all the more suspenseful. The Albert Hall scene is one of the best examples of Pure
Cinema that exists in Hitchcock's collection (the best probably being almost all of
"Rear Window"). Pure Cinema for Hitchcock meant a series of usually small pieces of
film fit together without dialogue, in order to tell the story visually. This is,
of course the basic definition of the Albert Hall sequence, as well as the shorter
staircase sequence at the end of the picture. Not many slip-ups by
Hitchcock here, and the acting is superb especially by Doris Day in a rather
surprising serious role.
Lovely little thriller from Hitchcock, with lots of nice shenanigans surrounding a
murdered spy, a kidnapped child, a nasty church, a foreign plot and some random
taxidermists. Jimmy Stewart is as ever a great hero for Hitchcock, the story rips
along to its cool climax at an embassy function, but it lacks the brooding menace
of Hitchcock's black and white, low-budget original. Nevertheless yet another
wonderful film from the great master's stable.
1956's The Man Who Knew Too Much is exceptional entertainment. To those who prefer
the 1934 original, I will say that that one is faster paced and wittier. However,
even though the American version was (heaven forbid!) a big budget blockbuster, I
believe it blows the British version out of the water. I think this is one of
Hitchcock's 10 best-no small feat considering he made over 50 films and many of
them were among the greatest of all time. I find so many things to love: 1)James Stewart, America's favorite everyman for so many years, does an
excellent job playing the distressed father here. He can make any film enjoyable,
and working with such a likeable character in such a gripping story, he had me
rooting for him very intensely. Leslie Banks in the original is nothing in
comparison. 2)Doris Day. Yes Doris Day. Despite all the criticisms
directed toward her, I think she makes the loving wife/mother an extremely
sympathetic person. I disagree with the negative remarks towards her character;
just because she is soft-spoken and gentle it doesn't mean she is docile and
helpless. I don't want to spoil anything, but she does make a crucial discovery by
herself after her husband has failed. She gives the story a level of warmth that
just wasn't there in the first one, and for those who care about that this version
is the way to go. And I loved Que Sera Sera; I think it is one of the most
beautiful songs I've ever heard and deservedly won its Oscar. It elevated the film
to another level. 3)The Albert Hall sequence. I don't think it was too
long at all; I think the suspense built the whole time to that terrific crescendo
and Hitchcock's direction in this scene was absolutely brilliant. And the assassin
was truly frightening. 4)The ending really put a smile on my face; even
after the aforementioned scene was over I found the rescue scene to be exciting and
it was great to see the charming family together again. The last line in the film
is highly amusing. I don't think the film started out slowly; Hithcock was trying
to get us to know and like the McKennas and he did a great job. I wasn't a huge fan
of the kid playing Hank, but I didn't have a problem with him. Since Hank was Ben
and Jo's kid I cared about him too; it's not like he was a brat or anything. I found no major flaws in this movie and so many major and minor virtues.
Way to go Hitch!
I can't believe this movie only scores 7.4! This surely ranks up with the best of
Hitchcock's movies such as VERTIGO or MARNIE. The only reason I can think of why
the score is so low, is that for the most part, THE MAN... renounces violence and
certainly won't get a diploma in "sex and crime". What it derives its
tension from is not violence, it's the reckless energy of these criminals that take
a child from his parents and are ready to kill the kid if the operation fails.
Today, having seen a lot of hardboiled kidnapping movies as Mel Gibson's RANSOM,
this seems normal, but in the 1950s, where family was all in contemporary America,
the thought of such a crime surely has stirred up emotions a lot. And
this tension still works for me, today. Yeah, these guys are selfish, ignorant
bastards, disturbing in how they act: It's a deal for them, and they want to be
"good businessmen", disregarding the fact that business here is kidnapping kids and
assassinating politicians in the opera!! What makes the movie great,
however, are the creative aspects, the kinky ideas of Hitchcock, the outrageously
disturbing scene in the church (which brings it to the viewer's attention how
alone, how abandoned the protagonists are, nobody caring, nobody helping, the
people in the church just going home...), the meeting with the owner of that shop
stuffing and preparing dead animals (which stresses the somewhat "oriental" flair
the movie has from the opening scenes abroad), last not least the role of MUSIC in
this movie. Music is the key principle here, as ***SPOILER*** the
assassination of the targeted politician is to be done exactly in the moment of a
loud orchastra tutti/gong; so Hitchcock lets the camera follow the orchestra score
and you now it will happen in a second ***BANG*** And then, of course, DORIS DAY
singing Que sera, which became more famous than the movie itself; she sings it to
notify the kid of his parents being in the embassy... All in all: A
classic!!
I finally saw LAURE and I have to say that I equally enjoyed it and was dismayed by
it. What's great about it is the atmosphere, the music, the location, the
cinematography and the beautiful cast. The story is non-existent for sure but with
these movies it doesn't really matter. The pace in languid and the settings are
exotic. The film has a lot going for it. Unfortunately, it also has a few things
going against it. The first thing is that the gorgeous Annie Belle and the handsome
Al Cliver have no chemistry whatsoever. Because the two are playing a couple and
are on screen for almost the entire length of the film the lack of chemistry
between the two is a definite liability. According to IMDb, Al and Annie were a
real couple when they filmed this movie. They sure kept their attraction to each
other from showing on screen. The other problem with LAURE is that some
sex scenes are just ineffective or even ridiculous. There's one sex scene that
stands out as one of the silliest I've ever seen in any soft porn flick: our young
blonde couple are picked-up by a helicopter pilot who happens to be a cross-
dresser! The pilot flies over the city to pick up his girlfriend (!) and they have
an orgy of sorts in the helicopter, in mid-air. And Al Cliver is filming all of
this with his 16mm camera! I kid you not. Ridiculous. We later see that 16mm
footage being edited on a moviola. While the footage rolls, Al and Annie start
making out. This scene is actually good but the footage on the screen behind them
was at times too much. Watching the footage of the cross-dresser getting it on with
his bimbo while piloting the helicopter almost had me rolling on the floor laughing
out loud. Is this supposed to be erotic or believable in any way? The last thing I
want to see is a woman pleasuring a man in drag, certainly when the man in drag
makes for such an ugly woman, while piloting a helicopter, no less. Al and Annie
getting it on was cool as was the music during the entire scene. I just wish the
footage on the editing screen wasn't so silly. Speaking of drag, another
dull plot point in LAURE which really drags the movie to a crawl are all those
moments with the great Orso Maria Guerrini and his two wives. A married threesome
is an interesting idea but it hardly registers here as hot or even interesting. The
two women are sorta dull and we rarely see the three having sex. In fact, Orso
keeps his clothes on for almost the entire film, even when he's with Annie Belle.
This is another minor complaint about LAURE: there's nudity but it's not as much as
other films of the same era. It just needed more skin to punch it up. Except for those minor complaints and the drag queen moments, LAURE is actually
very watchable. I love these kind of softcore films from the 1970s when the
attention was set on mood and atmosphere, not the crude stuff we see today. p.s.: make sure to watch Emanuelle in Egypt, which stars Annie & Al but
also another famous screen couple, Laura Gemser and Gabriele Tinti. The music in
that movie is also great.
Less a thriller than an colorful adventure with suspenseful elements, THE MAN WHO
KNEW TOO MUCH should not be really be compared with such Hitchcock masterpieces as
VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW, or PSYCHO; it is instead more akin to such enjoyable romps as
TO CATCH A THIEF and NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Shot largely on location in Morocco and
London, the film tells the story of a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day)
whose holiday is interrupted when they innocently run afoul of an assassination
plot--and when their young son is kidnapped in order to insure their silence. James Stewart and Doris Day are quite effective in their roles of the All-
American couple, and the characters are given an unusual twist: Stewart, a
midwestern doctor, is outgoing but has a touch of "the ugly American abroad" about
his personality; Day, who plays a popular stage and recording star who retired upon
her marriage, has a suspicious nature. These qualities of personality and
background play extremely well into the story. THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH
contains a number of famous scenes; both the scene in which Stewart drugs Day
before telling her of the kidnapping and the very complex Albert Hall sequence,
involving what seems hundreds of cuts, are very powerful. Less often noticed,
although to my mind equally if not more satisfactory, are the more subtle scenes in
which Hitchcock combines an edge of suspense along with perverse humor, as when
Stewart attempts some detecting at a taxidermist shop and Day belts out "Que Sera,
Sera" (written for this film) in a most unsuitable way at an embassy cocktail
party. Although THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH lacks the depth and impact of
Hitchcock's greater work, it remains an enjoyable film and one that compares very
well with his work as a whole. It's Hitchcock-light, but recommended. Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
One of master director Alfred Hitchcock's finer films this is the story of an
American and his family (James Stewart, Doris Day, and their young son) who are
vacationing in north Africa. Stewart is a doctor and Day is a world famous singer.
They meet a Frenchman who speaks the native language and helps them out of an
incident on a local bus. Later one, the Frenchman whispers something into Stewart's
ear after he is attacked and dying. The rest of the film is a puzzle as Stewart
tries to save them and solve the mystery. The movie is steeped in mystery and
strangeness from the exotic locale to the odd occurrences. You never really know
what's going on in this film, why people are appearing, until the end and even then
you're not sure. The final scene takes place in Albert Hall and is one of the most
famous in film which lasts for 12 minutes with no dialog. Hitchcock had originally
made this film in 1934.
This Film is the One which you fall in love with. Alfred Hitchcock shall always
remain over the top of any directors of his time. The most influential aspects
about his films are sheer Simplicity & Gripping Drama. The another best thing about
Hitchcock's films is a Definite & Gripping End. Any thing said about
"The Man who knew too much" is less. The Cinematography, Acting, Dialogs & Camera
Works are magnificent in this Movie. The Song "Que Sera Sera" at the end shall
remain in our memories for life time. The film is so enjoyable from start to end
that we never know when it ends. Rarely would Hitchcock include humor in his films,
this film has comic scenes which fits in to the movie. This film is
absolutely brilliant & as good as Vertigo.
Am I the only person who believes this American version is far better than the 1934
English film? The English version has no suspense, looks antique and very low
budget, and has unexceptional acting (except for Peter Lorre). The 1956 version,
besides having top production values, shows James Stewart as the perfect 'innocent'
American abroad, and gives Doris Day her best role ever. Of particular note is the
music - the music of the American film is almost classic; compare the "Albert Hall'
sequences of both, and you will agree that the Bernard Herrmann music is far more
exciting than the original version (even though it's basically the same music!).
The only flaw in the 1956 film is the ridiculous encounter in the taxidermy shop. I
would appreciate any argument that can prove to me that the English version is
better.
Alfred Hitchcock's remake of "The Man Who Who Knew Too Much," is usually not
considered to be as good as the original, but for me it is one of the best films
ever. I prefer it over "Vertigo" and "Rear Window." Like "North By
Northwest," it is the story of an average man who is unwillingly thrown into the
world of international intrigue. James Stewart plays the father of a son who is
kidnapped because he is mistaken for an international spy. He will do anything to
make sure he gets his son back and protect his family. While the
original was good for it's time, it is hard to watch by today's standards. The
remake has excellent production quality, an endearing Doris Day, and a really
creepy villain. Don't bother to rent this one because you will want to
see it over and over.
This isn't among my favorite Hitchcock films, though I must admit it's still pretty
good. Among the things I really liked were the presence of Jimmy Stewart (he always
improves even the most mediocre material) and the incredibly scary looking assassin
(who looks like a skeleton with just a thin layer of skin stretched over him).
Although it cost the studio a lot of money, I didn't particularly care for Doris
Day in the film--she seemed to weep a lot and belts out "Que Sera" like a fullback.
Yes, I know that she was supposed to sing in that manner, but this forever made me
hate this song. Sorry. The other complaint, though minor, I had about
the movie was that it was a little "too polished" and "Hollywood-esque". The
original version (also done by Hitchcock) just seemed a lot grittier and seedier--
and this added to the scary ambiance.
If there's one good suspenseful film, this is one of them. James Stewart puts on a
dazzling performance as American Dr. Ben McKenna who, with his wife and son, are in
Africa on tour. They stumble on a murder scene, and Dr. McKenna's son is kidnapped
hours later. Before you can say, "Fasten your seat belts," Dr. McKenna
finds out too much about a assassination attempt and tries to stop it. However,
other people know he can be dangerous, (dangerous to them, that is) and try to
dispose of him. Eventually, Hank, the son, is found alive and
well. If you like suspenseful movies, this is the one to watch. My Score: 8/10.
James Stewart plays Dr. Ben McKenna, who, with his wife and son, are tourists in an
Arabian city. They get caught up in the middle of a murder scene. The victim
whispers something in Dr. McKenna's ear, and he is told to do something. Later, his son is kidnapped. The kidnappers turn out to be a man and woman
he knew, but the woman is a bit softer than the man. The song, "Que,
Sera, Sera" (Whatever we'll be, we'll be," is one of the best songs ever sung in
any movie. Doris Day play's Stewart's wife, and she sings the song
mentioned above. Her performance is Oscar worthy. I'm surprised she wasn't even
nominated. My Score: 8/10.
I have been getting into the Hitchcock series very much lately. I find myself
always renting one of his movies when I'm at Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. Like I
said before, Hollywood is loosing it's touch incredibly, I needed a reminder that
there are terrific films out there. Not to mention, I want to be a film
appreciator, not a movie buff. Is there any better way to do that than with Alfred
Hitchcock's movies? The Man who knew too Much is another great and
exciting thriller starring Alfred's favorite leading man James Stuart and the woman
who steals the show Dorris Day. They play husband and wife who go on vacation with
their son, but when a spy tells James some information that could arrest another
spy, his son is kidnapped and held for ransom. James seems to just doubt Dorris and
her ability for ideas on how to get their son back, but she makes a great comeback
and just about ends up being the hero of the flick. The acting again, I
would say that Dorris was the one who outshined the whole cast. James did a great
job keeping up, together these two made you sit down and never budge throughout the
film. I loved the little bit of comedy at the end that Alfred added. You'll see
what I mean. I would always highly recommend this film, despite not being the best
Hitchcock film, it's still a treasure. 9/10
I hate to admit it, but I didn't find it to be one of Hitchcock's best but
nonetheless a riveting, climatic thriller. In a remake of Hitchock's 1934 movie of
the same title, Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) the man who knows too much - and
his wife Jo McKenna (Doris Day) are holidaying in Morocco with their son Hank
(Christopher Oslen) when there is a case of mistaken identity and caught up in the
web of an assassination plot. The conspirators go to extreme lengths to prevent
them from interfering with their plot: kidnapping their beloved Hank. I
found it surprising that Doris Day, who I usually associate with Rock Hudson
comedies, was cast in a Hitchcock film. As I was watching it, I soon realized that
this was more of a family film compared to Hitchcock's other works (example:
Psycho) and she had singing ability needed to pull off "Que Sera Sera", which she
did beautifully. She was well cast as herself and James Stewart had chemistry,
which helped make the couple believable. In comparison to the great
director's other works I believe this isn't as good, but it is still a exceedingly
entertaining family thriller/mystery. There is also the added bonus of Que Sera
Sera, which turned out to be a smash hit for Doris Day. Well directed, well acted.
A fine film.
I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in
the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core
fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and
nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian
producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully
hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines),
soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely
watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of
my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc
and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece.
Ostensibly a story about the young child of Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. The kid
gets kidnapped to keep his parents quiet. They know something about a plot to
assassinate the ambassador of an unnamed country during a performance at Albert
Hall in London. The movie is rich in Hitchcockian incidents. A friendly
but opaque Frenchman seems to grill the innocent Stewart -- a doctor from Indiana
-- a little too intensely to be merely idly curious. Later the Frenchman shows up
in Arab disguise, a knife in his back, and whispers some information about the
murder plot to Stewart. Stewart tells his wife -- Doris Day looking very saucy
indeed -- but refuses to cooperate with the police and risk his son's life. Instead the couple try to track down the assassins, buy them off, and get
their son back, taking them from Morocco, where Hitchcock has given us his usual
tourist's eye view of the customs, locations, and food, to London. There is a
hilarious wild goose chase involving a set-to between Stewart and the staff of a
taxidermy shop. The staff are more concerned about guarding their half-stuffed
specimens than anything else, and they shuffle around protectively holding the
carcasses of a leopard and a swordfish. In the course of the scuffle, Stewart
manages to save his throat from being cut by the swordfish bill, but is bitten on
the hand by a stuffed tiger, the action boosted along by Bernard Hermann's
bumptious score. The scene ends with Stewart rushing out the door. Hitchcock ends
it with a shot of a lion's head gaping at the slammed door. There is also a running
gag, well done, about some visitors waiting around the couple's hotel room in
London, waiting for things to be explained. There are two serious issues
that are lightly touched on. One is the relationship between Stewart and Day, which
is not as rosy as it ought to be, considered as a bourgeois ideal. She's been a
stage musical star for some years and is internationally known. And she's given it
all up to marry an ordinary guy who happens to be a doc. That's understandable in,
say, a nurse or a flight attendant or almost any woman other than an international
star with a promising career in her own right. It isn't delved into, but the
edginess is noticeable, as it was not in the original version. It reminds me a
little of an exchange between Joe Dimaggio and his then-wife Marilyn Monroe, who
had just returned from entertaining the troops in Korea. "Oh, Joe," she gushed,
"did you ever see ten thousand people stand up and cheer?" "Seventy thousand,"
muttered Joe, former hero of the New York Yankees. The second problem is
one of allegiance. Who is of greater social value? One's own young son? Or an
unknown ambassador. Do we put ourselves or our loved ones at risk for the sake of
national stability? Day is faced with this dilemma in its starkest form at the
climax in the Albert Hall. Her solution opts for allegiance to political stability,
although her motives are problematic. Does she scream to save the ambassador's
life, or does she do so just to release the anxiety that is overwhelming her? (Cf:
Alec Guiness falling on the detonator at the end of "The Bridge on the River
Kwai.") The photography is extremely good, and the settings can be menacing, even
on a quiet street in a residential neighborhood of London. It's mid-day, and
Stewart is alone and determined, but frightened too. There are footsteps echoing on
Gulliver Street from someone, somewhere. Is he being followed? Is his life in
danger? And where the hell is everybody who lives on this street? Hitchcock pays
such close attention to location details that we can make out the garden wall
bonding of the bricks beside him. The director had a rare disagreement
with Francois Truffaut while being interviewed for Truffaut's otherwise laudatory
book. Truffaut argued that the earlier version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much"
lacked the depth of the later version. Hitchcock replied, "It seems to me you want
me to make films for the art house audience," but finally agreed that the 1930s
version was the work of a talented amateur and this version was the work of a
professional. No argument there. This is Hitchcock pretty much near his
zenith.
"The Man Who Knew Too Much" falls into that Hitchcock middle ground that
characterized many of his films during the 1950s: not a masterpiece of suspense by
any means, but an awful lot of fun nonetheless. James Stewart and Doris
Day play a vacationing couple who get caught up in a plot heavy on foreign
intrigue. The famous climactic scene takes place at a classical music concert,
where someone is going to be assassinated during a particular cymbal clash in the
score. The impish Hitchcock of course lets us know what that point is, so that the
race to stop the assassin becomes a nail biting race against the cymbalist. So much of this movie reminded me of the 1978 Chevy Chase/Goldie Hawn
comedy "Foul Play" that I have to believe that film was inspired by this. Neither
film is a big deal, but both are easy to enjoy. Grade: B+
Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and Jo McKenna (Doris Day) travel to Morocco for a
holiday where they meet a mysterious man named Louis Bernard (Daniel Gélin) on a
bus.The next day this man is murdered, but before he dies he tells Ben a secret; an
assassination will take place in London.The crooks kidnap the couple's son Hank
(Christopher Olsen) making sure Ben won't reveal their plan to anybody.Alfred
Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a very intense thriller.The acting
is superb as it always is in Hitchcok's films.James Stewart is marvelous.Doris Day
is a delightful person and actress and she gets to show her singing talents as
well.The song Que Sera, Sera has an important part in the movie.This movie is a
movie of many classic scenes.In the final scenes at the Albert Hall, done without
dialogue, you can barely blink your eyes.This movie is fifty years old now.Time
hasn't decreased its power in any way.
Hitchcock's remake of his 1934 film concerns about the known story of McKenna
marriage(James Stewart, Doris Day, in the first version Leslie Banks, Edna Best)
along with their 11-years-old son travelling through Morocco during vacations. In a
bus they know a sympathetic French person(Daniel Gelin, in the old version Pierre
Fresnay). While they are in Marrakech they also know a couple(Bernard Miles and
Brenda De Banzie) and happen suddenly on the scene of a killing, the dying whispers
a political message.Then the child is abducted to ensure their silence and McKenna
gets help to Morocco's Inspector Buchanan(Ralph Truman). This is a
superb movie about a family who stumbles on to an obscure international conspiracy
and then they're forced into action is excellently played by James Stewart and
Doris Day. This exciting film displays suspense, intrigue, tension, and interesting
drama well written by John Michael Hayes and Charles Bennett . Packs an ordinary
theme of the suspense magician: innocent people become caught up in a cobweb
intrigue and uncanny, intelligent villains. Colorful and glimmer cinematography
shot in Morocco and London studios by cameraman Robert Burks, though with excessive
transparency for Marrakech scenes. Lavish sets by Henry Bunstead, Hitchcock's
usual, and working until his recent death. Of course,the highlights are the
happenings of the famous Royal Albert Hall of London assassination where a sneering
killer, Reggie Nalder, tries to execute while composer Bernard Herrmann is
conducting orchestra. Besides at the climax Doris Day singing ¨Que sera, Que sera¨,
meantime her son suffering risks, the song won Oscar for Ray Evans, Jay Livingstone
. The story was ferociously reviewed for its double characters but today is
considered a classic movie and fairly entertaining. Rating : better than average,
Hitchcock's enthusiastic no doubt will enjoy it.
I put this second version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" to my Top 10 Hitchcock
movies. Together with "Frenzy", it's probably the most argued film among the fans
of Hitchcock. I consider it far better than, say, "Rebecca", which has gained
unreasonably much appreciation. The film contains many ingenious scenes
(most of them have been mentioned in other reviews), but that's something to be
expected from Hitchcock. It takes almost half an hour until things really start to
happen, but that time is used for preparing the following happenings, which are
full of intriguing suspense. If you can ignore the clumsy rear
projections, the only weakness of this film is the main villain, played by Bernard
Miles, who is a rather flat and undeveloped character. Luckily, there is a creepy
assassin in the form of Reggie Nalder. And Hank, the little boy, isn't as
irritating as most kids in old movies.
The movie, which was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, was brilliantly made. It starts
with a family of three, a doctor (James Stewart), his wife (Doris Day)- who is a
former stage singer, and their young son- my guess is about 10 years old, who are
traveling through Morroco for leisure. On the bus, the bump into a French
government agent, and they are a little too nice to him. He is killed at the
marketplace after finding out the information he sought. He wants to carry this
information out to someone, so he goes to the only person he, even slightly, knows:
James Stewart. The antagonists kidnap their young boy and say if he tells anything
about what the agent told him, his son would be killed. Stewart has to travel to
London, because that is where his son is, and where the assasination that the agent
told him about would be. The movie is very suspenseful. There are many twists and
turns (typical Hitchcock movie). Also, it has just the right amount of comic
relief. In addition to all of that, it won an Oscar for Doris Day's performance of
"Que sara, sara." This movie is very good. It is hard to find a problem about it. I
would certainly reccomend it to all Hitchcock fans and all suspense fans. I give
this movie an "A-" only because it is a little bit predictable.
"The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1955) is Alfred Hitchcock's own remake of his 1934
thriller about a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) on vacation in
Morocco where they got caught up in a nightmare that include murder, espionage,
assassinations and the worst of all, kidnapping of their 10-years-old son. The
movie which Hitchcock himself considered superior to the original is a great fun.
Stewart and Day have a good chemistry together. The film is filled with the
wonderful comical scenes and dialogues as well as the scenes of chilling suspense.
 The inclusion of "Que Sera, Sera" proved to be a stroke of genius
because rarely the song fits the content and plays such an important role in the
movie like "Que Sera, Sera" did in "The Man Who Knew Too Much". Hitchcock also treats us to the live music playing from Arthur Benjamin "Storm
Cloud Cantata" for almost ten minutes while scene in London's Royal Albert Hall
where the assassination of a very important politician was attempted takes place
and both, the scene and the cantata are simply marvelous.
A film that tends to get buried under prejudice and preconception - It's a remake!
Doris Day is in it! She sings! - Hitchcock's second crack at 'The Man Who Knew Too
Much' is his most under-rated film, and arguably a fully fledged masterpiece in its
own right. This is, in more ways than one, Doris Day's film. Not only
does she give the finest performance of her career, more than holding her own
against James Stewart, but the whole film is subtly structured around her character
rather than his. This is, after all, a film in which music is both motif and plot
device. What better casting than the most popular singer of her generation?
Consider: Day's Jo McKenna has given up her career on the stage in order to settle
down with her husband and raise their son. This seems to be a mutual decision, and
she doesn't appear to be unhappy. But look at the way Stewart teases her in the
horse-drawn carriage over her concerns about Louis Bernard, implying that she is
jealous that Bernard wasn't asking her any questions about her career. This is
clearly a recurrent joke between them - she responds with a 'har-de-har-har' that
denotes the familiarity of this gag, suggesting that she has a certain latent
resentment about her confinement, and that they both realise it. After
their son has been kidnapped, Stewart insists on doping her before giving her the
news. This is a cruel scene, brilliantly played by both actors, which illustrates
the power imbalance in their marriage - he is seeking to control and subdue her
reactions, in essence using his professional knowledge to suppress her voice in the
marriage just as his medical career has suppressed her singing career. The potency of that voice is demonstrated in the Ambrose Chapel sequence, when
she has to reign in its highly trained clarity and volume to blend in with the
congregation of female drudges - they almost act as a warning of what will become
of her if she continues to suppress her talent. At the Albert Hall, it is her need
to cry out, to exercise those impressive lungs, that saves a man's life, and in the
Embassy finale, it is her talent and reputation that allows them to locate their
son. By contrast, all of Stewart's masculine activity is counterproductive - his
visit to the taxidermist is a dead end, he gets left behind at the church whilst
everyone else moves on to the Albert Hall, and his efforts there only succeed in
getting the assassin killed, thus depriving the Police of potentially useful
information. It is only when his action is joined to his wife's voice, in the
rescue of Hank from the embassy, that he actually succeeds in doing something
useful. Far from being forced into the film to give Day an opportunity
to sing, 'Que Sera Sera' acts as the first musical device in the film,
foreshadowing the nightmare that is about to engulf the McKennas; 'the future's not
ours to see' indeed. It also neatly prepares the way for the finale, in which the
close bond mother and son share through music will allow Doris to save the
day. The most famous sequence in the film makes music the central
feature - the build up to the assassination attempt in the Albert Hall. This
lengthy wordless sequence may be the single most extraordinary thing Hitchcock
committed to film, the ultimate expression of his belief that films should be
stories told visually. We see people conduct conversations in this sequence, but we
never hear a word they say. We don't need to - the images say everything. It is
also his most exquisite suspense sequence, with the pieces moving slowly into place
as the music builds. The editing is incredibly tight, matched to the music
perfectly. There isn't a frame out of place - anything that doesn't relate directly
to the assassination is giving the viewer a sense of the environment, the geography
in which all this is playing out. It builds slowly, but by the end the suspense is
nearly unbearable. When Jo screams, it isn't just a relief for her, but for the
audience. The Ambrose Chapel sequence is witty, and particularly
effective for anyone who has had to sit through a service at a particularly stick-
in-the-mud Nonconformist church. The Embassy sequence seems a little flat after the
Albert Hall one that preceded it on first viewing, but second time around actually
seems more effective, with the final walk at gunpoint really benefiting from the
gorgeous use of Day singing in the background, reminiscent of the music-as-ambient-
noise in 'Rear Window'. The score as a whole is subtle, allowing the music from on-
screen sources to be foregrounded effectively. Bernard Miles is a low-
key villain, a little banal, but with a dry wit. He's outshone by Brenda de Banzie
as his wife, who walks a fine line between sinister and sympathetic. Just look at
the way she smokes a cigarette whilst her husband preps the assassin - her stance
is pure gangster's moll, belying the Middle-England exterior, but she clearly has a
soft side, and possibly maternal feelings towards Hank. Stewart is
excellent, although if Hitchcock really did always cast him as 'Everyman', as the
Director's daughter seems to think, then it confirms that Hitchcock had a cynical
view of his audience. Stewart played a hypocritical intellectual who espoused
fascist ideology in Rope, a voyeur who mistreated his girlfriend in Rear Window and
an obsessive necrophiliac in Vertigo. Day is nothing short of phenomenal. Just look
at her reaction to the news that her son has been kidnapped - she never overdoes
anything, but neither does she sell it short. This is one of Hitchcock's most
emotionally effective films. He never lets us forget what the stakes are for the
McKennas; they feel the most fully human of all his central characters.
Many reviewers seem to prefer the original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much,
which I have not had the opportunity to view. By itself, the '56 version is a very
well done film. The run of mid-to-late fifties Hitchcock films (including "Rear
Window", "Dial M For Murder", "Vertigo", and "To Catch A Thief", as well as this
film) is one of my favorite periods in his career. In The Man Who Knew Too Much,
Jimmy Stewart throws himself vigorously into his role as always. Doris Day is very
believable in the role of an atypical Hitchcock blond. I thought there was nothing
fake about her performance. Her character may not have been written as strongly as
the original, but she's definitely not reduced to the role of a passive, "Yes,
dear", pretty thing on Jimmy Stewart's arm. There were some really
clever lines written for Hank (the couple's son who later gets kidnapped) in the
opening scene on the bus- it's too bad Christopher Olsen read them so woodenly.
It's rare to see a good performance from a child actor in the 50s, though. Most of
the rest of the supporting actors in this film were very competent, though- most
notably the assassin (played by Reggie Nalder). Some little touches
that make this film undeniably Hitchcockian- the use of non-English dialog,
especially French (something Hitch did on a much larger scale in "To Catch A
Thief"); the use of foreboding, Arabic music in the hotel when the assassin
appears; Stewart and Day talking to each other in the church, singing their words
to the tune of the hymn; the Albert Hall scene, specifically showing the musicians
and the assassin's accomplice following the score, building up tension, as well as
the percussionist getting the cymbals ready; and finally the assassin's gun as it
appears from behind the curtain. It moves so slowly and precisely that it must have
been done mechanically (an effect Hitch used at the end of "Spellbound",
also). All in all, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a fun film to watch.
It's not as deep or as heavily laden with symbolism as some of his films
("Vertigo", "Strangers on a Train"), but all the same it is one of my top five
Hitchcock masterpieces.
Alfred Hitchcock shows originality in the remake of his own 1934 British film, "The
Man Who Knew Too Much". This 1956 take on the same story is much lighter than the
previous one. Mr. Hitchcock was lucky in having collaborators that went with him
from one film to the next, thus keeping a standard in his work. Robert Burks did an
excellent job with the cinematography and George Tomasini's editing shows his
talent. Ultimately, Bernard Herrmann is seen conducting at the magnificent Royal
Albert Hall in London at the climax of the picture. James Stewart was an
actor that worked well with Mr. Hitchcock. In this version, he plays a doctor from
Indiana on vacation with his wife and son. When we meet him, they are on their way
to Marrakesh in one local bus and the intrigue begins. His wife is the lovely Doris
Day at her best. She had been a well known singer before her marriage and now is
the perfect wife and mother. The film has some good supporting cast, Brenda
DeBanzie, Bernard Miles, Daniel Gelin, Alan Mowbray, among others, do a great job
in portraying their characters. Although this is a "light Hitchcock",
one can't dismiss it as a failure. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is a change of pace
for Hitchcock's fans.
Distributor: GOODTIMES home video Plot: A pretty high school student is
marked for unrelenting terror in this suspense filled made for TV movie. Gail
Osborne is new in town. She makes friends, has a boyfriend and everything seems to
be going her way. That is until she gets an ominous and frightening phone call
while babysitting. After more and more phone calls, she is raped. throughout most
of the movie, she tries to find proof that the person did rape her. Audio/Video: This 1987 VHS edition from Goodtimes stinks. There are constant
lines at the bottom and top of the screen. Extras: No extras from
Goodtimes home video. Final thoughts: This suspense filled made for TV
movie was made in 1978, so don't expect many deaths (there are none). If you can
find this movie with the Worldvision home video logo on the front, then buy it. But
the Goodtimes version is pretty crappy. This can be a little boring, but if you are
patient, the ending is pretty good.
Many people have the irritating habit of dying before completing a vital message,
thus confusing the hero, not to mention the audience... Dr. Ben McKenna
(James Stewart) and his wife Jo, a former musical star (Doris Day) are vacationing
in Morocco with their son, Hank (Christopher Olsen), when they meet Mr. and Mrs.
Drayton, a British couple (Brenda de Banzie and Bernard Miles). They are also
befriended by a charming Frenchman, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin), who invites them
to dinner but then cancels at the last minute... The MacKennas go to a
restaurant and end up having their meal with the Draytons, when they spot Louis
Bernard... The next day in the market place, they are caught in an
assassination intrigue... While they are wandering in the local market, the crowds
suddenly scatter to reveal an Arab fleeing from his pursuers... Dr. McKenna stands
amazed as the Arab falls into his arms, a knife sticking out of his back... Gulping his last breath, the dying man mutters some words and collapses...
Dr. McKenna is completely taken aback when the Arab's hood falls from his head and
he is revealed as Bernard in disguise... McKenna is left knowing too little, but as
far as the assassins are concerned, too much... To prevent Dr. McKenna
from revealing what he knows, the conspirators kidnap his son as a hostage... The
film is primarily concerned with the dilemma of kidnappinghow to get the little
boy back safely... The subplot about the assassination is just the setup... The film is a breathless escapade... The death of Bernard comes suddenly
and points out that death comes when we least expect it... Stewart is
charged with emotion as the Midwestern doctor, accidentally involved in political
intrigue... His perceptive facial expressions and indignant delivery made him
convincingly humana person we could easily identify with... It is his temperament
that actually sets the pace for the entire film... By 1956, the lovely
Doris Day had won increasing esteem as an actress as well as a singer... She had
been particularly strong opposite James Cagney in the Ruth Etting's biopic, 'Love
Me or Leave Me,' but she was still unsure of her basic Thespian talents... The casting of character actor Reggie Malder as the assassin, is brilliant... The
man looks like a menace and his effusive portrayal radiates evil...
Alfred Hitchcock's more assured telling of a film he made twenty-one years earlier
is infinitely superior to the original. Hitchcock said himself that his first
version was the work of an amateur, and although it certainly isn't a bad film, he
does appear to be right. That being said, this remake, although definitely better,
still isn't among Hitchcock's best work. That's certainly not to say that it isn't
good, it's just more than a little overindulgent, and that drags it down. Hitchcock
seems all too keen to drag certain elements out, and these are parts of the film
that aren't entirely relevant to the plot, which can become annoying. Some of these
dragged out sequences, such as the one that sees James Stewart and Doris Day eating
in a Moroccan restaurant are good because it helps establish the different culture
that our American protagonists have found themselves in, but for every restaurant
scene, there's an opera sequence and it's the latter that make the film
worse. The plot follows a middle-aged doctor and his wife that go to
Morocco for a holiday with their young son. While there, they meet a French man on
the bus and another middle-aged couple in a restaurant. However, things go awry
when the French man dies from a knife in the back, shortly after whispering
something to the doctor. The holiday then turns into a full blown nightmare when
the couple's son is kidnapped, which causes them to cut it short and go to London
in order to try and find him. The film has a very potent degree of paranoia about
it, and it manages to hold this all the way through. In fact, I would even go as
far as to say that this is the most paranoid film that Hitchcock ever made. Like
most of Hitchcock's films, this one is very thrilling and keeps you on the edge of
your seat for almost the entire duration, with only the aforementioned opera
sequence standing out as a moment in which the tension is diffused. There is also
more than a little humour in the movie, which gives lighthearted relief to the
morbid goings on, and actually works quite well. The original version of
this story was lent excellent support by the fantastic Peter Lorre. This film
doesn't benefit from his presence, unfortunately, but that is made up for by
performances from the amazing James Stewart, and Doris Day. James Stewart is a man
that is always going to be a contender for the 'greatest actor of all time' crown.
His collaborations with Hitchcock all feature mesmerising performances from him,
and this one is no different. (Although his best performance remains the one in Mr
Smith Goes to Washington). Stewart conveys all the courage, conviction and
heartbreak of a man that has lost his child and would do anything to get him back
brilliantly. In fact, that's one of the best things about this film; you are really
able to feel for the couple's loss throughout and that serves in making it all the
more thrilling. Doris Day, on the other hand, is a rather strange casting choice
for this movie. She's definitely a good actress, but she's more associated with
musicals and seeing her in a thriller is rather odd (even if she does get to flex
her vocal chords a little). As I've mentioned; this is not Hitchcock's
best film, but there's much to enjoy about it and although I'd recommend many
Hitchcock films before recommending this one, I'll definitely give it two thumbs up
as well.
The original The Man Who Knew Too Much brought Alfred Hitchcock acclaim for the
first time outside of the United Kingdom. Of course part of the reason for the
acclaim was that folks marveled how Hitchcock on such a skimpy budget as compared
to lavish Hollywood products was able to provide so much on the screen. The
original film was shot inside a studio. For whatever reason he chose
this of all his films to remake, Hitchcock now with an international reputation and
a big Hollywood studio behind him (Paramount)decided to see what The Man Who Knew
Too Much would be like with a lavish budget. This is shot on location in Marrakesh
and London and has two big international names for box office. This was James
Stewart's third of four Hitchcock films and his only teaming with Doris Day and her
only Hitchcock film. I do wonder why Hitchcock never used Doris again.
At first glance she would fit the profile of blond leading ladies that Hitchcock
favored. Possibly because her wholesome screen image was at odds with the
sophistication Hitchcock also wanted in his blondes. Doris does some of
her best acting ever in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Her best scene is when her
doctor husband James Stewart gives her a sedative before telling her their son has
been kidnapped by an English couple who befriended them in Morocco. Stewart and Day
play off each other beautifully in that scene. But Doris especially as she
registers about four different emotions at once. Day and Stewart are on
vacation with their son Christopher Olsen in Morocco and they make the acquaintance
of Frenchman Daniel Gelin and the aforementioned English couple, Bernard Miles and
Brenda DaBanzie. Gelin is stabbed in the back at a market place in Marrakesh and
whispers some dying words to Stewart about an assassination to take place in Albert
Hall in London. Their child is snatched in order to insure their silence. For the only time I can think of a hit song came out of a Hitchcock film.
Doris in fact plays a noted singer who retired from the stage to be wife and
mother. The song was Que Sera Sera and I remember it well at the age of 9. You
couldn't go anywhere without hearing it in 1956, it even competed with the fast
rising Elvis Presley that year. Que Sera Sera won the Academy Award for Best Song
beating out such titles as True Love from High Society and the title song from
Around the World in 80 Days. It became Doris Day's theme song for the rest of her
life and still is should she ever want to come back. In fact the song is
worked quite nicely into the plot as Doris sings it at an embassy party at the
climax. Instead of doing it with mirrors, Hitchcock shot the
assassination scene at the real Albert Hall and like another reviewer said it's not
directed, it's choreographed. You'll be hanging on your seats during that
moment. This was remake well worth doing.
Anyone who has ever gone on an audition can certainly relate to this one. Great
story of an aspiring actor and the pressures he must deal with both personally and
professionally in order to make it to the big time. Lou Myers, as Half-Step Wilson,
provides many hilarious moments.
Many funny scenes about the people that you don't normally pay attention to in a
movie and what they have to do to get work and what happens once they do. Lou Myers
was very funny as Half-Step Wilson. Any guy that has a tight group of friends can
relate to many of the non-movie related scenes scattered throughout the movie.
Fun story of a regular guy with big dreams, this low budget film really hits home
showing what it is like trying to become an acting success. Great performances by
Lou Myers and Brian's neighbor, Alex. I giggled alot and even cried a little. 
I thought this was a really cute movie - inspiring (makes me want to try acting)- I
LOVE Kelly Ripa and it's nice that I can watch this in addition to All My Children
- I've already watched it 3 times! Of course I also loved seeing Joe Barbara -
especially since Another World went off the air!
This movie was so heart warming. A true testament to an actors real life everyday
ups and downs.It was truly a wonderful experience to share the passion of the actor
on film and respect for what it must have taken off screen. This film is a reminder
to everyone to go for there dreams!Never give up!Hurray for The Stand -in!!!
A SUPERMAN Cartoon A huge shipment of gold is being sent across country
by train. Using ultra-modern techniques, a sophisticated gang of hooded thieves try
to waylay the gold. With intrepid reporter Lois Lane as the only passenger on
board, it's Superman to the rescue. But now that it's become a runaway train, can
even he stop the BILLION DOLLAR LIMITED? This was another in the series
of excellent cartoons Max Fleischer produced for Paramount Studio. They feature
great animation and taut, fast-moving plots. Meant to be shown in movie theaters,
they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts.
Millions in gold is traveling by train to the US treasury. Traveling along is Lois
Lane to report on it. Along the way the train is attacked by masked thieves. They
detach the car with the armed guards in it and attack the remaining ones. This
leads to a vicious fight between the remaining guards and the thieves. The thieves
overpower them but then Lois Lane jumps in. She beats the thieves off the train (at
one point using a gun) but the train starts to careen out of control. Lois can't
stop it and the thieves will stop at nothing to get the gold. Good thing Superman
is on the way! Fast, exciting, non-stop action. Probably one of the best
of all the cartoons. Just great.
There is a lot to like in this film, despite its humble trappings of a preachy PC
tale about rape and the perp always faring better than the victim. The movie did
create a fair bit of suspense in the mystery surrounding who was sending the notes.
(I, for one, was sure it was the teacher. In fact, that would have been more
probable plot-wise because the idea of the best-friend's boy-friend kind of came
out of nowhere. I guess the point of that is that "rape is omnipresent. You never
know who it is going to be".) Ms. Beller is luminous as always (yet see KB
discussion board for my qualification of this statement). Like all preachy films
the plot lasts 15 minutes past the climax so you might want to quit watching at
that point. Unless you are really curious to find out what happens to Phillip.
Blythe Danner, as the mom, is in the role she was born to play: the fretting, over-
protective mom. Some good 70s scenes for 70s fans. (The dark bar that the father
goes to in order to drink away his pain is all dark-stained beams, barrels, oak and
cork). A must for Beller fans and highly recommended for fans of 70s High School
melodrama or 70s kitsch in general.
When one watches the animated Superman shorts of the 1940s, the similarity of the
plots can become a bit boring - the adversary is most often a mad scientist in a
hidden headquarter, threatening Metropolis with some evil invention - death rays,
mechanical monsters, electric earthquake, magnetic telescope, what have you. This one is refreshingly different. The bad ones drive around in a car,
shooting and bombing, but the center of action is the gold train (on which Lois
Lane travels, as the only press reporter, it seems). Train movies have their own
typical ingredients, from the 1903 Great Train Robbery on, and quite some are
featured here: decoupling cars in motion, running on the roofs, taking the steam
locomotive from the tender in the back, fighting with the engineer, a switch turned
to deroute the train on a side track, the fall (of people or the whole train) from
a high bridge... it's all in the few minutes of this lovely piece. But
it wouldn't be a Superman film if he didn't do some incredible feats (involving
balancing and high-precision placement) to ultimately win the day. If you're a fan
of train movies, don't miss this. It's in the public domain and can be legally
downloaded from archive.org.
While all of the Fleischer/Famous Studios "Superman" cartoons are excellent,
"Billion Dollar Limited," the third in the series, is probably the best of the lot
in terms of overall animation, plot, and pacing. Why it wasn't even nominated for
an Oscar as Best Animated Short for 1942 (Incredibly enough, only the first one
was) in inexplicable. Here, Lois Lane is assigned to cover the transfer
of one billion dollars in gold to the U.S. Mint. Masked gangsters in their super-
powered (for 1942) car take off after the train, determined to get that gold.
Without giving too much away, what ensues is a thrill ride for both the characters
and the audience, with truth, justice, and Superman triumphant at the end. As they did in all the Fleischer/Famous Superman cartoons, Clayton "Bud" Collyer
and Joan Alexander, who played Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane on radio, have the
voice work honors here, and Fleischer perennial Jack Mercer gets a little to do as
one of the bad guys, as well.
I was swept into this series just as surely as the sea would sweep me into its
grip. Although it started out slowly, I found that the realism in depicting the
ship, the variety of characters and lively dialogue keep me watching. The
protagonist was destined to be challenged, grow and change on this voyage and I
wanted to be there for it. I was not disappointed. The series took you from humor
to tragedy and everything in-between, often in the same scene, the same breath.
There was a wealth of emotional overlaying, interaction and expression--relentless
and compelling to observe. The movement of the ship added an almost fanciful
component to the many scenes, making the characters ill one moment and adding humor
the next. Edmund Talbot is a complex character, the likes of which we
don't see often. We may know where the captain stands or Mr. Prettiman, but they
are older men, set in their ways. Talbot was young and arrogant, still learning,
testing himself and being tested. He struggled getting along with others and made
mistakes like a real person would but had a heart that could be touched, that grew
with each hard-taught experience. I appreciate the excellent characterization; it's
too rare in movies and television.
Meticulously constructed and perfectly played, To The Ends Of The Earth is a simply
astonishing voyage out of our reality and into another age. Based on
William Golding's trilogy, these three 90-minute films chronicle the journey
towards both Australia and experience of youthful aristocrat Edmund Talbot
(Benedict Cumberbatch) aboard an aging man o' war in the early 19th century as he
heads for a Government position Down Under. Among the crew and hopeful
emigrants sharing his passage are a tempestuous, bullying captain (Jared Harris), a
politically radical philosopher (Sam Neill), a canny 1st lieutenant who's worked
his way up from the bottom (Jamie Sives) and, fleetingly, the first brush of love
in the form of a beautiful young woman (Joanne Page) whose ship literally passes in
the night. Quite aside from the astonishing degree of physical historic
accuracy, director David Attwood and screenwriters Tony Basgallop and Leigh Jackson
have a canny eye and ear for the manners and stiff etiquette of an earlier time,
crafting a totally convincing microcosm of the Napoleonic era. Shipboard
life is one brutal, monotonous round of seasickness, squalor and danger after
another and as Edmund becomes entangled in the loves, hopes and miseries of his
fellow passengers he experiences a delirious whirl of life's hardships, Man's
inhumanities and his noblest sentiments. Those who enjoyed Master And
Commander: The Far Side Of The World or Patrick O'Brian's series of novels on which
it was based will love this for everyone else, it's a whole new world to
discover.
I saw the second part of this beautiful period piece set on a ship sometime in the
19th century. Golding's book must be responsible for some of the superb dialogue
but everything else was good too! I especially liked the way they created the
period and feeling of being on the ship so well. For me this had a feeling of
completeness about it which I know I won't be able to convey in words... Perhaps it
was the way they mixed in technical and historical details about sailing in the
eighteen hundreds to the story without messing it up. Benedict Cumberbatch was
excellent, as was the rest of the cast. It's not often a mini-series sends me to
the "zone", but this one did.
The three-part series ended last night on PBS, which I believe was its first wide
exposure to an American audience. The richness of its text and the unique quality
of its filming are high points. It seems very novel to view and hear an action play
employing the vernacular of Georgian England, Jane Austen's filmed drawing rooms
being the primary example of that form of speech. Yet it is the scope of drama
overwhelming the senses that makes quaint language fit perfectly into each and
every scene. Such bold exposure to an old reality is evocative of literary giants
like Tolstoy or Shakespeare while at the same time entertaining in the manner of a
C. S. Forester or Patrick O'Brian sea saga. The universality of basic human
condition lies at its center. Narrator Talbot as played by an actor with
the almost perfectly appropriate name of Benedict Cumberbatch (surely not even
Dickens could beat that one!) alternates between stodgy jingoism and extreme
vulnerability, an acting tour de force. Indeed, I cannot recall among this very
fine cast any misstep of interpretation. That is a tribute not only to the actors
themselves, but to the director as well. The most impressive element,
however, is how perfectly life aboard a man-of-war en route to Australia in the
early 1800's is presented. That is especially true of how the motion of the ship
becomes almost a character itself, something sea stories rarely take into account
except as backdrop. Anyone who has ever experienced mal de mer in person will
recognize it instantly, and appreciate all the more how difficult it must have been
to recreate within the context of filming. This is no fanciful Pirates
of the Caribbean. Some effort must be expended in attaining an understanding of its
nuances.
This is the best 3-D experience Disney has at their themeparks. This is certainly
better than their original 1960's acid-trip film that was in it's place, is leagues
better than "Honey I Shrunk The Audience" (and far more fun), barely squeaks by the
MuppetVision 3-D movie at Disney-MGM and can even beat the original 3-D "Movie
Experience" Captain EO. This film relives some of Disney's greatest musical hits
from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and others, and brought a smile to my face
throughout the entire show. This is a totally kid-friendly movie too, unlike
"Honey..." and has more effects than the spectacular "MuppetVision"
It's not a movie, but an experience! Not the usual eye candy I thought
it would be. Too many things are happening at once, your senses almost couldn't
handle it. A product of cutting-edge technology (we were torn between just sitting
back to enjoy the show and putting our 3D glasses on and off to decipher the
magic), the music is great (it's a concert!), the Disney characters are in it (and
you get to BE part of their world), it's funny, it's magical, it's exciting--I know
this is beginning to sound like an advertisement--but it really is that awesome!
Beats Christmas in bringing out the kid in you! This attraction alone
already makes going to Disney all worth it. ;)
I'm not a Disney fan at all, but I happen to be in Orlando for a friend's wedding.
So my traveling partner and I went to Disney for a few days. I haven't seen a good
3-D effect in, well..ever. So I usually try to stay away from these presentations.
The 3-D effect in this was so good. I'm a grown man of 38, and even I wanted to try
and reach out and touch. It's THAT good! Word of advice. At the end, look to the
back of the theater on the wall. Put it like this...the first time I saw it, the
effect wasn't working. So I told my friend..."It would have been nice if...." My
friend said, "That's exactly what happens. It's not working for some reason." It's
an awesome show. You will NOT be disappointed!!!
I recently visited the Magic Kingdom as an adult with my mom, her best friend and
my adult sister. Disney World is often mistakenly perceived as a place for just
children, but when you see quality shows like Mickey's Philharmagic, you realize
that the magic of Disney is for everyone! It was such a great show that we left the
theater and turned around and got in line again. And then a third time. It was
absolutely breathtaking. I would encourage anyone who goes to Disney World to check
out this show, which is not just a show but a world wind, fun filled ride with
Donald as he once again lets his temper get him in trouble!
"Are You in the House Alone?" belongs to the pre-cable TV days when the networks
were eager to offer an alternative to popular TV shows. It is well-made thriller
with a talented cast and credible situations. Kathleen Beller plays a High School
student who gets a series of threatening letters. Everyone seems to think that it
is nothing more than a prank but Beller is really scared. Tony Bill and Blythe
Danner play Beller's parents, Ellen Travolta (John's sister) is the High School
Principal and Dennis Quaid has one of his earliest roles as a cocky rich kid. It's
a competent chiller with a still relevant social message. Beller is lovely - if you
are 30 or older, you will remember that she was very popular among youngsters.
Blythe Danner, who I usually don't like, gives a truly moving performance. Nice
little film.
This program was on for a brief period when I was a kid, I remember watching it
whilst eating fish and chips. Riding on the back of the Tron hype this
series was much in the style of streethawk, manimal and the like, except more
computery. There was a geeky kid who's computer somehow created this guy - automan.
He'd go around solving crimes and the lot. All I really remember was his
fancy car and the little flashy cursor thing that used to draw the car and help him
out generally. When I mention it to anyone they can remember very little
too. Was it real or maybe a dream?
This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think
it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie
Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly
seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in
my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie
once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an
amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting,
and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and
timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go.
With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening.
THE HAND OF DEATH most definitely rates a ten on a scale of one to- due, in no
small part, to John Woo's masterful direction, coupled with Kat's superb
cinematography: some of the leisurely tracking shots alone are worth the price of a
rental; there are moments when this one borders on becoming an art-house film. Both
James Tien and Sammo Hung make for the kind of villains you can't help but love to
hate. Tien is particularly good as the baddest of the bad. It's a role reversal the
likes of which I don't think I've ever seen before (Tien normally played a hero
and, in fact, with his moustache, I didn't even recognize him at first). Sammo's
goofy "buck teeth" only make an already unsavory character seem even more flawed;
that he also happens to be a skilled martial artist makes him even less likable- in
a villain you love to hate kind of way. His choreography of the fight scenes
throughout is fantastic. Jackie Chan appears briefly (early on and late in the
going) as a blacksmith, and I believe I actually glimpsed Yuen Biao somewhere along
the way. Tan as the lead is nothing less than magnificent.
The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work
by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie
Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people
believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a
Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie
gives one of his best (most serious) early performances. The Hand of
Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to
assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a
revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young
woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as
"the wanderer." Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take
revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the
revolutionary to safety. The martial arts action is above average under
the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very
effectively as the "Northern eighteen styles kicks" along with some "Southern five
styles boxing." Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts
performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade
screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem
over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very
good. Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character
development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat
is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's
music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's "Shaft" style orchestral pieces is
kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu
comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story. Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old
school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a
preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great
choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early
charisma and talent can be clearly seen. Hand of Death is a solid,
stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John
Woo. Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5/10 Wanderer to Tan (referring
to his new weapon): "The Little Eagle Wing God Lance." Tan: "Just a
knickknack."
This movie is an evolutionary piece - from Terminator to Robocop . Stan
Winston did the SPFX ! In this film, a scientist working in a sinister
robotics company with a really creepy boss(they always are) gets is killed by them
in a horrible lab explosion and has his brain placed inside an indestructible robot
body . The rest of this movie goes on with a romance angle as this
Cyborg/Man regains consciousness and wreaks havoc while trying to communicate with
his wife, played by the gorgeous(back then in 1986) Terri Austin . (He tries to
reconnect with his old life, like in that scene in RoboCop) The rest of
this movie is about breaking things, while trying to defeat the evil his evil boss
from recapturing him for some ill-defined 'turn humans into cyborgs' project
. This film pays homage to previous movies like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD
STILL - - as the cyborg breaks free like the giant robot Gort does . Except for the 'Frankenstein Suite' designed by Stan Winston, this movie's
production values are typically Canadian: SLEAZY ! ! Pam Grier stars in
this film as an hired killer-commando, a cheap role of the likes she was doing so
much of during the 80's . As for a Sci-Fi Horror B movie, out of 4
Stars, this film ranks about a <3
The combination of amazing special effects and oscar worthy acting makes the
Vindicator one of the most important sci-fi films of recent years. For some reason
still unknown to me this gem was found in a bargain bin, why some worthless human
thought it right to dirty a modern classic by relagating to a bargain bin is beyond
me. I have never been so terrified by a man in tin foil and random bursts of fire.
Forget Terminator, Robocop, Aliens, and other films that blaintly ripped off this
masterpiece, the vindicator is an unstoppable force.
Looks as if the Robocop writer has been wholesale looting The Vindicator. This is a
very solid horror/action movie about a man set up in an accident to be used in
cruel experiment. Anyone who have seen Robocop knows the story. Watch out for Pam
Grier as a bitchy and darn good looking assassin. This highly effective, violent
and bloody horror movie may not be to everyones liking, but this Canadian outing is
well worth seeking out for anyone who is fan of the genre. 8/10
as a fan of robocop, i always loved this movie. i seen it when it first came out,
and finally i bought it on DVD from Brazil, it was never released in the us on DVD.
i like the film, but like everything else in this world, everyone has their
opinion, love it or hate it. no matter what a movie does, someone will always say
"why didn't they do it another way?" in other words you cant please everyone. if
you love robocop, you will love this film. to me, its so unique thats its not
cheesy, or silly like a lot of lower budget movies. this film always kept me
interested. i can see a few scenes that robocop borrowed from here, but tell me
what movies don't do that? a lot of films use other ideas from other movies, and
sometimes change them around. fun film!
Scientist Carl Lehman (well played by David McIlwraith) gets blown up something
terrible in a deliberate chemical explosion. He has his brain transplanted in the
body of a nearly indestructible metal cyborg suit by his evil colleagues who are
led by wicked obsessive fellow scientist Alex Whyte (a perfectly hateful portrayal
by Richard Cox). Lehman embarks on an all-out killing spree. It's up to nasty
mercenary Hunter (a wonderfully loathsome turn by the divine Pam Grier) to put a
stop to him. Director Jean-Claude Lord, who previously helmed the under-appreciated
slasher psycho thriller "Visiting Hours," stages the plentiful action scenes with
considerable verve and maintains a zippy pace throughout, thus ensuring that this
flick sizes up as an enjoyably trashy sci-fi/horror action outing. Paunchy
character thesp Maury Chaykin easily cops top acting honors as disgusting fat creep
Burt, who in the movie's single most tasteless sequence has a brutal fistfight with
Lehman's pregnant wife Lauren (a winning performance by the lovely Teri Austin).
Stan Winston's nifty make-up f/x and Paul Zaza's thrilling score further add to the
overall sleazy fun.
ASCENDING to power in 1933, Hitler and his "National Socialist German Workers
Party", which of course we all know as the Nazis, tightened their grip on the
country more and more as the time went by. Early in their rough-shod trampling of
the German People, they called any and all artists, newspaper men and film makers
into their Nazi HQ in order that the may be informed of just what the newly
declared "Third Reich" (aka 'Empire') expected of them. WHEN the Master
Director from the German Cinema's Silent Impressionist and Expressionist era, Mr.
Fritz Lang, was called in to meet with Herr Goebels; he listened attentively and
said nothing. Immediately after leaving the Minister of Propaganda's office, Herr
Lang went directly to the train station and took a passenger directly to Paris. Not
even going back to his residence, Fritz Lang did not return to Germany (at least
not until many years later. He remained in France; eventually immigrating to the
United States of America.* MR. LANG went right to work in America;
creating a variety of most enjoyable, solid and substantially literate upper
echelon movies for many a year. Included in this smörgåsbord of titles is today's
lucky subject, WESTERN UNION (20th Century-Fox, 1941). TYPICALLY a film
about the Old West and Pioneer Days needed both quality as well as quantity of
cast. WESTERN UNION qualified on both requisites. We are treated to a fine array of
starring talent as well as a supporting cast which makes just about every minute
and each scene a delight to our senses. HEADING up the playbill are
Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore. Others prominently
displayed are folks like John Carradine (playing not a vampire or other scary guy,
but a Physician), George "Slim" Summerville (veteran character actor, Silent Film
veteran and graduate of Mack Sennett's Keystone Comedies), Chill Wills (always
dependable supporting player and former singer in "The Avalon Boys") and burly bad
guy Barton MacLane. Added to this mix, we have names like Russell Hicks, Victor
Killian, Minor Watson, George Chandler, Addison Richards, Irving Bacon, James
Flavin, Francis Ford, Frank McGrath and Kermit Maynard (Ken Maynard's bro). PROMINENT in those American Indians featured are: Chief Big Tree, Chief
Thundercloud and Mr. Jay Silverheels. Also featured is that one great
representative of the Aboriginal Peoples of North America is that great, singularly
impressive and memorable example of the Red Man, the Louisiana Native, Iron Eyes
Cody (born Espera DeCorti of Sicilian immigrant parents). THE filming of
the fine outdoor scenes was done on location in Arizona and Utah and rendered in
the highest grade of Technigolour available. (There is no Monument Valley; but
then, that's the Province of Mr. John Ford.) IN some respects this film is a far
more amazing accomplishment than we might think; for it took a sort of pulp
magazine story, adapted it to the tastes and idioms of the pre-war America of the
late thirties and early forties. All of this being done by a German born Director
who was only had been in Hollywood and America for the shortest length of
time. IN its final analysis, WESTERN UNION, while it may not be the most
historically accurate example of the Western Genre; we just don't care. It scores
in all of the necessary categories needed for a great night at the movies! SO, who
really cares about little details such as "accuracy"? WE give Mr. Lang
and 20th Century-Fox a rating of ****! NOTE: * We just saw a special on
PBS station WTTW, here in Chicago that was all about all of the Film Actors,
Directors and other Artisans whom the Nazi rise to power caused to take refuge in
America and Hollywood. (It seems that Movie Folks and Scientists were the biggest
Export for Germany at this particular time; being that the Scientists who built the
Atomic Bomb, as well as the future NASA people, came from Europe at this time.) POODLE SCHNITZ!!
Okay, I love this movie!!!!! I watched it over and over again. It is so hard to
tell who the attacker is. You keep thinking it's one person, then another, then
back to the first person, then another person. It is so suspense full you want to
fast forward your TV to the end to see who it is. SUMMARY: Gail Osborne
is raped and left at her home. She is in the hospital and begins to tell the story
of how she was raped. It goes from her meeting her steady boyfriend, to her teacher
who takes a liking to her, to her ex-boyfriend, all different stories, all
suspects. But who did it? I love the acting, they have a lot of great
talent in here. The suspense is wonderful and the settings are superb. If it comes
on TV watch it. *** 1/2 stars 10/10
This is a very, very odd film...one that is so odd it's best you just see it for
yourself. The film begins with a jaded professor haranguing his class because the
students have the audacity to not be as incredibly brilliant as he is! You can tell
very quickly that this man is a total cynic--finding the value in practically
nothing but sticking to his own inner sense of self-importance. Additionally, he
seems tired and bored with the monotony of life. Later in the film, he
walks into a bank robbery and manages to annoy the robbers so much that one of them
shoots him in the head. Oddly, this is only half-way through the film and what
followed was a very bizarre narration of the final seconds of his life. This is
when the film becomes exciting because the style of the narration is just like one
of this literature professor's novels--one that is intelligently written and says
things the way we wish we could all say them. See this weird film--it's
amazingly compelling and not like anything I've ever seen before.
This Western was set in 1861 and had to do with the creation of the first
transcontinental wireless lines that were laid by Western Union. While nice guy
Dean Jagger (sporting lots of hair) did his best to get this done, there was a bad
guy just waiting to undo this for his own selfish reasons. So, it's up to either
Randolph Scott or Robert Young to save the day. This is certainly one of
the better 1940s Westerns I have seen and it nearly garnered an 8--it was that
good. However, for the life of me, I have no idea why Fritz Lang was assigned to
direct this film--after all, he knew nothing about Westerns. His forte was drama--
and I guess this movie is a drama of sorts--just set in the old West. Strange, yes,
but it seemed to work out okay, though I wonder how this great German director felt
about being given this job. As for the rest of the film, it's
exceptional--with vivid color, great location shooting and very good acting. As
usual, Randolph Scott put in another relaxed and realistic performance. I was
surprised, though, with Robert Young being also cast in the film, but it was a good
casting decision--he was supposed to be a Harvard-educated Easterner. When I saw
Barton MacLane was also in the film, I pretty much assumed he'd be the "baddie" and
my thoughts were well founded, since he made a career out of playing jerks! As for
the script, it seemed pretty ordinary for the most part, but the final showdown
between Scott and Barton MacLane was a lot better than I'd hoped--making this movie
ending on a very high note.
WESTERN UNION tells in melodramatic fashion the stringing of telegraph lines
between two points out west. Siblings Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore work for
Western Union, and Randolph Scott and Robert Young work for the Creightons. Indians
and some bad white guys get in the way, but nothing can stop America's progress.
This sense of manifest destiny is greatly enhanced by a first-rate musical score
and vibrant color photography. Scott is a bank robber looking to mend his ways, and
both he and engineer Young vie for the attention of the perky Gilmore. Lots of
great character actors help keep the large production moving forward.
This is a sort of hidden gem. It has little to no promotion, no fanfare, no classic
status, and it deserves all of the above! One of the great directors of cinema,
Fritz Lang, has created a real gem in this excellent western. A fine cast led by
Randolph Scott (in probably one of his greatest performances), the always sturdy
Dean Jagger, Robert Young as a surprisingly accomplished dude plus many veteran
character actors: Chill Wills, Slim Summerville, John Carradine, Barton MacLane and
others in an exciting Zane Grey story of the laying of the Western Union cable
across country. It has tense drama, sprinklings of humor and great effects. It's
reminiscent of DeMille in ways and yet Fritz Lang leaves his own stamp on it. At
very least this is a damned good western!
Here's another of the 1940's westerns that I watch whenever it comes on TCM or FMC,
because although it may be flawed historically, it is extremely entertaining and
well acted, plus it's got Randolph Scott, my favorite actor second only to Gary
Cooper-Well, OK, fourth behind COOP, Charlton Heston, and Gregory Peck. But the
film itself, to me anyway, is reasonably historically accurate and as I said
before, well acted and "flows" very well-I bet I've seen it 50 or 60 times, and
enjoy each viewing more than the one before. I have it on tape from TCM but would
buy it in a minute if it ever came out on DVD. See it if you haven't- I guarantee
you'll like it!
Lang does Hawks as well as Hawks does in the first part of this extraordinary
Western, before settling down into typical deterministic, dark and guilt-haunted
Lang for the finale. This is one of those films that shows its greatness
almost instantly but at the same time very subtly. Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) is
on horseback and being pursued, we know not why -- he stumbles on wounded Edward
Creighton (Dean Jagger) and decides to take his gun and horse, but discovering that
Creighton is in a bad way, decides to fix him up first. This is conveyed mostly
through facial expressions and very brief, clipped dialog - in 2 minutes we know
that Shaw is an outlaw, but basically a good guy. Shaw ends up helping Creighton on
his way to civilization, then disappears. Cut to a few weeks or months
later, with Creighton on the mend and in charge of an expedition to lay telegraph
wire going west from Omaha. He hires Shaw as a scout, who tries to leave when he
finds out that Creighton is in charge; but Creighton wants him anyway, repaying a
debt and sensing something quality. Also hired is a tenderfoot, son of a benefactor
of the project, but atypically the Easterner Richard Blake (Robert Young) is quite
competent as he shows right away in an amusing but exciting bronco-busting
sequence. Both of the hires vie for Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore) who -
again not typically - seems quite as able to take care of herself as any man. The
camaraderie between the three men, the comedic elements involving an unwilling cook
and various rough and tumble types, and the wonderfully played light romantic
elements dominate the first third of the film and reminded me more of Howard Hawks'
"Red River" or "Only Angels Have Wings" than most Lang - but they are so well
played and the action progresses so naturally that it doesn't matter, and doesn't
alter our pleasure - if it does perhaps change our expectations - as the more usual
Langian themes of the haunted past, dark secrets and the immense pull of the
easier, destructive and evil ways come to dominate the later part of the film.
Shaw's old pals come back to haunt him as the the wagon train and its wires move
westward; attacks mount on the crew, and Shaw has to wrestle with what, if
anything, he is to tell Creighton about his tortured relationship with Jack Slade
(Barton MacLane), leader of the outlaws. Beautifully shot in early
Technicolor and moving fairly seamlessly from sound stages to western locations,
this is for my money easily Lang's best western and one of his very best films,
conveying as potently as any of his films the tragic inability of men to escape
their pasts and build a new future. Scott is as good as I've seen him, showing more
with a flick of an eye than a lot of actors can do in a paragraph of dialog, and
the rest of the cast is uniformly fine. The inevitable showdown between Shaw's past
criminal life and his potential future is extraordinary, and a surprise even for a
longtime Lang devotee such as myself; and even in 1941 it seems there was no place
more fraught with meaning on the margins of civilization than the barbershop and
the dusty street outside. You can get a shave, you can feel like a new man, but you
can't really ever be one as long as the old ties are still holding you back. Genius.
One of the best western movies ever made. Unfortunately, it never got the
recognition it deserved. The storyline, the action and the music was in my mind,
one of the best. I give it a double A+. Randolph Scott gave a terrific performance
along with the other members of the cast. The ending was one of the best of any
western made.
If Western Union isn't exactly the real story of the construction of the
Transcontinental Telegraph, it certainly does capture the spirit and dedication of
the people involved with the project. Dean Jagger is the man in charge
and one fine day he's thrown from a horse and sustains some fractured ribs. An
outlaw on the run, Randolph Scott, finds Jagger and is ready to steal his horse,
but changes his mind and brings Jagger to help. Later on he's hired by Western
Union and works for Jagger. Jagger also hires a young easterner played
by Robert Young who's an engineer. Young is doing one of his few loan out films
away from MGM for 20th Century Fox. Both Young and Scott become friends, but rivals
for Jagger's sister Virginia Gilmore. Western Union has plenty of
action, enough to satisfy any western fans. The telegraph crew has to deal with
outlaws, Indians, and your garden variety labor troubles. Slim
Summerville as the timid cook and Victor Killian as the frontier character assigned
to guard him have some of the funniest scenes. They both provide some good comic
relief. Fritz Lang got good performances from his cast and kept the
film moving briskly along. Western Union is solid western entertainment.
I first saw this film in the theater way back in the 40s when I was a kid and
always remembered the ending. There is nothing like the first impression but some
movies are always a treat each time they are viewed. Something just resonates with
them. This is one of those films and I agree with another reviewer who said Fritz
Lang should have directed more westerns. To add to it I have always liked Randolph
Scott and Robert Young. In fact, Robert Young stars in what I consider my favorite
movie if I have to name just one, not an easy thing to do. That film is Northwest
Passage. It led me to the superb historical novels of Kenneth Roberts. Western
Union likewise led me to reading Zane Grey's novel which, in this case turned out
to be one of those rare cases where I like the movie better than the novel. Not
that Grey's novel is a bad one; I just like the movie story better. The movie in no
way resembles the novel. It is a completely different tale, one of the biggest
departures from a book I have seen. I can't add much to the other
reviews except to say I agree with many of them. I, too, wish it would be released
on DVD. "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott happened to the best of me."
Fritz Lang directed two great westerns: "Western Union" and "The Return of Frank
James". The Frank James movie equals "Jesse James". "Western Union" is one of
Randolph Scott's great westerns. I have never seen Robert Young in a western
before; he is terrific as the telegraph employee. This is the only movie I can
think of that is about the telegraph company opening up in the west. It is a high-
geared story about the telegraph in the west, a triangle love story, and about
loyalty. The supporting cast is superb. Dean Jagger, who made a few
westerns, plays the telegraph manager. Virginia Gilmore, who plays Mr. Jagger's
sister, is the love interest in the movie. Ms. Gilmore had a short career in
movies. She quit films in 1952 and became a drama coach. She is primarily known as
the first Mrs. Yul Brynner. It is great to see Slim Summerville in a movie with Mr.
Scott again. They were in two other great movies: "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" and
"Jesse James".
Hard to believe this was directed by Fritz Lang since he mostly directed crime
dramas and mysteries. This movie has a cast that includes Robert Young, Randolph
Scott, Dean Jagger and John Carradine. Scott plays an outlaw who tries to go
straight and leave his old gang and winds up saving Jagger's life. Jagger works for
Western Union, a telegraph company that plans to have telegraphs out west. Jagger
hires a lot of men to make sure it is done because they have to worry about Indian
attacks and bandits. Scott is in charge of the men and Young is a telegraph expert
who can't shoot a gun but can ride. Scott meets up with his old gang who want to
stop them but Scott can't tell anyone. It's a pretty good western and Lang should
of directed some more westerns.
Doe-eyed high school student Kathleen Beller is found beaten and raped
in the opening scenes of this made for TV movie. The film then
flashbacks to the few days before the rape, as Beller is harassed by a
stranger. Beller and Scott Colomby and her best friend Robin Mattson
and Dennis Quaid are double dating early on. Beller's anxious
parents, laid back Tony Bill and shrill Blythe Danner, wait at home
wringing hands and so on. Right away, the 1970's makes its dated entrance, as the young couples discuss the romance and love in "Three Days of the Condor." Beller, an amateur photographer, begins
getting threatening notes stuffed in her locker at school. The film
makers wisely give us a whole slew of suspects: Beller's new boyfriend,
Mattson's boyfriend, Beller's dad, Beller's ex-boyfriend, and what about
that overly friendly photography class teacher who wants Beller to be
a little more sexy in her self-portraits? I knew who the rapist
was because the Worldvision Video company video box has a picture
of the attack on the back cover, destroying any suspense in that regard. Without giving away who the attacker is, Beller begins
getting harassing phone calls, and is eventually raped. The movie
then heads south as she makes like Nancy Drew and secretly sets up a time lapse camera to catch the guy stalking another student. Finally, the film makers tack on a hokey ending narration from Beller
about the lack of understanding for the victims of rape in that day and
age. The suspense here is very real, without going over the top
into scary movie stuff. Beller is very good, and watch for her and Mattson's scene in an abandoned theater- both do great jobs. The film is full of familiar faces, including Ellen Travolta in a small
role, and everyone is professional. This was made in 1978,
and it shows. I am sure no one had any idea that this would be reviewed
in 2001 by an overcritical horror movie lover who needs to get to bed
and be up early in the morning, but some of the attitudes here are
embarassing. The teacher who tells Beller to be sexy is never made to
explain what exactly he had in mind. Nowadays, if any high school
teacher said that, then THAT would have been a made for TV movie on its
own. After Beller is raped, the rapist is still a part of her life, as
warrants are issued, blah, blah, blah. There may not be a case
because Beller is not a virgin, and cannot prove she was raped by
whom she said. Many of these problems have been addressed with modern technology and policing efforts, but this film obviously knew it would have a chance to add to the reform debate. Rape is an
act of violence that has not gone away, but efforts today to catch the
attackers are miles ahead of twenty four years ago. The problem is the
anti-rape angle feels tacked on, like an afterthought. Before that, we
have a tight little suspenser that has real honest to God
characterization. After the rape, everything changes, filmwise, and not
for the better. I remember Beller from the '70's and '80's (and who
could forget her revealing role in "The Betsy"), but she has not done
anything in almost ten years. This is a shame, since she was very good
way back then. I will recommend "Are You in the House
Alone?!" based on the acting alone, with a reluctant nod to at least the
first two-thirds of the film. If you want to relive 1970's made for TV
high school life, this is your cup of Tab. This is unrated
but contains physical violence, some sexual violence, and some adult
situations.
While escaping from a heist of a bank, the outlaw Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) helps
Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), the chief-engineer of the Western Union that is
surveying the Wild West and had had an accident with a horse. In 1861, Vance
regenerates and is hired to work for the Western Union with the team that is
installing the poles and cable from Omaha to Salt Lake City. Vance and the engineer
from Harvard Richard Blake (Robert Young) flirt with the gorgeous Edward's sister
Sue Creighton (Virginia Gilmore) and she chooses Vance. However, his past haunts
him when the outlaw Jack Slade (Barton MacLane) steals the Western Union cattle
disguised of Indians. "Western Union" is a good but predictable western
directed by Fritz Lang. The story shows the difficulties of the brave and
idealistic men responsible for installing the telegraph through the West, facing
thieves and Indians. The entertaining story has action, drama, romance and funny
situations, but with the exception of the identity of Jack Slade, there is no
surprise in the story. Randolph Scott gives another magnificent performance with a
great cast. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Os Conquistadores" ("The
Conquerors")
I doubt if the real story of the development of Western Union would ever have
gained a real audience. Instead of talking about the building of the telegraph
system out west, it was the story of board rooms, dominated by one of the most
interesting (and disliked) of the great "Robber Barons": Jay Gould. Gould picked up
the struggling company and turned it into a communication giant - and part of his
attempt at a national railway system to rival Vanderbilt's. But this, while
interesting, is not as exciting as the story of the laying of the telegraph lines
themselves. At least, that is how audiences would see it. Jay Gould died in 1892.
Had he lived into the modern era, and invested in Hollywood, he probably would have
agreed to that assessment too. The film deals with how the laying of the
telegraph system is endangered by Indians, spurred on by one Jack Slade (Barton
MacLane). Slade, a desperado, is not happy with the development of a communication
system that will certainly put a crimp in his abilities to evade the police in the
territories. He is confronted by the man in charge of the laying of the telegraph
wires, Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), Creighton's associate Richard Blake (Robert
Young), and a quasi-lawman Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott), who is Slade's brother.
Blake, an Easterner with little understanding of the West, is romancing Creighton's
sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore), but finds it hard to get used to his new
surroundings. But he does become a close friend of Shaw, especially in trying to
confront Slade. Slade was a real Western criminal, by the way, and the
subject of a section of Mark Twain's ROUGHING IT. He was hanged in the 1870s. But
he did not have any involvement in stirring up Indians against railroads or
telegraph companies. However, MacLane makes him a memorably evil, and totally
vicious type. His killing of one of the major characters is done suddenly and from
behind - and he views the corpse as though he has just got rid of an annoyance. But
Lang is responsible for that, as well as other touches. Look at the sequence with
Chill Wills, where he is on a telegraph pole repairing it. He spits tobacco juice
several times while talking to Young, who gets a little splattered. Then there is
an Indian attack which we watch from the ground level. At the conclusion, Young
suddenly gets splattered again, but it's not brown but red that covers him. He
looks up at the pole's top, and there is Wills with an Indian arrow through him. It is an exciting film to watch, and well worth catching.
"Western Union" is something of a forgotten classic western! Perhaps the reason for
this lies in the fact of its unavailability on DVD in the United States. However,
all is not lost as it has now appeared on Region 2 in England. This - being a
blessing in some ways - is not only incongruous but totally ironic when one
considers that a movie depicting the founding and establishment of such a uniquely
American organization as The Western Union Telegraph Company is without a Region 1
release. It beggars belief! It simply doesn't make sense! Produced by
Fox in 1941 "Western Union" was directed by Fritz Lang. This was only the second
occasion the great German director undertook to direct a western! He had done an
excellent job the year before with Fox's "The Return Of Frank James" and would have
only one more western outing in 1952 with the splendid "Rancho Notorious". Lang was
no Ford or Hawks but with "Western Union" he turned in a fine solid western that
holds up very well. Beautifully photographed in early three strip Technicolor by
Edward Cronjager it boasted a good cast headed by Robert Young, Randolph Scott and
Dean Jagger. The female lead is taken by Virginia Gilmore who really has little to
do in the picture. An actress who never made anything of her career. Her presence
here is merely cosmetic. It is curious that Robert Young has top billing
over Scott! It is clearly Scott's picture from the very beginning when we first see
him in the film's terrific opening scene being chased by a posse across the plains.
Young doesn't have much to do throughout the movie and seems out of place in a
western. He just looks plain silly going up against Barton McLane in a gunfight! An
actor who never really distinguished himself - except perhaps with "Crossfire"
(1947)- Young appeared in a string of forgettable romantic comedies in the forties
and fifties culminating with his greatest success when for seven years he was TV's
"Marcus Welby MD" in the seventies. He died in 1998 at the age of 91. "Western Union" recounts the connection by telegraph wire of Omaha and Salt Lake
City. Scott plays a reformed outlaw hired by Western Union boss Dean Jagger to
protect the line from marauding Sioux and to also take on McLane and his gang who
are trying to destroy the line for their own devious ends. Robert Young is the
young engineer from back east who joins the company and vies with Scott for the
affections of Miss Gilmore. Some comic relief is provided by - and irritatingly so
some would say - by Slim Summerville and John Carradine turns up in a meager role
as the company doctor. Altogether though a spanking good western, albeit
on Region 2, but in sparkling good quality that fans will be delighted with. My
only crib is that there are no extras, not even a trailer and that terrible cover
with those dull graphics. UGH! Footnote: Interestingly the associate
producer on "Western Union" was Harry Joe Brown who later with Randolph Scott would
create a partnership that would produce some of Scott's finest westerns in the
fifties.
I saw this years ago, and it's entertaining, but not profound. The basic story is
of a young man who dreams of Midian, though he's not sure where it is or even if it
really exists. Spoilers Follow: He finally visits it, gets transformed
to a Nightbreed creature by being bitten by another one. Then, he has to help the
other members of the Nightbreed because they're being attacked by Canadians. (Save
for the accents, they all act like Good Ol' Boys. Not much in tune with the
Canadian psyche, eh?) Someone observed for "monsters" or "Nightbreed," substitute
"Jews," and for the Canadians/humans, substitute, "Nazis," and you're supposed to
get an insight into the struggle by the monsters versus the humans. Well, maybe. One major objection I had was that while the underground city was
interesting, it was rather ramshackle and, frankly, dirty. This must be a
convention for movies with underground settlements. One would think that if the
monsters were the good guys, some would have at least a little sense of
decor. The storyline is a tad thin, but that's to introduce characters.
But it's entertaining enough for a repeat view.
Featuring some amazing and wonderful characters, a new mythology, superbly designed
and executed sets, Nightbreed is a great film. Sadly the lack of a well
known lead actor lead to the film finding obscurity. Perhaps also the
homosexuality of the director lead to the film being unwittingly censored by the
white audience the film decries. None the less the film is a treasure of
the monster movie/superhero genre. A sequel featuring Highlander style
flashbacks to different epochs in history would be interesting. Another
idea would be the foundation of the new Midian. Perhaps in Texas somewhere or the
swamps of Lousiana with crocodile men and a traveling freak circus.
Nightbreed blew my mind the first time I saw it. And it's held up quite well over
the years. The sets and monster effects work, are some of the best I've ever seen.
Nobody I know seems to have seen this film, which I believe tanked at the box
office, because of the lack of interest in horror, in the early nineties. It plays
like a dark, horrific fairy tale, and is a lot deeper, then you'd think, with a
strong message against bigotry, presented by a rich mystical past, that Clive
Barker created. What sucks is the film ends on a really cool sequel note, that
we'll probably never see. My only minor gripe is that Craig Sheffer is only a
passable actor at best, and the the project might have benefited with a better
actor in the part. Just a minor complaint though as Sheffer does alright. I had a
similar issue with Scott Bakula in Barker's Lord Of Illusions, not really a
terrible performance, but I just didn't like him in the role as much as I would
have other people.
Delivers great acting and greater Special Effects. Stars David Cronenberg, one of
my personal favorites, as Decker. It's special effects on the monsters were so
good, you thought they might be really deformed. Clive Barker, however demented,
scored a perfect 10 on my list.
Let me say from the outset I'm not a particular fan of this kind of film, but
Nightbreed holds a certain fascination for me with a message about
perspective. Back in the old days, the folks who inhabit Midian would
have been called Zombies, the undead. And according to what Clive Barker has given
us certain members of human kind, in this Craig Sheffer are born with the potential
to become part of that world. Psychiatrist David Cronenberg at first
looking like the mild mannered professional has taken unto himself a fanatical
mission to rid the world of the Nightbreed. He tricks the police into killing
Sheffer, but Sheffer goes to a graveyard named Midian cemetery where the Nightbreed
congregate and live underground. Sheffer has also left a girl friend,
Anne Bobby, who still has feelings for him even after he's been killed and is now
one of the undead. She tries in her own small way to be a bridge to humankind.
 Clive Barker's creatures are a pretty gruesome looking lot and are not
particularly fond of humans. But it's plain to see that if humans left them alone,
the Nightbreed in turn not bother with them. Your sympathies are
definitely with the Nightbreed especially after seeing a fanatic like Cronenberg
and redneck police chief Charles Haid in action. Clive Barker's been an
out gay man for some time now and some have suggested to me that the Nightbreed is
a metaphor for gay people. I can see where that would come in, especially since
there are a whole lot of people who don't even think of gays as anything human
because they're taught that way. Granted Nightbreed is pretty bloody
with a lot of gratuitous violence, but it also does make you think and I do like
the way Clive Barker does turn traditional theology on its head and makes Craig
Sheffer a kind of messiah for the Nightbreed creatures.
Clive Barker of Hellraiser fame has written and produced a fantasy horror film that
is funny and exciting. The make-up done by Bob Keen and Geoffrey Portass
was fantastic. It took quite an imagination to come up with these mutants that
lived underground. It was really a treat to see the quality of work. It
wasn't particularly horrible, as the worst creature was actually a human serial
killer. I just saw Craig Sheffer in Shadow of Doubt the other day and he
did a good job in this film also. Nothing spectacular, but fair. This was only Anne
Bobby's third film, and she was good also. The ending was spectacular
and the rednecks got their just desserts, as did David Cronenberg. Ha!
This movie is masterly directed by Clive barker, he really knows how to establish a
rapport between the audience and the characters. I think there is a sequel missing
for this one, Barker should have dedicated to the sequel for this movie instead of
doing the boring Lord of illusions, that is one I think was a real garbage. But I
also think that because of this and because of the lack of the sequel NBreed has
become a dark cult classic of horror films.
An enjoyable movie, without a doubt, and very evocative of both its era and that
very particular stage in any boy's 'rites of passage'. But I have to say that
having read the very positive comments here, I was a bit disappointed. The period
was captured, but the plot was desperately thin. The whole thing revolves around
the most egregious bit of miscasting in the history of school plays. The idea that
quack quack would ever be chosen to play not only one of only three star turns, but
a philanderer, is risible. And without that, nada. The sub-plots bore no relation
that I could see to the main plot - all of them could be removed in their entirety
without in any way affecting the main story - which surely suggests a fundamental
flaw. When all your sub-plots look like padding, you know a central idea is being
stretched beyond its limits. Nevertheless, it's a benign movie with its heart in
the right place, there are some fine performances, and you just get the feeling
that everyone involved felt deflated at the final 'cut!' That good feeling
permeates the film. And that has to count for something. A flawed really quite good
movie. 7 out of 10.
The film 'Nightbreed' is one of the best horror films I have ever seen. Overall,
I'm not a big fan of horror films, but there is something about this film that is
more atmospheric and different from any other horror film I have ever seen. Many
horror films i've seen i've enjoyed watching, however, as they are based on horror,
I know that the stories are unreal, as they are fictional, therefore I can't take
them all seriously. Nightbeed, on the other hand, is a unique horror Genre as it
has a feel of realism that i've seen in very few other horror films. This films story on how a man gets murdered and ends up living with the undead in
an underground cemetery shelter with undead monsters is the kind of story a person
would get from a dreaming Nightmare as its a very unique and original storyline.
Most horror films i've seen are all quite fake, but because Nightbreed was so
incredibly sophisticated and geniously directed with superb acting, especially by
Craig sheffer (Aaron Boone) amazing special effects, great lighting and fantastic
dialogue, I found this film to have a sense of depth and maturity with no silly
fake horror parody, whatsoever, that many other horror films have. Nightbreed, as
well as being horror has elements of thriller, romance and action all rapped in
one. If you haven't seen this film, I recommend you watch it, as I rate it a 10/10.
I experienced Nightbreed for the first time on television a year ago and i was
pleasantly surprised with the results. Clive Barker is said to have
revitalised horror with Hellraiser but this is a film that effectively stalled his
cinema career somewhat. What an unfortunate thing to happen because, like the
inhabitants of Midian, this film seems to be misunderstood. Barker has
created a cross-breed of genre staples in this story - it begins as a traditional
horror film but soon becomes a fable regarding mans inhumanity to man. Evoking
sympathy for the devil is tough at the best of times but when the characters are as
visually demonic as they are in this film it becomes nigh on impossible (cue the
child!). The practically Klan-like human insurgence (pitchforks and holy wrath!) at
the films conclusion becomes doubly upsetting in the face of what has gone before.
As a parable of ethnic tension and white supremacy this film can be quite
evocative. I pity those who will not see the film from this angle and
think of it as Barker's fantastical indulgence gone too far. We have a genuine
forgotten gem here and the sooner the studio and Mr Barker make nice and devote
some time to it - the better.
For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come.
Clive Barker, the man who brought "Hellraiser", makes a horror movie that is part-
Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. "Nightbreed" are a bunch of
mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man
name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink
Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who "helps" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this
situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise.
Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants
there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite
however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of
them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to
protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return
helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky "kiss of
death" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so
seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way,
and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!
This is Clive Barker's masterpiece in my opinion. The movie has a great storyline
and some amazing make-up and effects. The one thing I would love to see happen is a
sequel. The movie was set up for a sequel and with improved technology the second
movie could be incredible. David Cronenberg must appear in a sequel as well as
Craig Sheffer. But this particular movie was a great original, creative and
entertaining idea and I could watch it over and over again. Cronenberg was perfect
in this movie and Sheffer added an interesting spice to the film.
I wish there was a category to place this in other than Horror. It simply isn't.
Granted it has it's horrific moments, however I don't feel that makes it a horror
film. I will give that this movie could have been better. A million little things
could have been changed to make it better. That having been said I love
this movie. I'm often sad that people misunderstand the whole point of it. It has
always been clear to me that the point of this movie was to say... things aren't
always what they seem. Sometimes 'evil', isn't. Barker was at a Con I
went to and he did a little talk then watch the movie thing. It was very
interesting. Many things he wished to put in the movie couldn't be, and a chunk was
cut out of the movie that he believed to be long lost. This was a chunk that helped
shed light on Boone and his Girlfriend, as well as some other details. I
know some people are bothered by not having more information about all of the
'breed' in the background, however I always felt that gave the movie a more 'real'
fleshed out feel. I have read the novella this was based off of as well as many of
the comics. Because of this, the movie just always seemed like a staging ground for
the whole story. A much more involved story that sadly has never has a chance to
live. Despite all of the flaws this movie might have I believe it has a
lot to offer. The 'monsters' are wonderful, very imaginative. While the acting is
sometimes a bit stiff there are some very quotable lines. Whenever I watch it I
find something new. Keep and eye on Boones chest toward the end. At one point
Decker stabs him and shortly after Boone falls on a card table. He ends up with a
card stuck to his chest. This card stays there for a while even after Lori pulls
the knife out. It stays there until Boone casually removes it. I love that. That
was a lovely little detail I thought. Basically what I want to say is
that... if you are looking for a horror movie, don't watch this. If you believe
that at times men can be more evil than anything we have ever dreamed up. This is
the movie for you. This is a movie about how men destroy what they don't understand
or fear.
This movie is a perfect example of Barkers cinematic gifts to the horror/ monster
genre. I thought this movie did a great job of keeping the feel and look of the
novella and comic books (or actually, the comics may have come second, I forget).
This movie was made for Barker fans. It helps to have read the book beforehand, but
isn't that important if you can follow a film. I saw to anyone who is on the fence
about this film, read the book, then re-watch the film. You might find a new
respect for the movie. I came to this movie a big fan of Barker already, and having
read the book prior, loved the film instantly. There are great cameos, makeup,
writing, directing, etc in this film. This movie does something that most monster/
horror movies fail miserably at, show the monsters. They are there in full color,
not hidden in shadows, and taking most of the screen time. Unlike other films that
use quick cuts or trick lighting to hide the creature, this movie celebrates the
grotesque, and casts them into the forefront as the good guy. Two thumbs up Clive.
We're waiting for the Thief of Always :)
I absolutely love this movie. I just managed to get a copy and saved it to watch on
my birthday. This movie brings up several questions. One is. Who are the monsters
of this world? To be different is just that. Different. The real monsters hide
behind masks of ordinariness. They are those that everyone considers "a nice quiet
bloke" who "didn't bother anybody". Or they are worse they are the characters such
as played by Croneberg. Men who draw pleasure and power from carving up people and
creating their own Books of Blood. I love the shapeshifters, people with gifts and
those that may be abhorent for people to look upon. This movie touches on and
explores what IS normal. Who are 'other' and what fear does to some. Even though I
gave this movie 10 I am still sick of women who either scream or are so set in
their ways that they cant see what is happening and being a vehicle for the things
that destroyed Median. My other complaint was why didn't they ever make a second
film. I for one would have loved to see a continuation of this most intriguing
story that keep me captivated from beginning to end
It's a horror story alright. But perhaps not as you know it. The real monsters in
this flick are humans. While the monsters, are human and prey. As weird as that may
sound I see this as "Monsters Inc" for horror film fans. Sure, the
effects are of a std horror film, the monsters are there as in any monster based
film, the gore is there as well, there even is a slasher in the shape of Dr Decker
(played by David Cronenberg; I see flash of Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane in
Batman Begins here - or is it the other way round?). And it is Decker &c who are
the bad guys. The monsters want mainly to mind their own business, warding off
intrusive humans more or less misguided, wanting to join there society. By the end of the film you actually grow to like the quite little monsters (and
the dog) - not perhaps what you had expected from the first few scenes....
I'd love to see some tie-in between NightBreed, The Fury, and the X-Men Series,
sort of the way the second Outer Limit's Series would tie-in particular stories and
plot-lines after the fact, to create a Story Arc although one was never intended.
I'd also like know if some more information - anecdotal or otherwise, exists
anywhere about the relationship and/or collaboration between Clive Barker and David
Cronenberg. I simply can't get my mind around the fact that David Cronenberg
appeared as a mere actor in a Clive Barker film. Does any additional information on
the subject actually exist? Finally, it's been 17 years since the film was
released, and I had hoped there would've been a sequel by now. Does anyone out
there know if there were any plans in the making that never came to fruition, or if
in fact there are plans even now for a sequel?
As an avid reader of Clive Barker, I truly anticipated this film prior to it's
release... I was not let down. "Nightbreed" is a horse of a different color. Rich
in the underlying decay of western civilization and dripping with alternative
existence in a way we have never seen before. Barker is at his best when he allows
us to peek into his world of unprecedented horror, yet showing us the other side of
the coin. Here the "Monsters" are the hideously beautiful beings, while the humans
are the deceptively ugly creatures of self indulgence. We soon learn that we were
wrong all along. By far my favorite performance by the often under-used Craig
Sheffer, and the added bonus of David Cronenberg as "Decker" is a cast best seen
then believed. The "Monsters" are portrayed flawlessly by a bevy of English
creature masters, whom many also brought the "Cenobites" to life in "Hellraiser",
including "Pinhead" himself Doug Bradley. "Nightbreed" is an absolute must see for
any fan of the horror genre, and anyone who needs just a little (Something) more
out of their horror story. This IS Clive Barker at his finest.
I was at school in the late sixties and early seventies and this film is very much
how my school was. The school play where the leading actors kiss, that happened at
my school. A crazy gang of lads, my school again only when we went on a cross
country run we would have a smoke! 'Getting the whack', some one at my school broke
in through a sky light and broke the canes! after that they were kept in a safe!!!
And as for certain nocternal activities! what can I say.... The film actually came
out in 1982, I remember that as it was when I bought my house and the film was
showing at the same time. If you like British films and films about school, growing
up and period pieces, then this is for you. Another film very much like it,
'SWALK', came out a few years before and I for one would like to see that again,
also 'Kes' is in the genre. Highly recommended. (But trust me, 1982 is when it came
out)
I enjoyed this film. The way these mutants looked, along with the tone of the film,
is very good. Plus, David Cronenberg as Philip K. Decker was great! It makes me
wonder if his personality is exactly the same in real life (except for the killings
of course). I was impressed with the creatures for this film, although
this movie probably had a somewhat low budget, the mutants/creatures/monsters
looked great, especially from 1990. This is definitely a unique film and not crap.
It makes me want to go find a read the novella it's based off of. This is an
interesting film because it shows how humans can be monsters and the "monsters" are
the one with humanity.
I just watched Nightbreed for the first time since seeing it in the theater almost
20 years ago, and while I remember liking it at the time, I don't remember being
blown away by it like I was today. I really can't complain about anything in this
movie. Craig Scheffer is excellent as the lead character of Boone. I never
understood why he hasn't had a more successful career, because most of his early
work is outstanding. As good as Scheffer is, Cronenberg is even better. His
portrayal of the psycho Dr. Decker is unforgettable, and steals the show. The rest
of the cast, which includes Doug Bradley is very good, save for the ridiculously
over the top redneck sheriff. The visuals are good, and in some shots great. The
Danny Elfman composed score is as good as it gets, and is among his best work. The
ending was epic, with nonstop action for close to twenty minutes. Overall,
Nightbreed is a tremendous accomplishment for Clive Barker, and ranks as my
favorite of his movies, just slightly ahead of Hellraiser. 9/10
Why didn't critics like this movie?? I don't get it. This is easily my favorite
Clive Barker effort. "Hellraiser" is a bit too rough around the edges (the film
just never leaves that stupid house) and, lets face it, "Lord of Illusions" doesn't
move at all!!! I have loved Barker's writing for years, especially his "Books of
Blood". Terrifically entertaining. He has a vicious side to him that is totally
unlike a Stephen King. He freely mixes in his own homosexuality and odd religious
and occultic elements. I love love love love it. I also realize , however, that
Barker is as much a dark fantasy writer as he is a horror writer. And fantasy just
isn't my bag. Puts me right to sleep. Always has. I also think Barker works best
with short stories. His novels tend to wander a bit. That was my experience when
trying to read "The Damnation Game". It started out well. Then 100 pages in I
thought "where is this going?" because it wasn't going ANYWHERE. I read
"Cabal" (the book Nightbreed was based on) and thought it was good. I ESPECIALLY
like the elaboration on Decker's character. The way the mask talked to him and
controlled him. I like the way Barker simply presents it. Black and white. There it
is. He gives it a simplicity that's attractive and believable. When asked why
Decker kills he says (simply) "Because I like it". Probably something Jeffrey
Dahmer said at some point. But I actually liked the film Nightbreed
better than Cabal. I adore the visual attention to detail that Barker gives to his
films. ADORE IT. I think it is just beautiful. Lord of Illusions had some of this
as well. Some of the drawings in the beginning, during the Nightbreed credit
sequence. It's like an entire vocabulary Barker dreamed up just for the Nightbreed
world. I'd be curious to know how much was purely his design. I know he is an
AMAZING artist who his own style and language as an artist. Nightbreed
is also (I think) BArker's most entertaining film. It moves very quickly. Well
edited. It doesn't drag like Lord of Illusions does a little bit. Very quick.
Everything in it is just perfect. It also works as a fantastic and scary little
slasher movie. The stuff with the killer in the beginning killing the family and
later tormenting the old man in the shop is really scary stuff. That mask is
frightening. I'd be curious to know if Barker designed that as well. It's not just
a hokey Jason or "Scream"-type mask. Something about it is really disturbing. Anyway, this is a great flick. Definitely check it out if you haven't seen
it. Highly recommended. One of my favorite horror films of all time. In my opinion
Clive BArker's best. It IS scary and violent though, be warned
If you're looking for an original horror flick, this might be the one for you. It's
strange and at times lingers on stupidity, but it's just such a good looking, nice
sounding and original movie, it never fails, except maybe during the over long
climax. "Nightbreed" is a must see for horror fans, or for fans of monster movie
make-up. Boone (Craig Sheffer) has been having dreams of a town called
Midian full of mutant creatures. In therapy, his psychiatrist Dr. Decker (horror
director David Cronenberg) has come to the conclusion that Boone is a murderer, and
gives him hallucinogenic pills, and tells him to turn himself in. After almost
getting killed, Boone ends up at the hospital, where he runs into a mental patient
who also knows about Midian, and tells Boone where to go. Midian, located in a
graveyard, is inhabited by vile mutant creatures that don't let Boone in. After
escaping with only a nasty bite, Boone is shot dead by the police, who were lead to
his location by Dr. Decker. But Boone isn't dead. The bite causes him to live, and
he goes off to Midian. Meanwhile, Boone's girlfriend Lori (Anne Bobby) tries to
find Boone and get to the bottom of this. When Dr. Decker also finds out about this
place, chaos ensues. The plot seems long and complicated, but it really
isn't hard to understand. The plot, among other things, makes this movie really
interesting. The make-up effects are astounding. The creatures look unique and
amazing, and make this a very appealing film. To add to more senses appeal, we have
a musical score by Danny Elfman, that is both lush and bouncy, and fits the film
like a glove. The shots in the movie are also set up beautifully. The
cinematography is lovely, and the movie sets up an atmosphere that is never broken.
Even the acting is good, with the biggest surprise being director David Cronenberg
giving a great, menacing performance as the man, who for one reason or another,
wants to see Boone dead. It's odd for a horror film to be this well done. The problems with the movie...well there are a few, but the positives
outweigh the negatives. The script features the occasional lame jokes to try and
add some humor, but almost every one falls flat. The mutant creatures look great
and for the most part are well acted, but sometimes it feels like they are just
posing their awesome makeup for the camera. The worst part of the film would have
to be the climax. It takes so long, and is just constant chaos. It's the portion of
the film that moves from individual characters and nice tight knit shots, to fiery
explosions from each direction and violence happening to characters we don't know
or care about. Overall, this movie is amazing to look at. It's a well
done horror film, but even with that said, it has the occasional failure in
character's lines, and a messy climax. Nonetheless, this is one to check out. My rating: *** out of ****. 101 mins. R for strong violence and language.
Adapting his own novel "Cabal" for the screen, author / screenwriter / director
Clive Barker fashioned this marvelous story of outré horror and fantasy. Craig
Sheffer plays Boone, a young man who becomes suspected of being a serial killer.
The cops gun him down in front of Midian, on the surface a cemetery but which is
actually a haven for monsters that have been shunned by society. When they lay
claim to Boone and make him one of their own, this causes repercussions for
everybody, including Boone's sweet girlfriend (the very cute Anne Bobby) and
dubious psychiatrist (a most enjoyable David Cronenberg). "Nightbreed"
displays the kind of wild and twisted imagination that I don't see in movies all
that often. For one thing, Ralph McQuarrie, an old hand at conceptual art having
worked on such films as the initial three "Star Wars" entries, helps Barker to
create excellent visuals for "Nightbreed", starting right away with the opening
credit sequence. The visual and makeup effects are elaborate, and production design
and cinematography quite impressive. Barker and crew do a wonderful job at creating
this whole other world with compelling characters. It's colorful and flamboyant
entertainment and is a pleasure to take in. And of course there's the strong sense
of social commentary regarding intolerance and bigotry, not to mention the heavy
consequences that can result from a person's actions. Great supporting
performances add to the fun. Cronenberg oozes lots of malevolent intent and is a
real gas as the bad doctor, while Charles Haid is a fine love-to-hate-him type of
antagonist, a rather nasty police captain. Doug "Pinhead" Bradley once again gets
buried under heavy makeup as the weary Lylesberg, and is solid as a rock. Hugh Ross
is great fun as Narcisse, as is Catherine Chevalier as Rachel (as an added bonus,
she bares her breasts in one sequence). Simon Bamford, who played the "Butterball
Cenobite" in the first two "Hellraiser" pictures, turns up here as well. There's
even a cool cameo by 50's and 60's sci-fi star John Agar. Danny Elfman
supplies another of his fantastic scores, and Barker leads us steadily through the
intriguing story towards a terrific apocalyptic showdown. "Nightbreed"
is an excellent genre film worth checking out for anybody who hasn't seen it. I
give it a hearty recommendation. 9/10
Nightbreed is definitely my most favorite movie, I've worn more than one tape as it
is. The make-up is awesome, the story is lovely. It takes a few different twists
and isn't quite as deep as the story it's based on (Cabal, by Clive Barker) but for
a movie adaption it stays very true to source material. The only problem with this
movie were the producer's vain attempts to turn it into a teen slasher movie, hence
the changed ending to allow for sequels *eye rolls*. Apparently someday we're going
to be getting a Director's cut that will (I hope) clear up this bit of nonsense.
Until then, I'd suggest it to anyone who like dark fantasy type horror as opposed
to Freddy/Jason/Micheal type slashers. I really don't know what would be
comparable...
Don't ask me why I love this movie so much...Maybe it came at a time in my life I
desperately wanted to fit in, maybe it is the amazing monster effects, maybe
because I enjoyed the novel "Cabal", but It's probably because I LOVE Clive Barker.
I think it's fair to warn you the movie and the novel have no true resolve and like
me you'll probably have a WTF moment at the end. At least two sequels were planned
but never came about due to the fact the movie flopped for a few reasons. The
studio made drastic cuts to the film cutting a good 30 or so minutes out of it and
they did a HORRIBLE job promoting it. The adverts made it look like just another
cheap slasher showing mainly the "Button face/Mask" Decker character. This is a
movie about the monsters! About fantasy! About a place called Midian! It's a story
where the monsters are the good guys. There is truly nothing else out there like
it! It's not a movie for everybody I suppose but it stands as one of Clive's many
great works. Sit back and be prepared to be taken to Midian - where the monsters
are.
Nightbreed is not only great, it is also unique, even taking into account other
Barker's movies, which never lack originality. An amazing adaptation of a very
interesting idea for a book. For the horror genre, it has quite a few of subtle
symbolics and references. Certainly a lot of fun to have, a a bit to think about,
if one cares to. And, not to forget, a nice music score. Well, the special effects,
as usual, get old faster than anything, but that is probably the only drawback.
I've just seen it again after ten years, and I still find it something to
recommend.
What's fun about Barker's Nightbreed is that it's the story of a human on a
rampage, a deadly threat to monsters everywhere. In this one, the monsters (the
night breed of the title) are the "good" guys. It shares its sense of celebrating
the different, the twisted, and the dark with the first Addams Family movie, and
much of Tim Burton's work. It also has the goriness that one expects from a piece
by Barker. Especially fun is the performance by Cronenberg as the truly
evil human doctor who is bent on destroying the Nightbreed. As happens in most
classic monster movies, the villagers surround the monsters' castle with torches
and pitchforks. Only this time, the modern setting replaces the castle with an old
mausoleum and the rustic "weapons" with guns and bombs. And this time the sympathy
you felt when you saw Frankenstein's monster burned in the windmill is the very
center of the movie. This isn't a masterpiece, and even Barker has done
more interesting, and certainly more chilling, work. But it's pure fun, it looks
great, and remains light without mocking itself. Worth a look!
I was peeved that the best make-up academy award went to Dick Tracy, a horrible
film with horrible make-up. The Nightbreed (based on the better titled "Cabal"
novella) look terrific, the acting is excellent and David Chroneburg makes for a
truly creepy and terrific antagonist. The plot focus's on Aaron Boone,
who has recurring nightmares about a society of monsters living under a cemetery.
Is he making it up or are they real and calling to him? His Pyschologist
(Chroneburg) convinces him he's a murderer, a slayer of families. Troubled and suicidal, Boone seeks refuge in Midian but the monsters don't want
him at first. He is also tracked by his girlfriend, Lori who refuses to give up on
him even after he dies and comes back cold and monstrous. But Decker
isn't about to let Boone continue on. He raises the locals on an all out assault on
Midian, like a holy war in gods name led by the devil. Barkers themes of
misunderstood monsters may come from his experiences as a homosexual male, but they
are always strong and honest. Nightbreed turns the genre on it's head. The monsters
are just trying to survive and want to be left alone, but man is hunting
them. A 20+ minute longer cut was originally submitted by Barker, but
the studio chopped it into this fractured masterpiece. Barker is hard at work
trying to locate the missing footage for a directors cut release. Until then, this
version will have to do.
Although i don't like cricket at all and i have seen this movie 13 years ago, I
still think it is one of the best coming-of-age movies ..i remember the day i
returned home from my school and sat down to have my lunch, I saw the opening
titles of that movie and then....i was so immersed in it that i felt i was there,
it really affected me personally. i still remember how i felt when i first saw
it ,i felt that the poor boy was a friend of mine, going through the same
adolescent experience we were having in those days. what i really liked about that
movie is the main theme of a "shy" boy fantasizing about "kissing" his dream girl,
no offense but if that was an American movie, you would certainly see-at a certain
point, mainly climax- the "shy" boy "making love" to his girl, and i really can't
grasp this contradicting concepts till now...i have a simple request ,if anyone
knows how to get this movie on a DVD by mail ,please let me know cause i need a
shot of memories..Thanks
It is interesting to see what people think of this movie, since it is, in fact,
quite unique (though it bears some of the trademarks of Clive Barker's writing).
Even though it might seem a bit cynical to say so, the movie is just intricate
enough to deflect those that need standard Hollywood plot hooks, and layered, so
that if you expect to be fed, you will see a normal monster flick with lots of
monsters and a disjointed plot. Those who need a linear, specific and
untangled plot line will hate this movie, because the story lies, like in the
novella, partially between the lines, or in this case, partially off screen, in
comments and the imagination. Another possible hang-up is the ending, of
which I can say, without spoiling it, that it is not entirely good and not entirely
bad. It is, in fact, not very defined at all, which I know sends some people into
raging tantrums about that they didn't get to know what happened, but to me, and to
many others, I'm sure, just adds another dimension to the story - the dimension of
speculation, and, in addition, the point that great disruption has a tendency to
cause ripples that extend quite far. There is definitely moral here, but
of a rather different kind than the standard Hollywood in-your-face-at-the-end-of-
the-movie sort of display. Summing that moral up is simple, even though it is not
quite that simply displayed; prejudice and the human tendency to hate the
different. I love this movie, even though, as many of the reviewers have
noted, the expressions of the actors (with the exception of David Cronenberg, who
does a wonderful appearance) are rather tacky. I'm not sure they are entirely to
blame for their rickety appearance and lack of depth, though, seeing that these are
common problems in converting literature to screenplay. All in all, this
is a great movie, provided that you do not expect it to be a standard horror movie.
This movie was really well written and was very entertaining.There was great acting
in it too. Luke Perry did a very convincing job. (like he always does)If you are
looking for a eventful movie to watch this should be at the top of your list. There
is a mixture of comedy, drama, and action. You can literally feel what the actors
are feeling at points. I was very impressed by this movie. The special effects were
very well done. The whole movie was very convincing. This movie is one of my
favorites. What happens is North America could be torn apart and Jack and his team
have to try and to stop an eruption by destroying North America. It was a very cool
and creative idea. I loved this movie and i know you will too.
This is a story of a long and awkward love. The daily life of a woman of 50 years
old and some people around her is depicted. Her daily life is so ordinary and
routine that I doubted who was the real lead character in the beginning. Then the
audiences know that the woman and a man who was her high-school class mate had very
tiny connection. The woman has been doing the same job - a milk-woman and a
supermarket casher - so long. There are so many slopes that delivering milk bottles
is a very hard job. The man had married another woman, who is now dying of cancer.
He works at the City Hall and devotedly cares her at home. They never look straight
nor talk each other, but they never forget each other. The original
Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books". But of course when the
man said "Now I want to do what I've always wanted to do", it was to hug her and
make love with her. She writes to a radio disk jockey that "If God gives us time to
talk, we need at least a whole day". Dreaming of that day, she has been sublimating
the desire in hard work and book reading. I personally know a woman who has loved a
man for long years, even after he married another woman and died for an accident.
Therefore the story setting is not that special. Rather, this movie well portrays
unspoken romances in many ordinary men and women. Through this movie, you will
recall your romance that is lost long ago. This is a movie with lasting effect.
The storyline of The Milkwoman is a simple one of unrequited love that despite the
passing of decades still remains strong. Now 50 years old, Minako Obha (Yuko
Tanaka) lives alone and works two jobs one as a checkout clerk in a supermarket,
the other as a milklady, doing her daily round on the hills of Nagasaki. One of her
stops is at the house of Kaita Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe), a government official
who tends to his terminally ill wife Yoko (Akiko Nishina). Minako and Kaita used to
see each other as school children, but after the death of Minako's mother and
Kaita's father, who it seems were having an affair together, their own relationship
was destroyed. Lying in her sick bed, Yoko knows however that her husband's
feelings for the milklady aren't completely gone and, for the sake of Kaita after
she has died, she attempts to engineer a means of bringing them back
together. While the story might be simple, the emotions it deals with
and the means by which it expresses them is really where the heart and beauty of
the film lie. The film takes its time to show the simple daily routines of each of
the characters, their actions being recorded by an old lady who is writing their
story for a book while looking after her own husband who is showing signs of
dementia. In the process it depicts the social circumstances of people from
different ways of life, how they interact with each other on a daily basis, how
relationships form, and how past and present can collide. The director handles this
marvellously with a strong structure and visual style. It's only later in the film
that the story starts to follow a more conventional and inevitably melodramatic
path, as if it is indeed being constructed to fit the narrative structure of the
book that is being written. It's all validated by the emotional depths the film
touches, represented most effectively in the exceptional performance of Yuko
Tanaka.
I guess those who have been in a one-sided relationship of some sort before will be
able identify with the lead character Minako (Yuko Tanaka), a 50 year old woman who
is still in the pink of good health, as demonstrated by her daily, grinding routine
of waking up extremely early in the morning to prepare for her milk delivery work,
where she has to lug bottles of Megmilk in a bag in a route around her town like
clockwork, to exchange empty bottles for full ones, and to collect payment and
issue receipt. And there's always be that one delivery stop that's right at the
top, needing to scale a long flight of stairs in order to achieve customer
satisfaction. And peculiar enough, that stop happened to be a stop
delivering to a man with whom she has been in love with for almost all her teenage
to adult life, and not having the product appreciated, but poured down the sink.
Having gone to the same school, we see that they're not talking to each other, and
in their daily life always seem so close physically, but yet so far away. There's
no eye contact, save for cursory glances by chance, and little acknowledgement of
each other's existence. We learn that they share a past that probably destroyed all
notions of being together, where clear attraction between the two was hampered from
developing further by the earlier generation. While I thought Minako was
an interesting woman in herself, one who has kept her feelings suppressed for so
long, one can only wonder what kind of damage it would do. If I read that the
original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books" and it's
accurate, I felt the movie had a wonderful finale with that shot of her well
stocked bookcase, likely alluding to the fact that she's not alone after all, and
had probably fallen back on her crutch of sorts to deal with the pain of being
alone, and back to a lifestyle which she had already been accustomed to for 50
years. Besides immersing herself in two jobs, she has those books which serve as a
form of escapism, and occasionally pens little sweet nothings to song dedication
shows on the radio. Yuko Tanaka did a commendable job as the emotionally
strong woman resigned to her fate and her decision to love none other, her object
of affection, Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe) was a more interesting character who has
more facets. Staying true to marriage vows, he spends significant amount of screen
time looking after his sickly bedridden wife (played by Akiko Nishina), while
juggling with his job of social welfare in the Children's Affairs department in
City Hall. I felt that as a childless couple, the job provided him a means to care,
not for his own, but for other people's children, the troubled ones who are
neglected and left to fend for themselves. In a rare moment of rage, we see how he
angrily chides such wayward parents who don't appreciate and wastes their
children's lives away. The story by Kenji Aoki provides little quirks to
make its characters appeal and successfully attempted to provide a lot more
glimpses and dimension into them as well, such as how Takanashi is a hopeless Haiku
poet despite being a member of the Haiku club, and supporting characters such as
the aged Minagawa couple, where Masao (Koichi Ueda) lent some comical though sad
moments as he slowly turned senile, while wife Toshiko (Misako Watanabe) narrates
and brings us through this love story of a single woman at 50. Even Akiko Nishina's
performance as the bedridden wife was nothing short of arresting, with her
character's enlightened state of knowing her husband's past, and making unselfish,
and painful decisions in her sickly state. It's what you can expect from
a typical Japanese romantic movie, sans young, nubile leads as star-crossed lovers,
but with all other elements in place such as romantic set ups, love songs and those
quintessential restrained but affectionate behaviour. I thought the story was in
danger of going down the beaten track when unrequited love gets consummated, but
director Akira Ogata managed to steer clear of the usual melodramatic moments in
such stories, though the story did call for some obvious plot development into the
final act that you can predict, especially if you're already way past your Romance
Movie 101. Not being your average lovey-dovey story, I thought The
Milkwoman told a strong story with unrequited love as a central theme, and frankly
a recommended romance movie (though told at a measured pace) if you're in the mood
for some bittersweet loving, reminiscence, and seeking to live without regrets.
Lead actor Yuko Tanaka fulfills so much in the exceptionally meditative "The
Milkwoman," a tranquil canvass on missed chances in the life of a 50-something
woman, charting her routine with sincerely poignant motives. Played out in the
picturesque, tranquil town of Nagasaki, Akira Ogata's unconventional romantic film,
so to speak, is less a straight-out melodrama than a deliberate introspection of
its characters' surrender to their current lives as a result of a tragic past that
forced them to a choice they did not call for. Perfectly embodying the
requisite world-weariness subjected to a spiritless routine, Tanaka plays Minako
Oba, a middle-aged woman who, before her work shift at a supermarket, takes it upon
herself to deliver bottles of milk among the residents of the hilly Nagasaki. One
of the houses she constantly passes by to make such a delivery is that of Kaita
Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe), a local government employee caring for her terminally
ill wife (Akiko Nishina). Minako and Kaita were high school sweethearts who,
courtesy of an ignominious event concerning their parents, separated ways since
then. Opening his film with the foreboding narration of a young Minako
vowing never to leave Nagasaki, Ogata does as such with the narrative, patiently
sticking with Minako as he, deftly aided by Tanako's understated yet highly
effective performance, follows her -- whether she's having chitchat with her aunt
(Misako Watanabe) on being single, or when she jogs up and down the countless
footsteps of their hilly town to distribute milk -- as she and Kaita gradually
overcome the hindrances that kept them apart for years. Such unhurried development
may not suit viewers weaned on fast-paced narratives but for the rest, it's a
heartfelt introspection that affects powerfully and emphatically.
A gem from Japan, where so many of the world's best films are being made today.
Stylistically, this isn't anything all that special. It's just a simple drama (with
some comic overtones) about recognizable people going about their lives. Yuko
Tanaka, best known for voicing the character Lady Eboshi in Princess Mononoke,
plays a 50 year old spinster. She's takes pride in her health, spending each
morning in a vigorous workout as she delivers milk up and down the steep hills of
Nagasaki. After she is done with this part time job, she works her regular job as a
clerk at a grocery store (called S-Mart, which made this Army of Darkness fan
giggle). Along her milk route lives a 50 year old man, whose wife is dying. It
turns out the milk woman and the man, a child services worker, dated in high
school, and each apparently still have something of a crush on the other. The film
actually has some major narrative problems. When the screenwriter actually wants
the two unrequited lovers to unite, he uses a pretty unbelievable deus ex machina
technique. The climactic sequence is also really forced. But most of the film is
beautifully small and observant of the two main characters, as well as many side
characters. The film also has several subplots that seem like they will eventually
weigh the film down, but never end up doing so. I think the best thing in the film
is Tanaka's heartbreaking performance as the lonely milk woman, who has resigned
herself to being alone for the rest of her life. Whatever the problems were, the
film mostly transcends them.
Some people may call "Cooley High" the same sort of thing as "American Graffiti",
but I wouldn't. For starters, in "AG", everyone was white, whereas in "CH" they're
all black. Moreover, this one has a Motown soundtrack. Specifically, the movie
focuses on several working-class African-American students in 1964 Chicago and
their antics. The movie deals mainly with home life and relationships. In their
apartments, we see that there's never any dad around. But these young men always
know how to live life to the fullest. One thing that really
distinguishes this movie from most other portrayals of black people is that the
teenagers in this movie are portrayed as very responsible, worrying about missing
school. Two really funny scenes are the gorilla scene, and the one white guy in the
movie. But overall, the main star is the soundtrack. It is truly one of the best
soundtracks in movie history (we even have it on vinyl here at home). A classic in
the real sense of the word.
You want a movie that'll take you places? Well this is a good pick. If you were an
adolescent in the era portrayed in this film--the hayday of Motown--or if you want
to reach back and see what your parents made so much noise about, I suggest you
pick up this flick and give it a watch. At the risk of sounding cliche, you'll
laugh, you'll cry, you'll reminisce and remember. You'll go back to a time when
school violence was a fist fight. You'll recall with fondness your best friends
from school. It's a feel good movie with an edge of angst and pain and realism--
misconceptions, losing friends, deciding what to do with your life. I think
everyone regardless of race, age, socioeconomic standing can pull something from
this movie and really enjoy it. So take a couple hours out of a lazy day and check
out this film; there are much worse ways you could spend your time.
At the surface COOLEY HIGH is a snappy ensemble comedy masquerading as a period
piece (set in the early 60's, complete with a flawless Motown soundtrack). But
there's SO much more to this film - it gets better every time I see it. The cast of
unknowns (at the time) is excellent, and it is notable as an all-black-cast film
that doesn't fall into any Blaxpoitation clichés - at times COOLEY HIGH almost
feels like an updated, urban neo-realist film, with lots of edgy humor added in. At
times, the rather tight budget does show, but the constraints actually serve the
film well - there's a grit and honesty of emotion here that lends the film an
immediacy lacking in most similar-minded films (like Schultz' later CAR WASH, which
was more popular, but largely pointless) Warm-hearted but also true-to-life, this
might be one of THE sleepers of the 70s - celebrated at the time, it seems that few
film freaks know about this one today. Their loss - this is a fine, fine
film. The bare-bones pan-and-scan DVD (no widescreen!?!) is testament to
just how little cared-for this excellent film is.
Postwar England, the dawn of the "atomic age". Yet, the worries of a young
schoolboy yearning to experience his first "kiss" cannot be derailed by something
as inconsequential as THE BOMB. This was a delightful if not educational look at
young love from the vantage point of an adolescent male and his world of the 1940's. Free of political correctness and preachy messages, this film
exposes the viewer to the world that only the mind (and hormones) of a
young teenager can create. Wonderful subplots maintain character
interest ala "Gregory's Girl", and plenty of well blocked shots help
keep up the imagery of this era. This is a very good story for anyone, young or
old, who has ever been in love, or ever wanted to be. Does he ever get
his wish? Watch it and see.
This film held my interest from the beginning to the very end with plenty of laughs
and real down to earth acting by the entire cast. Glynn Turman, (Preach Jackson) is
the star of the picture playing the role of a smart guy who likes poetry and had a
very sexy girl friend. Lawrence Hilton Jacobs, (Cochise Morris) was an outstanding
athlete at the Cooley H.S. and even won a scholarship to a famous college. There
are scenes in this picture with the Chicago Police Department chasing all these
dudes in a Cadillac and a visit to the Lincoln Park Zoo with monkey dung being
thrown around. The music is outstanding and there is great photography around the
City of Chicago. Great Film, enjoy.
The movie was very good when it came out, I attended Cooley High and Cooley upper
grade center ,around 1968 i was also home coming queen and grew up and lived in the
area of Cabrini Greens, i knew a lots of people in the movie, it was nice to see
friends in the movie that lived in the area also, and they had a chance to be a
star that may have been a once in a life time experience for them, i had good times
growing up on the north side and tough times i can relate to the movie Cooley High
is no longer standing but a person like myself and others still remember the fun we
had growing up attending Cooley High, there is a lot of history around this north
side area to be told .
Cooley High was actually a drama with moments of comedy. It was a reflection of
high school life back in the day. I attended Coolidge High in Washington, D.C. from
1976 to 1979 and much of what was in Cooley High was an every day thing at
Coolidge. As a matter of fact after the movie came out everybody started calling
Coolidge "Cooley High." Getting high, shooting dice, chasing girls, basement
parties, and fights, that sums up high school life for many in D.C. back in the
day. I can't forget Motown because Motown music began and ended many a day back in
the 70s. The hits just kept coming. However, Cooley High adds a layer of humanity
over the craziness because when all was said and done just like in Cooley High my
classmates and I had a lot of love for each other. And like the characters in
Cooley High there was life after high school, but there was nothing like waking up
every morning and experiencing each day to the fullest from homeroom to seventh
period. Thirty years later we are getting ready to celebrate those good times.
Cooley High is definitely a period piece that just gets better with time because
like it or not the only thing left from those days are memories, some good, and
some bad.
This this coming of age dramedy set in Chicago in the early 60's, we follow a group
of highschool friends as they navigate through the ups and downs of their lives.
The two central characters are Leroy "Preach" Jackson (Turman) and his best friend
Richard "Cochise" Morris (Hilton-Jacobs.) Both of these boys have promising
futures. Preach is a great writer but a lazy student, and Cochise has just received
a college scholarship for basketball. When they're not hanging out at the local
diner shooting craps with their friends, or hanging out at a friends house or
chasing girls, they're skipping school, riding the trains through Chicago or going
to quarter parties on the weekends. Things go wrong when Preach and
Cochise make the mistake of getting involved with two hoods and go joyriding in a
stolen car. The police pursue them and they are arrested. But thanks to the efforts
of a concerned teacher (SNL's Garrett Morris) they are released. But the two hoods
are not, and vow to get revenge on Preach and Cochise, thinking they blamed the
whole thing on them. This movie is very episodic, but it still works
because thats what life is, a series of episodes. Some funny, some sad, some
romantic, some bizarre. The film never gets boring because all the characters are
so well played and realistic, and the situations are all believable and relatable.
Like Preach romantically pursuing a beautiful girl, or a party turning violent when
some asshole decides to start a fight, or dealing with a bratty younger sibling.
But even when a situation isn't personally relatable, like the guys pretending to
be undercover cops to con a hooker out of some money so they could get all their
friends into a movie, the sequence is still hilarious. 'Cooley High' was
the basis for the classic 70's sitcom 'What's Happenin!' which aired on ABC from
1976-1979. Even though the show is most famous for the character Rerun, he is not
in this film, nor is there any character remotely like him. The humor of that show
was very broad, but still funny. The humor of 'Cooley High' is truer to life, and
thus more entertaining. Additionally, the soundtrack is wonderful.
Classic songs from that period by Diana Ross & The Supremes, The Temptations,
Martha & the Vandellas, and Smokey Robinson play throughout the film, adding to the
fun, youthful, exuberant tone of the film.
...instead, watch it as a great coming of age tale about African American males in
the mid 1960's in the ghettos of Chicago. For all of you out there under the age of
50, "What's Happening" was a light-hearted rather quirky sitcom with very few
serious moments that lasted four years (1975-1979) concerning a group of young
African American high school kids living in a working class neighborhood. I liked
it a great deal - it just has no real connection to this film. "Cooley High"
started out as being the basis for "What's Happening", but its serious nature did
not register well with test audiences, so it was redone as a comedy, even though
the credits on "What's Happening" still read that it was based on this movie. This film starts out light, but touches many aspects of life unique to the
turbulent 1960's and also some other aspects of growing up that are timeless. The
guys deal with sex, betrayal, joblessness, hopelessness, and even early death. The
ending is quite powerful and serious, and the film has a great Motown soundtrack.
Highly recommended. Unfortunately, this film is not new enough to be played on
premium cable channels and not considered old enough to be considered a classic
movie and played in the few venues for those films either.
Cooley High is considered one of my best all time movies. It certainly reminds me
of days of my youth growing up in the cities of Cleveland and Chicago during the
early, mid, and late 1960's. What ever happened to Brenda and Pooter? Some one
need's to track those two down. Brenda for her beauty and Pooter for his innocent
wit. They both deserve to be recognized even 31 years after this film was debuted.
I think a lot of the fans of this movie would like to find out what happened to
them as well as others who acted in this fun filled movie. I certainly think this
movie should be entered into some type of MOVIE HALL OF FAME. All of the cast of
this movie was great. My opinion is of " Cooley High " is turn back the hands of
time, those were the fun years.
Cooley High is such a great film that even with the period's sound track, urban
landscape, wardrobe and slang...it still doesn't feel dated. The sound track by the
way is a timeless classic in itself. Instead it absorbs you right into
it. That is a staple of a good movie. From start to finish it doesn't miss a beat
and I never grow tired of watching it. It's ending is unique in the
respect that it's one of the saddest and at the same time uplifting of all movie
endings. There may have been a few since (Backdraft comes to mind) but Cooley was
the first and much more emotional.
"Cooley High" is one of my favorite movies EVER!!! I think I saw this movie years
ago on late night TV with my mother when I was little and I thought it was so
funny. This movie was also referred to as a "black American Graffiti". Glynn Turman
is wonderful as Preach and Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs is great as Preach's friend
Cochise. There are some other great characters in it as well, and this movie has a
lot of humor packed into it. From the beginning of the movie where Cochise goes to
Preach's home to get ready for school to the sad ending of Cochise's funeral, this
movie is one that will get you laughing all the way. There are a lot of scenes in
this film that I like a lot. The scene where Pooter (another one of Preach and
Cochise's friends) go to the zoo with them and gets the gorilla's feces thrown on
his shirt (very gross, but funny as well), the first scene in the street corner
cafeteria, the quarter party at this girl's house which became a disaster due to a
fight, and some others are wonderful to watch. This movie even has a wonderful
companion soundtrack album, which is packed with a lot of wonderful Motown hits and
artists from the early 60s (only 6 songs on the soundtrack were done in '75, while
the rest were from the '60s). The movie is mainly about two friends who dream about
getting away from their impoverished and rough neighborhood after high school, but
their futures seem almost out of reach, due to their innocent joy ride in a stolen
car that two other hoods were responsible for, and Preach's relationship with his
girlfriend, Brenda (played by Cynthia Davis) almost gets put in jeopardy. Go out
and rent or buy this movie, and be ready for a load of comical entertainment!!! Get
the soundtrack, too. It is a lot of fun as well!!!
This was the very first movie I ever saw in my life back in 1974 or 1975. I was 4
years old at the time and saw it at a drive-in theatre. I did not grasp that this
would be a classic at the time (I went to sleep about twenty minutes into the
movie). After seeing it on the television-along with two of my other favourite
movies Car Wash (my favourite movie) and The Wiz which seemed to come on every year
about the same time all together-about 40, 50, 75 times I knew that here was a
movie that I would have as one of my favourites. Those three movies were the only
live action shows that I could watch as a child. I would not consider
this to be a blaxploitation movie but rather an urban interest movie.Cochise and
Preach reminded me of some of my uncles especially the Wild Irish Rose that they
drank. My mother also told me about some of the quarter parties that she attended
and that some of the things that occurred in the movie were similar in nature to
what occurred in real life. If you are one of the two or three black people over
thirty who hasn't seen this movie yet then I recommend that you buy the DVD right
now. I'm glad that I was around to witness some of the goings on of the era.
Read This: BOYZ 'N THE HOOD IS A SCENE-BY-SCENE, COMPLETE RIP-OFF OF
THIS MOVIE. Two friends in the hood, one's focused on intellectual
pursuits and the other is an athlete. The friend who's an athlete gets involved
with the wrong people and gets killed. (The athlete just happens to be Washington
from 'Welcome Back, Kotter'.) It makes me mad that people don't know
this. It blows my mind everytime I go into a video store and Boyz 'n the Hood is in
the 'Drama' section while Cooley High is in 'Comedy'. It's an embarrassing
disgrace. This movie is both funnier and more dramatic than John Singleton's rip-
off. At least Singleton could have had the dignity to speak out that his film was
homage to Cooley High, but no, he never said a word. Boys 2 Men, however, named
their hit record after this film.
There is a great danger when you watch a film that had had such a profound affect
on you the first time around , that 20 years later , it wont hold the same magic as
it did before. I must admit i wasnt expecting it to be as good as i remembered but
a was pleasently suprised. P'tang Yang Kipperbang is still as fantastic as i
remember it when i was a 12 year old .This film has a certain type of brilliance
that not many films possess. It is engrossing , it is briliantly acted and best of
all it makes me feel like a kid again and there isnt many things that can do that.
John Albasiny and Abigail Cruttenden's rolls in this film are 1st class and i had
forgotten how good they were until now. I urge any parent of teenagers to sit them
down and watch this and see if it has the same affect on them as it did on me.
P'TANG YANG KIPPERBANG EEHHH! 10 out of 10.
This film set the standard for African-American film excellence when it was made. I
heard on various stories on the film through time, that there was a push for an
Academy Award nomination when it was released. This film plays on various emotions,
and you definitely feel for all of the characters. Sure, some of the acting is a
little wooden, but fortunately, those parts aren't pivotal. The music is
sensational, and if you don't think the ending is a tear-jerker, you have no heart
in your chest. If you watch "Cooley High", you will see that many, many films have
copied various elements from it in order to strengthen their own films. The biggest
example of this is "Boyz N The Hood".
Now, I am not prone to much emotion, but I cried seeing this movie. It certainly
has more appeal among blacks than other ethnic groups, but there is something here
for everyone. The classic song "It's so Hard to Say Goodbye" really makes this one
worth watching at least once.
Shameless Screen Entertainment is a relatively new and British (I think) DVD-label,
specializing in smutty and excessively violent cult movies mostly Italian ones -
from the glorious eras when everything was possible, namely from the late 60's up
until the mid-80's. The label's selection feels like a crossover between the
oeuvres of "Mondo Macabro" and "No Shame" (they probably even borrowed the name of
the latter) and they already released some really rare sick Italian puppies like
"Ratman", "My Dear Killer", "Killer Nun", "Phantom of Death" and "Torso". "The
Frightened Woman" was completely unknown to me, but since fellow reviewers from
around here, whose opinions I hugely value, described it as one of the greatest and
most mesmerizing psychedelic euro-sexploitation movies of its era, I didn't
hesitate to pick it up. This is a very weird film and probably not suitable for
about 99% of the average cinema-loving audiences. If you're part of that remaining
1%, however, you're in for a really unique treat. The style, atmosphere and content
are similar to Jess Franco's "Succubus" and Massimo Dallamano's "Venus in Furs",
yet they're both widely considered as classics whereas "The Frightened Woman" is
virtually unknown. It's all a matter of profiling and good marketing, I guess. The
story revolves on a literally filthy rich doctor (he lives in a gigantic secluded
mansion, owns multiple old-timer cars and has a very impressive collection of artsy
relics including a life-size mannequin doll replica of himself) with a bizarre and
slightly offbeat attitude towards women. He considers them a threat for the
survival of the male race and thus spends his days kidnapping, humiliating and
sexually abusing random he picks up from the street. Dr. Sayer then abducts the
ambitious journalist Maria with the intention to completely crush her female
spirit, but he slowly falls for her. Just he starts to believe in actual love, she
strikes back with a vengeance. This really isn't for everyone, but if you can
appreciate moody & sinisterly sexy ambiances, bizarre scenery toys and psychedelic
touches that seem utterly implausible and surreal, you can consider this one a top
recommendation. It's slow, stylishly sleazy and totally bonkers Shameless
Entertainment, all right!
Dr. Sayer(Philippe Leroy), a wealthy physician with psychological issues regarding
the opposite sex, kidnaps an employee, Maria(Dagmar Lassander), a free-thinking
liberal woman who believes men must be the ones "fixed" instead of females. Sayer
retreats to his palatial estate, running Maria through a humiliating series of mind
games, threatening to molest and kill her. Sayer's desire, it seems, is to dominate
her body, mind and soul, making her his sexual slave, obeying his commands,
adhering to his every wish and whim. After resistance, at first, Maria slowly
teeters towards his objective, but has plans of her own..she says she wishes to
help Sayer relinquish his sadistic behavior towards women, so that he could love
and not feel such yearning desires to harm. It seems that Sayer has her under his
grip, agreeing to certain rather embarrassing scenarios(..such as lotioning his
toes, "making love" to a blow-up doll which is a recreation of himself, often
spending time topless, and even getting hosed down when she slaps him hard across
the face bringing blood from his nose)which almost break her, but something happens
as the troubled doctor slowly falls in love with Maria..and through what appears to
be a desperate attempt to end the madness, Maria gains an upper hand, toying with
Sayer's lust for her body. More of a battle of wills, a kind of sexual
warfare where it seems one is in charge when in fact the other truly has the upper
hand. Through a great deal of the film, Sayer mistreats Maria, forcing her(..it
seems)to submit to his series of psychological games of a sexual nature. Her
attempts to escape fail because his home is such a well designed fortress..it's a
typical European art deco kind of palace, fashioned and orchestrated by a man who
has kept to this weekend retreat of his for quite a spell(..it features walls and
doors opening at his command, with an area quarantined off for his "victims"). But,
once Maria seemingly downs a bottle of pills as a result of her anguish at his
hands, the tables are turned and she has him where she wants him. He finds that he
actually craves her and Maria uses this to her advantage, playing hard to get when
Sayer wishes to embrace and ravage her(..and, I could understand his frustration
because she has this allure that can drive a man crazy) I felt the film
works, ultimately, as a war cry for women, their empowerment and uprising against
men who have the notion that they should always have control, sexually and
mentally. The "twist" finalizes this ideal. I couldn't swallow Sayer's fate because
of his rigorous cardiovascular activity and exercise regimen..we see how he
develops his toned athletic figure, and how this regimen is part of the normal
routine every weekend before the true mind games with his victim begin. If he is so
well fit, and spends such time developing himself for the extracurricular
activities which follow his regimen, how could he suffer the fate which follows his
finalizing the deal with Maria at the end when she stops resisting his advances?
 Maria, he would later admit, is the first he's actually kidnapped;
others from the past, call-girls, were paid for their services so that Sayer could
feel the power of dominating a woman, even if it's all a fictitious charade brought
about by a deeply troubled individual with an inability to connect with the
opposite sex. The spontaneous decision to do so, to take a leap from the norm,
costs him more than he could ever know. All this psycho-sexual sub-text
is rather fascinating to see unravel, but Dagmar Lassander, such a yummy sex
kitten, was my reason for enjoying it so..without her, I couldn't have liked it as
much because she's vital as a victim worth striving to obtain. Perhaps the film's
highlight, the delicious dance as Lassander, clothed in gauze(!), unravels the
wardrobe exposing her breasts to a jazzy score..it's the kind of sexually seductive
moment that makes your mouth water and forehead sweat. Dagmar Lassander must've
been a joy for fashion designers because she wears those clothes so well..she has
this kind of cool, a sophistication and screen presence along with her beauty and
seductive powers, Dagmar transcends the part to create an iconic character which
would define her career..even if the film isn't well known(..I found about through
word of mouth). The provocative nature of the script and risqué subject matter
might not appeal to certain crowds as it deals with sex(..and pain) in many
different forms, the dialogue quite illustrative and elaborative. At times, I
couldn't help but chuckle at Sayer's comments towards an imprisoned Maria,
regarding how he enjoys making women suffer, and the thrill he gets at forcing them
into a type of slavery(..in an attempt to make the words poetic, it all feels
rather hokey). But, Dagmar is the real reason to see it, and the film, to me, works
at it's best as a fetish film, a possible male fantasy with this seemingly prim and
proper idealist, captured and held against her will, forced into a precarious
situation, her fate possibly at the mercy of a complex and possibly dangerous
masochist. Her submission, and how she reacts towards his aggressive behavior with
her(..there are times where she unfolds to a wavering desire to embrace him,
unveiling a possible attraction towards him which, in itself, might startle some
who watch it)are among the most fascinating highlights of this exploitation
feature. My other favorite scene, besides the dance, is the piano concerto with
Sayer fondling Maria as she plays a soothing melody.
If you need that instant buzz that only late 60s/early 70s Euro sex movies can give
off, then look no further for you have just stumbled across the mother lode !
Subsequent TV director Schivazappa's exercise in psychedelic porn (of the soft core
variety) may not generally be considered as a classic of its kind but it knocks
many better known titles from the likes of Tinto Brass, Jess Franco and Joe D'Amato
for a loop. Radley Metzger sure was hip to this way before anyone else when he
picked up this marvelously twisted little number for US distribution through his
company Audubon. Gorgeous cinematography (favouring symmetrical compositions) may
elicit cries of 'pretentiousness' from those who swear by shoddy skin flicks shot
in someone's backyard. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, it's their loss for this is
one thrill ride of a movie with twists so, well, twisted that you may not even
believe them after you have actually witnessed them on screen ! Dagmar Lassander
(immortalized as the gone to seed landlady from Lucio Fulci's HOUSE BY THE
CEMETERY) has never looked more exquisite than she does here, subtly portraying the
innocent (?) researcher held hostage by mad medic Philippe Leroy (with all the art-
house favorites to his name, you wonder whether he has the good humor to mention
this one on his c.v.) as their initially violent 'relationship' turns to S&M-tinged
love story. Nothing is what it seems however in this sick and imaginative gem of a
movie with several truly erotic moments achieved with surprisingly minimal nudity.
I for one was completely baffled and enchanted by the way Schivazappa chose to
suggest oral sex during one scene (I'll let you find that one out for
yourselves...) and Lassander's gauze-clad boogie to an impossibly groovy 60s tune
should have become iconic in a way similar to the image of Sylvia Kristel reclining
in that wicker chair in her EMMANUELLE days. You may not know this film just yet,
but trust me, once seen you'll never forget it !!!
It could not have come from a different country nor from a different time. This
movie simply oozes psychedelia influenced late 60s Italian cinema. So, pseudo
serious and sexually free. Sumptuous settings and dreamy music make this a visual
and aural delight. Plus we get the lovely Dagmar Lassander, surely at her very best
looking. The kinky goings on make for a wild ride and if the romps amidst the
Mimosa towards the end seem overlong it is but another rather charming trait of the
time. You were probably expected to split those few minutes between the screen and
your girlfriend and it does of course herald a twist in the proceedings. It might
have been better if Philippe Leroy didn't look quite so odd with his fraying red
hair and twisted facial expression. He does well though and has many silent moments
where Dagmar is cavorting and he has to show a mixture of love and hate. Not an
ordinary narrative film by any means but for those who like that something
different, this is certainly that.
I had a great time watching Femina Ridens a couple of mornings back, somewhat
hungover. For most of the film its pretty much a two hander, showing the games and
weird relationship of crazy doctor Philipe Leroy and stunning Dagmar Lassander. I'd
seen her before in a couple of Fulci films dying gruesome deaths, but here she is
young hip and beautiful. The film is pretty predictable and certainly mild on the
exploitation front, but entertaining throughout owing too its marvellous colourful
kitsch feel. The set design, music, lighting and cinematography are all classic
late sixties Italian style, a surreal feast for the eyes and ears and though the
general thread of the plot is not too difficult to foresee there are more than
enough unusual events and memorably bizarre sights and sounds to keep things
interesting throughout. Both leads are pretty good, and it bears repeating that
Dagmar Lassander is really, really fine. The music, by Stelvo Cipriani is gnarly
too, perfectly suited to the images. Director Pierro Schivazappa has come up with
quite a cracker here, but its not perfect. Though very alluring, there's little
substance here and the exploitation elements are about as mild as can be. I guess
this gives it a sort of charm and innocence but I can't help thinking that the
subject matter could have done with more sleaze, more threat, that sorta thing,
especially since its pretty simple to figure whats going to happen. This is I
suspect a bit pointless for stronger exploitation fans and certainly not for people
wanting sex or much nudity. Its more of a light, fun pop art affair, lovable but
insubstantial, like bubble bath. Recommended mainly for those fond of the 60's,
Dagmar Lassander, or sweet set designs.
As with FOOTPRINTS (1975), I became aware of this one purely by accident: it was
mentioned in a review of THE LIBERTINE (1969), which I researched when that film
turned up on late-night Italian TV, as being in a similar vein; incidentally, I
missed out on that screening of THE LIBERTINE (though I acquired it via the same
channel later on) but did manage to watch the film by way of a rental of the
English-dubbed R1 DVD during my sojourn in Hollywood in late 2005/early 2006.
Actually, in view of the enthusiastic reviews for it, I was let down by THE
LIBERTINE – being too light-hearted in nature for what was essentially a serious
theme (the sado-masochistic relationship between a young couple)!; to be honest,
for much of the time, I was afraid that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN would go the exact
same route…but was subsequently amply redeemed by a wicked (if not exactly
unpredictable) final twist. The film concerns the freethinking social
attitudes and dazzling creative arts prevalent in this era: an eminent
philanthropist (Philippe Leroy) invites a female journalist (Dagmar Lassander) at
his fashionable home for the week-end; however, it transpires that he’s a
misogynist who distrusts all members of the opposite sex and would rather dominate
(or even kill) them! Therefore, for the first half of the narrative, we see the
heroine enduring pain and humiliation at Leroy’s hands (including being forced to
make love to a dummy in his own image!)…until the tables are subtly, but
unsurprisingly, turned: she not only emancipates herself from his control, but
teaches him that Man and Woman can co-exist harmoniously – except that Lassander’s
following her own personal agenda as well!! The leads are perfectly
cast, and the film itself often darkly comic for those in the mood; furthermore,
it’s greatly abetted by a typically effervescent “Euro-Cult” score (from the ever-
reliable Stelvio Cipriani) and the imaginative – even outré – look (the giant
structure depicting the lower section of the female form, with a steel-trap where
its sexual organ should be, seems to emanate from Freud: incidentally, this prop
figured prominently in stills I’d seen previously from THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN…but it
barely registers in the film proper!). Other bizarre touches include the
preposterous radio program “Sexual Aberrations And The Stars”, and an idyll at a
castle belonging to Leroy’s family complete with secret passage through the
wardrobe and a dwarfish manservant. One of the highlights, then, is easily
Lassander’s erotic dance virtually in the nude – an episode which actually
spearheads the ‘humanization’ of Leroy; eventually, the two characters have a
‘showdown’ in the latter’s pool – amusingly set to a Spaghetti Western-type theme!
 In the long run, for all its stylishness, the film emerges as inferior
to the similar but much more extreme contemporaneous Japanese masterpiece by Yasuzo
Masumura BLIND BEAST (1969). Finally, it’s worth noting that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN
was distributed in the U.S. by film-maker Radley Metzger’s company Audubon Films;
he would even employ its production designer (Enrico Sabbatini) for his own CAMILLE
2000 (1969)! To get to the edition I watched: apart from the usual shortcomings in
the English-dubbing department, the presentation here was further marred by a
rather washed-out appearance and brief instances of distracting extraneous noise on
the soundtrack! By the way, there seems to be some confusion with respect to the
film’s running-time: its length given on various sources ranges anywhere from 84 to
108 minutes – all I can say, however, is that the copy I own ran for 87 minutes!
From today's point of view it is quite ridiculous to rate this film 18 (or X in the
US). The film has a sexual, yet sublime erotic story to tell, but the pictures are
rather innocent. Throughout the movie you feel and see the spirit of the late 60s
and early 70s in the fashion, the dialogues and the typical experimental
cinematography and lighting. And this is exactly the part that makes it worth
seeing.
One year after 'Love Thy Neighbour' made its I.T.V. debut, it followed the route
taken by 'On The Buses' and 'Steptoe & Son' by graduating onto the big screen, in a
picture made by Hammer Films. It opens with a stirring patriotic speech lauding the
virtues of England's green and pleasant land, then cuts to a shot of Eddie and Bill
walking up a street, arguing furiously. This escalates into a strange sequence of
white and black neighbours vandalising their each other's homes. At least the
original theme tune is retained ( even if it is sung by someone other than Stuart
Gillies ). The local paper - 'The Gazette' - is holding a contest to
find the best neighbours, the winners landing a Mediterranean cruise. Barbie
suggests to Joan that they should enter. The thing is, can Bill and Eddie stay
friends long enough to win it? That's the main part of the plot. The film is by and
large episodic. One chunk is lifted directly from Season 1, namely Bill and Eddie
going to the Club pretending to be on 'union business'. In reality they're going to
see a stripper ( not meeting two girls ). Another portion of the movie has Bill,
along with other black factory workers ( in the series he was the only one ),
breaking a strike Eddie has helped bring about by various ploys ( including being
smuggled in through the gates in beer barrels ). While another ( seemingly inspired
by Powell and Driver's 'For The Love Of Ada' ) sees Eddie's talkative mother ( the
magnificent Patricia Hayes ) getting friendly with Bill's father ( Charles
Hyatt ). The climax to Episode 1 Season 1 reappears in an expanded form.
Bill once more puts on paint and a towel to terrify Eddie, but his friends join
him, and they dance round a drum containing a naked Booth, so that they can pretend
to cook and eat him. Eddie then has to make his way home in the nude
( surprisingly, there is less nudity here than there was in Episode 2 Season
2 ). The film ends with the Reynolds and the Booths winning the 'Love
Thy Neighbour' contest, and taking the cruise together, but there's an unexpected
twist involving Joan's sex-mad brother Cyril ( James Beck - 'Private Walker' of
'Dad's Army' ), who is working as a steward. This is your typical '70's
sitcom-into-movie, with all the faults usually prevalent in such films. The laughs
are scattered about, and interest wanes after about half an hour. The cast is
augmented by familiar faces such as Melvyn Hayes ( cast as 'Terry', a character
from Episode 2 Season 1, played on that occasion by Leslie Meadows ), Bill Fraser (
as the factory manager ), Anna Dawson, Andria Lawrence ( who seems to have been in
every '70's British comedy film, mostly cast as nymphomaniacs ), and Arthur
English. The director, John Robins, was also responsible for the 'Man About The
House' movie. Funniest moment - while Eddie sleeps in a quiet part of
the factory, Bill paints his face black. The first he knows of it is when the
manager's secretary screams in terror. The tables have been turned!
Just as a reminder to anyone just now reading the comments on this excellent BBC
mini-series, published in 1981, it was not available on DVD until the last few
years. Since then, it has become available, but initially only in the British
format (for which I bought an 'international' DVD player, which you have to hack--
illegally, I suspect, to see it), but the series is now available through
amazon.com--3 discs-- for between $19-21, to be viewed on DVD in the US format, no
hacking. There were 41 reviews, average 5 stars. This mini-series is one of the
very best on Oppenheimer, or the Manhattan Project, or virtually anything produced
by the BBC.
This is a great comedy, highlighting what it was like to live next door to racist
bigot. But also shows that both main characters are actually as bad as each other.
Based on the hit ITV comedy, this is very politically incorrect. And its all the
better for it, comedy after all is to entertain. The movies only real drawback is
there isnt much of a plot. However the cast are as great as usual. Jack Smethurst
and Rudolph Walker make one hell of a team, playing off each other in a
oneupmanship kind of way.It's been many years since i saw this movie and last week
was finally able to buy it on dvd. The fact that the movie still contains genuine
laugh out loud moments, means that i can recommend this movie, just like i would of
back in the 1970's.
A slick production which holds the interest from the very first scene where Max is
choosing a ring in a jeweller's shop. Much of what follows reminds us of
Shakespeare's "A Mid-summer Night's Dream" in which Demetrius and Lysander fall in
love with each other's girl-friends. Here Max and Lucien both prone to love at
first sight get mixed up with Lisa and Alice, and Alice complicates things when she
calls herself Lisa. On top of the merry mix-up, Max is inclined to get involved in
incidents which bring back memories of two years ago. And because Max has a lot of
these dreamy episodes we are subjected to one flashback after another,too many in
my opinion because at first viewing of the film , I wasn't quite sure if I was in
the present or the past.There is much running down corridors, stairways, through
doorways, into elevators etc. I accept all that in a fast-paced film but do we have
to have so many people colliding with each other? After four collisions it ceases
to have any impact, if you'll excuse the pun. High marks for art design! The
apartment itself is really beautiful with its tasteful decor, but I do ask myself
how a couple of young women can afford such luxury in Paris. Saving a person intent
on suicide from jumping out of a window is always exciting and it is in this film
too when Max almost exits at the same time. However a kiss or two soon makes him
feel better. If you can manage to find your way through all the flashbacks, you'll
finally find yourself at the airport where Max's devoted sister gives him a most
affectionate kiss. It can be said it is she who resolves the complications of love,
like Puck in a "Mid-summer Night's Dream".
A movie visually graceful but interesting is mainly the plot. The film depicts a
zigzag progress of exploring the main actor's innermost feeling. Max, who has lived
in New York for two years and intend to marry a girl he met there, comes back to
Paris and unexpectedly meets his ex-girlfriend whom he still fancies very much but
finally finds out the one he loves the most in fact is her best friend. Non-linear
narration thus many flashbacks and every part are articulated quite well. The three
women Max has met symbolize something we must pursue although possibly having no
clear picture about the underlying motivations. His fiancee is the one he needs
rather than the one he loves and thus completely no loyalty we can see. She gives
him also no love but only stability. True love also cannot be found in his relation
with the ex-girlfriend. Merely a fantasy for him to escape - many things very
romantic he has done for her but almost nothing seems amenable. The one who really
animates Max's life in fact is her best friend. The equilibrium achieved at the end
is not identical to the initial equilibrium because Max has understand much more
about his innermost feeling. The nonlinear structure makes the progress of
searching look more complicated. Not equally ingenious as "Pulp Fiction" but things
seem much more natural in "The Apartment". Max is not the only character who
undergoes a transformation and in fact interesting is also the description to
Romane Bohringer. The good cinematography also makes her and Monica Bellucci look
very beautiful. A good commentary of today's love and undoubtedly a film worth
seeing. 
This is easily my favourite film. A tragic romance intertwined with a complex
mystery whose threads are all but invisible until they all unravel at the end in
one fantastic rush. Sheer brilliance. I'd love to see some more of
Gilles Mimouni's work, but at least according to imdb, he hasn't made any other
features. Has the high quality of this work made producing another too daunting a
task? Has he moved (back) into some other sphere of creative endeavour? I certainly
hope this won't be his final feature but I can't really blame him if he decides to
stop with this gem as his only contribution to the world of feature films.
So here's a bit of background on how I came to see this movie. As you probably
know, this is the original French film, that was then remade (quelle surprise) by
Hollywood as Wicker Park. Well I avoided that movie like the plague when it was
first released, simply because, a) I knew it had absolutely nothing to do with
Wicker Park, and living in Chicago, I didn't see why they called it that - it was
filmed in fricking Canada for a start! - b) I have a very hard time bothering with
pointless remakes, done purely because Hollywood thinks we're too bone idle to read
a few subtitles (I am dreading the remake of Infernal Affairs by the way) and c) I
can't stand Josh Hartnett, 'nuff said there. However, I came across WP
on TV the other day, probably about half an hour in, and I have to say initially,
it made no sense at all, until about half an hour from the end, when it started
coming together. By the end, I was really surprised to find myself really into it,
and then the ending just seemed so good - a perfect combination of story, passion
and ending with possibly one of the greatest musical choices I've ever seen
(heard??). Since then I've heard a lot about the L'Appartement vs.
Wicker Park argument and looking at WP, I still say it has bugger all to do with
Chicago, but there seemed something about it that I liked, so when it was on again,
I watched it again - unfortunately, still missing the first chunk (I've still yet
to see it!), and I still thought it was pretty good. Heck, even Josh Hartnett
seemed good! But I was curious about L'Appartement and wanted to see what all the
fuss was about. So I waited and waited to catch l'Appartement somewhere somehow.
Netflix let me down, so I ended up getting a copy from some website in Ireland. And
I've just watched it. It's really kind of weird, but a good weird. A
classic French film. Great acting, Romane Bohringer is an absolute gem - sorry, but
she acts Monica Bellucci off the screen in every scene. Vincent Cassel was a weird
choice for the lead but by the end he works. And I've seen Jean-Philippe Ecoffey in
a lot of movies and I just love him - the scene where Alice dumps him in the
restaurant and he just looks like someone's told him his puppy's been run over was
excruciating! But, I can honestly say, having seen WP and pretty much expecting
that to have been a scene for scene copy (as about 75% of the rest of the movie had
been - maybe in a different order, but come on, the scene with the coffee in the
glasses?? Word for word!!), you can imagine my surprise when I watched the ending
of L'Appartement!! I can literally say I was blown away - hmm, a bit like poor old
Lucien was through the cafe window really! So, be prepared, if you've seen Wicker
Park and you fancy taking a look at the original like I did, do not make the
mistake of expecting an identical movie, because you'll either be disappointed, or
exhilarated at a piece of French movie history - a prime example of how you can
watch a movie, think you're going to watch a pithy happy ending, and get whiplash
from the total spin in the opposite direction right at the end. Definitely catch
this movie. Oh and while you're at, maybe not too near the same time, but down the
road, take a look at Wicker Park, it'll surprise you too.
Gilles Mamouni is playing with the audience with the story of Max (Vincent Cassel)
in search of his biggest lost love (Monica Bellucci) just before to get engaged to
another woman. Mamouni uses many flashbacks sequences without warning so the best
way to know where we are in the story is to watch for the actor's haircut. Oherwise
it can get very confusing... Still a strong film debut for Mamouni, beautifully
photographed by Thierry Arbogast (the 5th element, the Messenger), and Monica
Bellucci is a darling to watch ... I felt a little disappointed near the end so I
gave it 9 out of 10.
I loved this. It starts out as a fairly normal, slightly ponderous French art movie
and then all of a sudden, halfway through it's turned on it's head. This part is
brilliant as you realise you have been watching 2 plots not one. Sadly, the ending
doesn't make much sense, which is a great shame. Oh yes, and it's brilliantly
filmed.
This is a wonderful thriller I watched many times and never can get enough of.It's
all about the obsessive love 5 people have for eachother in Paris, (un)lucky
coincidences, false identities.The music makes it really gripping.There are hardly
any flaws in the characters,just the end is not very credible,but a definite "must-
see" still.
A very enjoyable french film. This film has many twists and turns in the plot and
is superb. I have found that when I lend this DVD out to a friend it seems to do
the rounds before getting back to me!! It is really all about a man making sure he
finds the right girl to settle down with.
several years ago i saw this film, without subtitles, on television, and despite me
not understanding a word of what the characters were saying i still got the general
idea, and the mood of the film fascinated me no ends. at long last i saw
it again a few weeks ago. my heart skipped when i saw the picture in the television
guide, and for 8 days until the film was really shown i told everybody i knew to go
and see it. the story reminded me a bit of alfred hitchcock's vertigo. a slow,
brooding film about a guy who one day believes he sees the girlfriend that
disappeared years before. what follows is a wild rollercoaster ride of flashbacks,
changing perspectives and really inventive twists in the plot, and at the end of
the film i was left breathless. i had definitely not got what i had expected (and i
had actually already seen the film!). be prepared to be confused. 9 out
of 10
Like an earlier commentor, I saw it in 1980 and have never been able to shake the
memory of the gripping story, splendid acting, and dramatic musical score. It
certainly contains some of Sam Waterston's finest work. He and the writers depict
Oppenheimer not simply as an unjustly victimized hero -- which he was -- but also
as naive, fond of alcohol, and snobbish, a rounded portrait instead of a
stereotype.
Not all movies should have that predictable ending that we are all so use to, and
it's great to see movies with really unusual twists. However with that said, I was
really disappointed in l'apartment's ending. In my opinion the ending didn't really
fit in with the rest of the movie and it basically destroyed the story that was
being told. You spend the whole movie discovering everyone and their
feelings but the events in the final 2 minutes of the movie would have impacted
majorly on everyones character but the movie ends and leaves it all too wide
open. Overall though this movie was very well made, and unlike similar
movies such as Serendipity all the scenes were believable and didn't go over the
top.
Magnificent, original, beautiful movie. The acting is great, the settings en decors
are superb (Paris at its best- but then the real Paris, not the famous settings)
and the music will do also. A brilliant storie, very detailed, which I just very
much love. The best French movie I've seen (and French cinema is very
good)!
I think the film makes a subtile reference to rouge of Kieslowski, as the whole
atmosphere gives me a feeling of red. It seems to be that a lot of the backgrounds
contain red, think of the tea-room f.e. I also think this is one of the greatest
movies of the last years.
L'Appartement is, I think, a very purposeful Hitchcockian film. The plot was rife
with symbolism (ie the white and red roses) and plot twists which wrapped
themselves up neatly. The look was very Parisian and pulled you closer to the
story. I saw it in London and very much regret that it is not out on video in the
states
An obsessive love story, where the characters have been extremely convincing. I
think this film highlights the talent of professional actors. Specially for Vincent
Cassel who wouldn't (at the time it was filmed) be the first character you think of
for such a role. And yes he did succeed to seduce the beautiful Monica Belluci,
beyond the film, during this creation. I can only say, that this film should have
been released at it is in the USA, instead of thinking of doing a remake. It is
simply so french, almost perverted....and yet so true...this film should stay
untouched... A director that should definitely get more projects as this
kind of subject requires the right amount of ingredients to not make it a flop..
In this tense and character-driven romantic tragi-comedy, we are given an insight
into the intertwining lives of four thirtysomething Parisians. At the centre is
Vinz Cassell's portrayal of Max. A starry-eyed Romeo, he falls head over heels for
beautiful stranger Lisa (Bellucci). Encouraged by his put-upon best friend Lucien
(Écoffey, in an understated but effective performance), he wins her heart and they
live happily ever after... that is, until the scheming, neurotic and obsessive
Alice (the versatile Romane Bohringer) becomes very involved in the lives and loves
of the other three. The rich plot is thickened by a curious
chronological jumble, and the movie emerges as an intricate jigsaw, the eye-candy
of picture-postcard Paris at the heart of it all. The use of colour does not go
unnoticed, particularly in Lisa's spectacular apartment (presumably accounting for
the film's title), where the reds and yellows provoke the fires of passion and
lust. The audience can relate to Max: he truly wears his heart on his
sleeve and is constantly punished by irony and circumstance for it. In one
memorable scene, our fated lovers (agonisingly separated by a 'choreographed'
misunderstanding) narrowly miss out on the chance meeting that would surely reunite
them. Independent of one another, they travel to the same destination: her on the
Metro, him in a taxi, practically tête-à-tête. Yet fate seems to have it in for
them, and the audience is captivatingly teased. The performances in this
film are really what make L'Appartement stand out. I still cannot understand why
Vincent Cassell is not a big star outside France. He has presence and diversity in
abundance. Monica Bellucci (Cassell's real-life spouse at the time of writing) has
recently found fame in the Anglophone film industry, but perhaps for the wrong
reasons - true, she is divinely beautiful, but behind that is a talented actress
who can dominate a scene in classic 'leading-lady' style, which many British and
American actresses dismiss in favour of the all-too-easy 'subtle' approach. All in all, watch this film! I doubt you'll be disappointed. It is
gripping, satisfying, amusing, sad, lavish, and a lesson in artistic film-making.
A lot has already been written about the film itself, so instead of adding to the
noise I just want to say a few words on the two female actors. It has to
be a daunting prospect for any actress to star, in a sense, versus the spectacular
Monica Bellucci, but Romane Bohringer pulls it off to sensational ends. A film
starring Monica Bellucci where I fall in love with the other girl?? That's not
supposed to happen. It's been said a thousand times, but Monica Bellucci
strikes the saddest figure in modern cinema. I have never before seen such innate
sadness. She would not be out of place breaking Lon Chaney's heart.
since the plot like Vertigo or Brian DePalma's Obsession, till to the score by
Peter Chase that reminds the sounds of Bernard Herrmann, this little pearl seems to
be sight from fews. Remarkable playing by Romane Boeringer and Vincent Cassel in a
bohemian Paris portrayed from the famous Thierry Arbogast. A little cult! It is a
pity that the only version available on DVD are the french one and the English.
Directed by a controversial artist as Gilles Mimouni, it could be considered a
little homage to the Cinema masterworks. It is a french movie, and as all of them,
not for all, we could say a d'essai cinema. Even if not so publicized, it could be
remembered for several reason.
All credit to writer/director Gilles Mimouni who fashioned this winding, twisting
tale of deceit and betrayal. While keeping the utmost control, he maintains the
audience at arm's length, never allowing them to become completely aware of the
goings on. Even his clever denouement has you guessing. The three
central performances are also top class, with Vincent Cassel, Romane Bohringer and
Monica Bellucci doing their utmost to add to the mystery. Jean-Phillippe Ecoffey
supplements strength in his supporting role. To give away plot details or character
specifics would not be fair. Thierry Arbogast uses the camera
effectively to sweep us through this enigma, and Cardine Biggerstaff's editing
keeps the story a step ahead of us. The theme from Peter Chase is sublime in its
marriage to the ideal of the script. Many may say Gilles Mimouni is
trying to confront several deeper issues on the them of love. For me this is simply
a haunting, elusive riddle that weaves a fascinating web. Only the French are
capable of such tantalisation. Hollywood would have ruined this with a happy
ending. Monday, March 2, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon No-one does
thriller quite like the French. When they get it right, they really get it
right. Vincent Cassell is intriguing as the deceptive Max, Romane
Bohringer obsessive as the new Lisa, and Monica Bellucci is mysterious as the first
Lisa. The plot from Gilles Mimouni is a whirlwind of deliberate deception and
fatally crossed wires. All credit must go to his manipulation of the
clever plot, and the performances from the three leads. As Lucien, Jean-Phillippe
Ecoffey is strong and emotional. Friday, January 15, 1999 - Video
This is a clever story about relationships and a display of three main categories
of players in the game of relationships: playboys (Max), manipulative women (Alice)
and the fools who may be indeed in love (Lisa, Muriel and Lucien). Max
and Alice are very unlikeable and perhaps despicable characters but who are always
in control in the game leaving their partners around in the dark. But as the
profusely discussed ending tells us, as veteran players as Max and Alice were, they
would be happy to part ways anytime they see fit as if the game was just announced
to be over and each one of them could not care less to get on with his or her own
life and play another game with some other anonymous people when another
opportunity presented itself. Lisa, Muriel and Lucien might be the ones who felt
like investing something real in a relationship, only not being able to realise
that they were the baits in the game and the ultimate losers (as far as what we
were shown is concerned....who knows if they are also advance players of some sort
in their worlds not shown to us on screen). This is a very fast-paced,
delicately crafted and seductively witty story with an enticing execution by the
cast. It also deserves some deeper thinking: how much is real in a game of
relationship?
>>> Great News there is a BBC DVD release scheduled for 31st July 2006,UK - there
is also a scheduled release in States - don't know the date - can't wait ! !
<<<< >>>> below is my original comment <<<<< I agree with all
the other reviewers - it is simply staggering that one of the greatest TV dramas
ever has never been released on DVD The story line is gripping - the
acting is outstanding and the character development is enthralling ! Over here in the UK we have quite a history of getting TV drama series and films
out onto DVD through popular campaigns It's very hard to see why the
rights owners do not go into a DVD production ? I'm going to e:mail one of the
leading players in this grass roots movement and see what happens. Who did the
production ? was it BBC ? RW
I just saw this film again, I believe for the sixth time. I will doubtless see it
many more times. This is one of the most brilliant French films ever made. Although
the film is mysterious, even more mysterious is what happened to the writer and
director, Gilles Mimouni. For ten years he has not made another film, and this was
his only one. The story and execution of this ingenious film are perfect, and it is
clearly paying homage continually to both Hitchcock and Buster Keaton. The split-
second timing of the movements is just as carefully controlled as the scene where
the side of a house falls on Keaton in 'Steamboat Bill Junior', and he is only not
killed by inches. In this film, people stoop and turn and pass one another
unawares, and if they had been one second off, they would have collided. The
storyline thus walks a tightrope of chance events to such an intense degree that
you cannot take your eyes off the screen for even a millisecond, or you will miss
something crucial. The haunting, albeit intentionally repetitive, music by Peter
Chase is reminiscent of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo', and the whole film has the same
eerie quality, but whereas Hitchcock had one woman be two women, Mimouni has two
women be one woman, thereby inverting the plot structure. There are passing
references to other Hitchcock films, but it is 'Vertigo' which is central to the
inspiration of this film. The theme may seem superficially to be obsessive love,
but the film is really about the magic of everyday chance events, the invisible
threads behind the tapestry, the ineffable. Everything is hyper-charged with
passionate love and desire, but the desire transcends its object and struggles
towards something behind and beyond the object. That is why it is so easily
transferable from Lisa to Alice, when it is realised that it is Alice who is more
mysterious than Lisa, and it is Alice who truly embodies the Eternal Mystery. The
film is ultimately 'made' by Romane Bohringer. She is so fascinating that she
outshines Monica Bellucci, which is really something to pull off, considering that
Bellucci is a knockout beauty, whereas Bohringer is what the English call 'plain'.
However, Romane Bohringer had even at this early date more than mastered the art of
'personality dominance', whereby beautiful girls fall by the wayside and don't get
noticed because Romane is being so fascinating you can't take your eyes off her
long enough even to look at the beautiful girls, and you end up only thinking of
her. Most of us remember, I'm sure, her father Richard Bohringer lying in a bathtub
listening to opera in the film 'Diva' many years ago. I would rather watch Romane
than Richard lying in a bathtub, but there seems to be some genetic secret to being
fascinating, because Richard Bohringer is spellbinding too, and he isn't even a
woman. Romane looks as if she may turn into Anna Magnani when she is much older,
and that means she will get an Oscar, if someone can only write another 'Rose
Tattoo' for her. The girl has so much passion inside her, she could set the Seine
on fire. Wouldn't it be wonderful if she and Julie Delpy teamed up? This film made
wonderful use of Paris locations. But where is this 'square in the Luxembourg'? It
looked like Place Furstenburg to me. Maybe I missed something. I must watch the
film another six times, just to study the precision of the timing and who brushes
past whom, and make sure I've got it right. The whole thing is like ten gigantic
simultaneous chess games played blindfolded by a grandmaster. How thrilling it all
is! Romane, you can look through my window anytime! Mimouni, come on over, let's
discuss impossibilities, unlikelihoods, coincidence, synchronicity, everything that
is going on that is invisible and how it effects the visible. And once again, we
have here the spirit of Breton's novel 'Nadja' embodied in a great French work of
art. More! More! More!
Apartmente'L is one of the most interesting movies that I have ever seen. I
experienced extreme frustration while watching this movie as I was gunning for the
two leads to reunite. That never happened in the end which disappointed me to no
end. But the ending lends an even more cynical touch to a generally cynical movie.
It is not a movie which people are likely to rewatch but one watch itself will have
a deep impact on people. As of now I haven't rewatched the movie and I don't think
I will. The story follows the experiences of a man, Max, who is engaged
to be married to Muriel. He remembers his old girlfriend Lisa(he considers this the
love of his life) as he listens, by accident, to Lisa talking on the telephone.
Thus he tries to find Lisa. Here starts his extremely frustrating search for Lisa.
There are many layers to this movie. There are undercurrents of jealousy,
vouyeurism and so on. There is also another character called Alice who is involved
in the whole confusion. The movie then moves through a whole range of twists and
finally leads to an ending which could be interpreted in many ways. It is
fascinating how this movie has only four main characters but the clever writing
makes it interesting and unique. What I love about the fact is that a movie about
obsession, jealousy is done in such a light hearted manner. It has a very fast pace
which is probably the reason why it can appeal to a large audience. The main
character, Max, has shades of grey and I felt the ending was perfect. I don't think
he is supposed to be a clean character considering the fact he is searching for his
long lost love while he is engaged and he also has a fling with Alice. The character of Alice is even worse. Her manipulation and her compulsive lying
can really irritate viewers(that is the point, I guess). The scene where she breaks
down in front of Lucien really shows another facet of her character. It shows a
side of her that wants to be accepted and that she is tired of all the lying and
the games and she wants to lead a normal life. In the end, she understands that she
needs to get away from it all. The ending lends a cynical touch. Because it seems
as if Max's love for Alice is temporary and fake. It is as if to say that love in
general is a temporary emotion and it is better to choose the safe option(i.e
Muriel) than to pursue something that is so fleeting(i.e Lisa or Alice). In many
ways this is not really a romantic movie but a satire about romance(in a
way). The performances deserve high praise. Vincent Cassel as Max gives
a great performance. He perfectly portrays the confusion of a man who is not really
sure about his engagement. His geeky looks are an added advantage as it fits the
character perfectly. But the real star of the movie is Romane Bohringer as Alice.
Her nuanced portrayal of a woman who is jealous of Alice and is in love with Max.
The scene where she screams "I am a nutcase too" really shows her desperation and
her yearning to live a normal life with a man who loves her. Btw I also
thought lesbianism is another interpretation that can be drawn from this movie.
Alice's actions can be explained in many ways. And her unreasonable obsession with
Lisa may also be explained as a manifestation of a lesbian desire. It may be far-
fetched considering she encourages Lisa to forgive her current boyfriend. But I got
the feeling that she was a lesbian for a long time. She also avoids questions from
Lisa regarding a boyfriend. She spends a whole lot of time with Lisa and she is
happy during that time. That may lead many to question her sexual
orientation. Overall I would give it a 9/10. I think it deserves it but
I subtracted one because of the rewatchability factor. I think it is a perfect
movie otherwise.
This sad romance is untellable because the director decides to break its narration
and to offer the points of view of each characters. So, there are a lot of
flashbacks, of re-shooting of the same scene. But, it would be an extraordinary
moment of cinema to put all the fragments in order to see the result! And it would worth it, because it's for me, just one the best French movie ever
made! It has everything: Cast: first steps of Monica
Bellucci and Vincent Cassel! Such a presence and such voices, even for a hard-of-
hearing! It's symbolic for them to have fallen in love with this movie! Directing: his camera is bright, alive, plays with the sets or can be mysterious
with long close-up "à la David Lynch". Cinematography: the light is
beautiful, between gold and rust, like their love! A never-seen before
Paris: It's a Paris out-of-time of more accurately, a composite of a lot of
districts! Huge search here! It's look like Gotham City, modern and old at the same
time! Music: Not the big orchestra but in perfect tune with the frames.
And the song of Charles Aznavour made me discover this great singer! Ah, the story! As I said, it's a love story but rather tragic: Saying that love
can be for nothing, that it doesn't make all people happy or isn't guaranteed for a
sweet ending is great because this message isn't often told! Love is passion, which
is derivative from the Latin "pain". You can suffer a lot when you are in love!
Because of the Why .. ?, of the endless waiting, the lack of courage, the
indecision. And when you can ease yourself, fate, destiny, god (?),
devil (?) can stab you in the back , just because you arrive too soon or too late,
and above all, because love means 2 in a world of billions! A lot of things can
happen and as much stories can be written! So, what's love? Personally,
I lived some moments like this: in a car with the dear one. Her mobile rings and
you know it's her "special friend" whom she kisses goodbye (and not you, even if we
are always together). So, you want to go out of this car to leave them together, to
not hear the sweet but cruel words but you can't, because an amazing hard rain just
started! I found that this movie depicts those moments of tragedy as no
one else!
When I watched L'Appartement with my girlfriend, she sighed: "How complicated!" And
she is right, of course. When you are used to simple, one-linear plots, especially
violent hero vs crook schemes, L'Appartement is hard to follow. A couple of the
negative reviewers here also have missed one or more important points. Other whine
about the confusing flash backs. Come on! This is not the kind of movie from which
you can leave to visit the toilet, come back and get hooked again within a few
seconds. This one demands full concentration and a keen eye on details. Then it is
really not that hard to figure out what's happening and when. The director has left
more than enough clues in all scenes. The first 3/4 of the movie centers
about the question: why did Max and Lisa split? The film, as my girlfriend
remarked, begins as a romantic lovestory, suggesting that two lost lovers will find
each other again. Having experience with French movies, I predicted that the story
pretty soon would get a sick twist and I was right. In the end of the first part it
becomes clear, after many twists and turns, that Max and Lisa were manipulated by
Alice. Max did not know, that Lisa had left and why. Lisa did not know, why Max did
not contact her in Rome and left her without a trace, when she returned to Paris.
The only one who did was Alice and she had her own reasons to keep her mouth
shut. After both Max and Lisa have found out the truth, the question of
course becomes: can Alice's manipulations be undone? Well, of course not, time has
passed by and things have changed. Many European movies use a story
telling technique I fully enjoy. There is no exposition of the basic conflict in
the beginning, after which two (or more) interested parties try to decide in their
own advantage. Instead the spectator is gradually fed with bits and pieces of the
plot and hardly knows more than the main characters. L'Appartement is a fine and
subtle example of this technique. In the first half Alice seems to be a side
character; slowly it becomes clear, that she is key figure. Acting is
simply great. Vincent Cassel is perfect as the somewhat naive and impulsive
character, who risks a secured life just to hunt a dream from the past. Monica
Belucci is very beautiful of course, but also competent. Jean Paul Ecoffey provides
the necessary comical touch. Romane Bohringer is very convincing as the neurotic
woman, plagued by feelings of guilt and regret. The only reason I did
not gave it a 10 is the somewhat unsatisfying end. Of course it was necessary
because of the desired symmetry. After all the events Max is exactly on the point
where the movie begun, only wiser and sadder. Alice has paid for her sins. But
still the little twists on the airport are a bit artificial. Max too easily
exchanges Lisa for Alice; Alice too easily decides to reject Max, who has been her
dream for so long; Max too easily returns to his fiancée. But then again, I don't
know how how this could be achieved without sacrificing the elegant symmetry. I
guess sometimes artists have to give up realism for beauty.
A wonderful story about the consequences of obsessive love with the beautiful
romantic back streets of Paris as its location. We're transported through time and
see the plot develop from the perspectives of the three main characters as the
mystery unwinds.
I watched this film for the second time tonight after about three years and it was
as wonderful as before... There are more than a dozen modern stunning
French films from en couer de hiver to the three colours trilogy and all of them
are special. This film is one of them. A true delight with so many great things
going for it from the homage to Hitchcock to two beautiful ladies in Romane and
Monica. While Monica is very beautiful, Romane is a very sexy lady and steals many
of the scenes she inhabits. I am not sure why people think this film is
convoluted as the scenes are such a perfect blend of past and present acting as a
counterpoint to the characters' own remarkable journey that the film simply flows
and you barely realise that 116 minutes of beauty and mystery have left the viewed
enchanted and bewitched. Like most French and European films this story
would never translate across the Atlantic as no studio could capture the magic
without throttling the life out of it with the Hollywood bleaching common to most
movies that become lost in translation. Americans make brilliant films, but not of
this type... perhaps if they let someone like a young Polanski work on it then
maybe they would not totally butcher an English version... For those who
do not watch subtitled films you will spend a lifetime in ignorant bliss. For those
who can read then you would be spiting yourself to miss films like this... I would describe this as Neo-Franco-Noir, but only to cheese off the reviewer who
called this film elitist. I think I saw him doing an add for four-and-twenty-pies.
He thinks Romane Bohringer is a type of French Mayonnaise...It is arty in the way
that Pulp Fiction is arty...but with more Gallic savoire faire... 10 out
of 10 with every viewing...and has anyone got Romane's phone number...she is the
perfect French Salad Dressing...
Forget the recent dire American remake which sadly tarnished the reputation of the
French original by virtue of the director's involvement in both. This is a deftly-
drawn romantic 90s noir with many twists and turns. It works best as a Gallic ode
to Hitchcock's Rear Window, because the notion of voyeurism is the constant theme
that fires the intricate screenplay. The story is stunningly realized, like a
Picasso painting, offering multi-perspectives on the same event and demanding the
viewer's participation throughout. The settings, music and haunting score are
wonderful as well as the excellent contributions from the cast. Watch it more than
once.
This is a fabulous film. The plot is a good yarn, and is imaginatively
told in a series of flashbacks and alternative points of view. What was deliberate,
and what was coincidence? Who is in love with who? You get the chance
to put yourselves in the shoes of each of the characters in turn (sometimes
literally), and this helps define each character to a satisfying depth. 
With a bit of effort following the twists and turns, you can understand each of the
characters; and key events in the film are reshot from the point of view of
different people. Take the opportunity if it comes again to your
arthouse cinema; it looks good on the big screen. More than keeping you
guessing, the plot twists to such an extent that you just sit and watch what
unfolds - I defy anyone to predict! But more likely you will need more
than one viewing - I saw this at the pictures on its original release three times,
and it got better each time. The acting was very good, with a standout
performance by Romane Bohringer as Alice torn in three directions by the three
other characters in the ensemble. A classic. The second-best film of
the 1990s.
"L'appartement" has to be among the best French films I have ever seen (along with
"Hatred", also starring Vincent Cassel, and those great Gerard Dépardieu/Pierre
Richard movies). Cassel and Bellucci are amazing in the leading roles. Aside from
"Brotherhood Of The Wolves" and "Dobermann" I have not yet seen a bad movie with
this couple. "L'appartement" sucks you in from the beginning and the twists and
turns keep you thrilled until the very end. Fragment storytelling really hasn't
worked this well since "Pulp Fiction". Let's just hope there won't be a godawful
American remake of this unique romance/mystery-thriller. (EDIT: Guess what! A
godawful American remake has been made!)!
This is an astonishing film: a romantic thriller with a convoluted but perfectly
constructed and devastatingly symmetrical plot, brilliantly buttressed by the use
of recurring visual motifs. Everything in it is beautifully filmed: the women, the
apartments; but more amazing is the devastating juxtapositioning of images, almost
every scene has echoes of another. This is a story told in light, in colour, in
many almost-parallels. Every time I watch it, it fills me with delight. The acting is great too. Romane Bohringer is stunning as a woman on the verge of
a nervous breakdown: everything about her changes with her mood. Vincent Cassel
plays a very different role to his part in La Haine; but no less excellently:
shifty and sympathetic at the same time. And Monica Bellucci - ah!, Monica
Bellucci, well, put simply, she plays (is?) the world's most perfect woman. There's
one small scene about three quarters of the way through where she does nothing more
than smile; yet in that instant, says more than hours of Hollywood junk. One cannot do justice to this film without at least mentioning the superb,
sequential climax: sad, shocking, ironic and subtle in turn. But if one moment
captures the brilliance of this work, it's the scene at the start of this fabulous
denouement, the prospect of which has been teasingly laid before us throughout the
entire story. Yet when the moment comes, it is handled so delicately, so briefly,
so deftly, that on reflection it makes you gasp. Only a director of staggering
confidence would dare to underplay this vital point. But the confidence is
justified. Cinema doesn't come much better than this.
Insanely well crafted mini-series. I recall seeing most of it twice when
shown on American Playhouse on PBS. Was heavily promoted at the time. I believe it
might have been one of the very early mini-series showing on PBS outside of the
Masterpiece Theater series. The full length production was shown I
believe only once during its first broadcast. Was 6-8 hours total. This length was
edited down somewhat to 6 hours. Cut some interesting, but slow scenes. I am very much hoping that the folks holding its current rights do follow through
and restore a complete, not edited version to DVD. Not worth creating a VHS version
at this point. Would fit in very well in the mini-series or dramatic
history genre.
Although Bullet In The Brain is, without question, superior amongst short films, it
largely seems more like a short piece of writing than a film. And it is a little
hard to feel too sorry for the teacher when his smart ass remarks get him shot. But
after the bullet enters his brain we begin to understand a little bit about why he
became so jaded with life in the first place. There is an awful amount of detail
packed into this reasonably short film and this is what makes me feel that it
should have been extended a little bit - it seems like there's almost too much to
take in at once as the details come flying at you so fast. A slightly more relaxed
pace and a less po-faced narrator in the final section would have benefitted this
film a little bit. Despite these complaints, there is no denying that Bullet In The
Brain is a quite stupendous work compared to many short, and even full length
films. The makers should be applauded for trying to make such a basically emotional
and literate film in the current climate of quick jokes and Hollywood action.
On the outside, this film is better because of Vincent D'Onofrio (Law & Order:
Criminal Intent), but this film is equally as good as the 1982 version. In some
ways, the 1999 version is better because it's more up to date (a decade as compared
to the 27 years. The actors in this film were great, like Terry Kinney (McManus of
HBO's "Oz") as James Daly and Tony Shalhoub (USA's Monk) and Gary Sinise (CSI:NY).
Obvilubuly, dialogue was changed for contemporary audiences, nut much of the
writing remained the same. There were stuff that wasn't in the 1982 version that
gave this one a boost in drama and comedy, but in the end, this film was just as
great at the 1982 one. Character-wise: Vincent D'onofrio playing Phil Romano was
excellent, better that Paul Sorvino. It's a match up between Stacy Keach and Terry
Kinney in terms of James. As for George, I would praise Shalhoub. And between
Martin Sheen & Sinsise as Tom, I would say Sinise wins.
This movie is based mainly on the emotions and interactions of people. There are
only three locations (the school, the store, and the coach's house) that are really
used. It's primarily at the coach's house, however. A movie doesn't need special
effects or amazing views to be amazing in itself. Four friends who had
bonded during their basketball days meet up. One is rich, important, and has no
real love outside of money. One wants to be mayor again, but his competition is
turning him sour. One wants to be superintendent of the school and take care of his
family. One is a traveling alcoholic. First off, I love the actors in
this film. They've all been household names to me. They proved their worth here. One of the most pivotal moments is when Tom, played by Gary Sinise, blows
up on the coach. He yells and rants about how the coach cheated in the winning
game. His blows the coach's whistle and yells back his catchphrases - "Forgive me
Father, for I have sinned!" It's amazing to watch, with energy that just chills
you. Highly recommended to anyone who understands human emotion and
doesn't need shiny effects to interest them.
This movie is based on a play, and is the second adaptation of this work. Paul
Sorvino plays the basketball coach of a team of players that against all odds took
home the championship 20 years ago. They have all met for a reunion. Terry Kinney
plays James, a Junior High principal, and will quickly get on your nerves with all
his whining and feel sorry for me role. Vincent D'Onofrio, as Phil, plays an
obnoxious businessman with just the right amount of "money" cockiness. Tony
Shalhoub is George, the current Mayor of the town, and appears to be on the verge
of some sort of breakdown. Gary Sinise plays Tom, a writer, turned alcoholic, and
in my opinion, is excellent in the role. While they are all suppose to be
celebrating their championship, conflicts, jealousy, and fighting abound. As the
men come to terms with what was, and is now, they are forced to look at their lives
in a non-pleasant way. It's unusual to have a group of men talking and crying about
what could have been, and I found it interesting watching them relate to each
other. It's not the best movie I've seen, but it's certainly good enough for a
viewing.
This is a great example of very none Hollywood film making which is very thought
provoking, moving and not without a sense of humor, Kevin McKidd and Paula Sage are
superb. I actually watched it on late night TV and I can see why I
missed it in the cinema, its not the sort of film that the multi-screen "mega"
cinemas show nowadays, mores the pity. I am going to look for the DVD.
Not for those who prefer, the current trend towards special effects and no story.
If you liked the best selling book "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-
time", you'll enjoy this film. This film ranks beside the best of
Scottish films, such as "Small Faces" and "trainspotting". All films which Kevin
McKidd also star in. Highly Recommended.
Not an easy film to like at first with both the lead characters quite unlikeable
but luckily the heart and soul of the film is Paula Sage's touching performance
which drives the film into uncharted waters and transcends the rather awkward
storyline. This gives the film a feeling of real truth and makes you think you've
seen something special.(7/10)
A very moving and thought provoking film that raises issues of mental health,
terminal illness and euthanasia. Sound a bit too heavy? It is a little, but this is
all treated in a realistically straight forward way within a story of the changes
that take place to the family who have to deal with these things. This is a
positive story of facing up to life and responsibility that isn't overwhelm by the
subject matter. Afterlife is beautifully shot and crafted film set in
modern times and dealing with modern issues. It is a character driven, enthralling
film with a strong cast and some very good performances. Unfortunate it
is not the sort of film that always performs well at the box office, so catch it
while you can.
I agree with Andy, this is a good movie. Kevin McKidd's character is believable
throughout the film. We're forced to hate him and latterly sympathise with him.
Paula Sage who plays Roberta puts in a good performance too. It's thought-provoking
and emotive without any slush over-production. Credit to director Alison Peebles
and writer Andrea Gibb for that. A very worthwhile viewing. The pace of the film is
just right, raising just enough interest in the subject matter to reel you in,
rather than bombard you with facts in a documentary style. Nice little soundtrack
to go with the film too, again used sparingly, not to distract you from storyline.
Recommended.
The film's subject is poignant and very real. It happened. One can debate some
artistic liberties taken by director and scriptwriter. The subject is what makes
the film tick--nothing else. I saw the film for the first time after the real
Phoolan, was gunned down in New Delhi and had served several years as an elected
Member of Parliament in India. By the way, she was not the first untouchable
elected to Parliament, as some reviewers stated. The so-called "untouchables" have
been elected to the Indian Parliament for decades in reserved constituencies. While Shekhar Kapur as a director is a hero to many India, because he made
commercially accepted international films---"Bandit Queen" and "Elizabeth" (and a
tolerable kiddie movie called "Mister India", which was accepted by the average
Indian audiences)---and even got Oscar nominations for Elizabeth, I do not place
him as a top notch film director from India. He fails in every department as a
director except perhaps that he succeeds in getting some above-average performances
from his actors. Subtlety, finesse, charm are not easy to find in his films--
melodrama brims in them. His idea of using Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's vocal
rendering of the song in the early parts of the film, was perhaps his single major
achievement on the undistinguished sound track of "Bandit Queen". And then perhaps
the creaking doors during the gang rape sequence. Otherwise the film looked like a
spaghetti western with sex and violence minus the great music one associates with
them. If you are looking for a good living Indian film director who
makes realistic cinema of international quality--it is not Shekhar Kapur's movies
you should see; it is the later works of three Indian film-makers Adoor
Gopalakrishnan, Mrinal Sen, and Girish Karnad and of course Muzaffar Ali's "Umrao
Jaan". It is unfortunate that none of those directors had the financial support
that Kapur had to give them and their films an international viewership. For
instance, Sen's "Oka oorie katha" made in Telugu, or Satyajit Ray's "Sadgati" based
on Munshi Prem Chand's "Kafan" are more complete as films to an intelligent viewer
dealing on the state of the untouchables in India. Sen did not have to resort to
graphic sex and violence but merely suggested them. Of course, Sen's nugget did not
make headlines, while Kapur's effort hogged them. To Kapur's credit, he
is articulate and used his limited talent and modest resources in the Mumbai film
industry to take his products beyond home audiences. For that effort, I salute
Kapur. But "Bandit Queen" will remain a great subject awaiting an accomplished
director to deal with it.
Irrespective of the accuracy of facts, Bandit Queen is a true story, its true
because the themes it deals with hold as much truth today as they did way back in
1994. This movie is violent, powerful and thought provoking.The protagonist is a
woman of flesh and blood, whose adversity brought out the best(or worst) out of
her. Keeping the subjectivity aside, there is no doubt that Phoolan's character
from a young girl of 8, who is married off by her father to clear a debt(pun
intended), to a gang leader who goes on to become a leader of the lower caste, has
evolved into a champion in her own right. Her portrayal is so powerful that the
viewer is even willing to forgive her for a massacre. I can understand
if the western audience is not able to appreciate this masterpiece, Bandit Queen
needs to be 'studied' in the Indian context, and not just checked out in
stereotypes. I may not be able to sell it on its universal appeal but its certainly
a must watch for the Indian audience, its a shame that the movie had a delayed,
overtly censored release in India. Bandit Queen is the story of a woman
who fought against two odds in India, being a woman and that too a lower caste, her
rebellious nature and inability to just give in caused her the most horrible
experiences in life, which only went on to strengthen her into a self proclaimed
goddess. She responded to violence with violence and dint become the submissive
woman society wanted her to be. Call it divine justice or judiciary failure, had
she killed a single person she would have been hanged, she killed 24 and got
revered, respected and glorified. P.S # Whoever found her character
"psychotic", needs to be sodomized at 8, gangraped by 10 men at a go and paraded
naked. Then they should be asked- How normal do they feel?
I saw Bandit Queen in 2005, over a decade after it was made amidst widespread
controversy in India. The language, the stark treatment and the natural acting (by
a relatively unknown cast for that time) might have been even more shocking at that
time for an Indian populace more familiar with fantasy cinema. The film, the cast,
and Shekhar Kapoor, deserve accolades for the breakthrough effort. The
plot is not very different from a typical revenge drama made in various forms in
India. In fact, there have been several fictional accounts of this particular story
itself. The reason why this stands out is that it's supposed to be a first person
account of someone who actually went through all this, and a lot else that doesn't
find place on the screen, and survived to tell the tale. Survived long enough to
see her story made into a movie at least. Phoolan Devi didn't live very long after
being released from prison in 1994. The film scores on several counts.
The cinematography is brilliant. The music is apt. The cast, many of whom became
more familiar names later, is very good. But the screenplay is patchy. Things move
too fast and in jerks at times. It's understandable though, because there are just
too many strands that need to be tied together to make it all cohesive. Or maybe I
felt that because I have read Mala Sen's book, which is a more detailed and better,
though obviously not as shocking as the visual, account of Phoolan Devi's travails,
and which is purported to be one of the main sources for the film. There
are some factual ambiguities too. According to Phoolan Devi, she wasn't present
when the Behmai massacre took place, and despite claiming to be the dictated
account of Phoolan herself, she is shown to participate, and in fact initiate, the
massacre. Then the final scene where Phoolan surrenders shows her touching the feet
of the Chief Minister, while in reality she had surrendered to a portrait of
Mahatma Gandhi. Symbolic value only, but shows that Phoolan didn't want to show
servitude to a living, ordinary person. It would have been nice to show the Chief
Minister to have some resemblance to Arjun Singh, who many remember was the CM of
Madhya Pradesh then. But these are small chinks in this eminently well-
made movie, a rare gem to come out from the mainstream Indian film industry, made
by a man who before this was known best for the ultimate masala movie of the late
80s - Mr India.
Oppenheimer was a GREAT series (it was the first thing I saw Waterston in) and it
is too bad copies aren't available. A similar situation exists for "Glory Enough
for All", a British series from around the same time, about the discovery of
insulin. I would pay a good price for both of these on DVD. Is it really so
difficult to get Oppenheimer on a DVD that is able to be played in the US? Another
very enjoyable series, again from about the same time, was "Danger UXB". A series
about defusing UneXploded Bombs, hence the name. That one you can get from your
local library. Pete
I think that the movie was really good. Subject, acting and Nusrat Fateh ALi Khan's
music were marvellous. Although the director has succeeded in showing the status of
women in rural areas and how they suffer at the hands of male-dominated culture, he
has neglected Phoolan's character a bit and has focussed more on the violence faced
by her.
This is an excellent movie. Phoolan had no role model's to base her actions on, yet
was able to bring about very necessary change to a land that was living in darkness
when it comes to female treatment. I like the fact that it was a real story rather
than made up, it added to the horror of the story, & the triumph.
The true story of Phoolan Devi who became a national hero in India because she
fought for her rights as a woman but in a violent manner. I was surprised to see a
powerful film with strong images come out of India instead of the Bollywood art
trash classics they churn out.
I saw this movie over 5 years ago and the subject still infuriates me, as it
should. Her anger and initiative were inspiring. Not that I would takeover an army
and kill people, but the scene at the well and at the rebel strong hold will never
leave my mind. This is a great film but be prepared for the strong subject matter.
It may interest people to know that this film was made without any recourse to
Phoolan Devi herself and, when she did finally see parts of it, was so enraged that
she announced that the film was not to be shown in India or she would cover herself
in petrol and set fire to herself. I do not know whether it was shown at all or
not, but given her standing at the time as a rising politician, I doubt it. Since
then, I saw a report that she has been ousted from office and charged with further
crimes from her Dacoit days, and has gone into hiding as a result. Her
own concerns aside, this is an excellent film, made all the more so by its
refreshingly brutal approach; none of the rose-tinted melodrama one might expect
from a typical indian film. It should be stressed that concerns about how feminist
the film's messages really are and the like are essentially irrelevant: it's a true
story. Her misgivings are, it seems, not with what is depicted but with the way in
which the film depicts her.
The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love
just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the
Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are
hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them
was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest
actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team! One of My favorite
Stooges shorts with Shemp is none other than Brideless Groom! All appearing in this
short are Dee Green, the beautiful Christine McIntyre, Doris Houck, Alyn Lockwood,
Johnny Kascier, Nancy Saunders, and Emil Sitka. Green and McIntyre provide great
performances here! There are so many funny parts here. This is a very hilarious
short. There is another similar Three Stooges short like this one called Husbands
Beware and I recommend both!
There are one or two other Shemp-era shorts I like more (i.e. SCRAMBLED BRAINS),
but I think one can say--without much argument--that in this particular episode,
Shemp gives his greatest comedic performance as a stooge after rejoining the team
in 1946. Scene for scene, this episode hardly lets up: from Professor
Shemp Howard's voice lessons with the glass-shattering Dee Green, to his futile
attempts to win a dame's hand in marriage (this is your little snookums... will you
marry me *click*) to the uproarious finish, it never fails to keep me in
stitches. I would be remiss not mention that immortal scene with Miss
Hopkins (the always lovely Christine McIntyre). Btw, isn't she rather under-dressed
and over amorous in greeting the man she thinks is her 'Cousin' Basil? Who knows,
maybe the actual Basil was a "very" distant cousin, which makes it legal in some
states (as far as I know). >:-]
Not wishing to repeat what everyone else has noted, I will only say this: Nearly everybody says they loved Curly best... but I will put BRIDELESS GROOM up
against ANY of other the Stooges shorts. I think it's the most
hilarious from start to finish, as well as being the most re-watchable. The off-key singing student... Christine McIntire's "Cousin Basil" routine, and
of course Emil Sitka's J.P. are highlights, but only around the Stooges' impeccable
timing and the great writing too! Nuff said.
A Three Stooges short, this one featuring Shemp. Of all those involving Shemp I've
seen, this is my favorite performance by him in a Stooges short. The basic plot is
that Shemp must get married by 6 o'clock that very evening if he's to inherit the
half a million dollars a rich uncle left him in his will. So Shemp sets out to get
himself a bride but finds it a tougher road than expected, that is until they learn
of his inheritance money. Best bits here involve Shemp shaving, Shemp and Moe in a
telephone booth and Larry on piano as accompaniment to Shemp's voice-training
session. Also the sequence where Shemp is mistaken as Cousin Basil and its outcome
proves hilarious.
For the record, I am a Curly fan through and through. But I do have to say that in
reality, Shemp wasn't really that bad. Yeah, he might have lacked the same kind of
slapstick that Curly had, but in his own way he was hilarious. At least he wasn't
as bad as Joe Besser. In BRIDELESS GROOM, Shemp plays a music professor
(Stooge? A professor? Yeah right), who recently inherited a half million dollars
from a dead uncle, and Moe & Larry have to prepare him to marry a woman by six
o'clock that night, or no money. This was one of the Stooges' first skit
with Shemp, before they started recycling their material. Perhaps it isn't
surprising that Shemp was part of the Stooges before Curly came into the picture,
so he seemed natural at this. The slapstick gags are hilarious, especially this one
scene with Moe and Shemp in a phone booth. Essential Stooge short to be honest.
'Oppenheimer' with Sam Waterston in the title role and with David Suchet as Evard
Teller is an example of the docudrama at its very finest. Well written, well acted
by actors who bear a believable resemblance to their historical characters, highly
informative, and very entertaining. The set designs and costumes capture the feel
of the US during World War 2, and the plotting and dialog make the viewer feel as
if he were really present at Los Alamos and caught up in the excitement of the
Manhattan Project. The only downside is that this is a British production, and some
of the actors lack skill in affecting a convincing American accent. (The skill of
current day Australian & Irish actors taking on non-native dialects is amazing.)
The storyline is fully consistent with Richard Rhodes' definitive history of the
development of the atomic bomb. Sadly, the mini-series was shown only a couple of
times on PBS at the beginning of the 1980s and then apparently vanished into
oblivion. 'Oppenheimer' compares favorably to the more recent 'Fat Man &
Little Boy' feature film with Paul Newman as Leslie Groves (the chronically
overweight and rather homely General would be thoroughly flattered) and Dwight
Schultz (alumnus of TV's 'A-Team') as Oppenheimer. As a mini-series, 'Oppenheimer'
is around 4x as long as the Newman feature, but uses the all of the additional time
completely to its advantage.
Almost certainly the best Three Stooges short with Shemp, 'Brideless Groom' is as
good as any of the trio's best shorts featuring Curly. Memorable Stooge moments
abound. The opening with 'Professor' Shemp giving voice lessons to homely,
untalented and lascivious Miss Dinkelmeyer (Dee Green), wincing at her horrendous
singing notes and fighting off her advances, is an excellent example of Shemp
Howard at his best. Many considered him the most naturally funny of the Stooges. Later, when Moe and Larry try to help him get spiffed up to find a wife
(and claim $500,000), Shemp thinks he has cut off his head when his mirror gets
flipped backward. Fixing the mirror, he cries with relief, "THERE I amand pretty
as a picture!" "Yea," Moe quickly replies, trying to hem his slacks, "of an
APE!" The best scene (and maybe Shemp's best with the trio) comes when
he pays a call on attractive young Miss Hopkins (Christine McIntyre). Mistaking him
for long-lost "Cousin Basil," she smothers him with hugs and kisses (also leading
to a hilarious bit between Moe and Larry in the hall), not giving him a chance to
explain his true identity. Suddenly the REAL Cousin Basil calls and she goes
berserk, slapping him repeatedly and accusing him of taking advantage of "a poor .
helplessdefenseless woman!" That final line is delivered as she socks him in the
jaw (with a real punch, according to Shemp and crew members), knocking him through
the door and into the hall in a perfectly executed gag. "What happened, kid?" Moe
asks. "Can I help it if I ain't Cousin Basil?" Shemp asks before passing out. Other classic bits include Moe and Shemp getting tangled in a phone booth,
trying to find a lost coin, Larry getting slapped because of Shemp's bad looks (his
face pressed against the phone booth glass), and the great girl fight in the
Justice of the Peace's apartment. The great Emil Sitka delivers his classic line
(inscribed on his tombstone), "Hold hands, you love birds" over and over as his
apartment is trashed. I prescribe 'Brideless Groom' as medicine for
anyone who thinks the Stooges' glory years ended when Curly left. True, Shemp
didn't have as MANY great shorts with the group as Curly, but that was due to an
increasing lack of support from Columbia and his (and the others') advancing ages.
When Shemp was healthy and the trio was given decent material to work with, they
were still on the top of their game.
This is the very first Three Stooges short with Shemp that I saw, and it is one of
my favorites! That is what I really liked about Shemp when he returned
after Curly's stroke, he did not try to be like Curly, he was his own character,
and that is what I admire! Shemp is my favorite third stooge, I like him more than
Curly, but I like Curly as much as I do Shemp. Shemp is great, he's funny, he's
silly, he's SHEMP! I really loved the scene where he dropped the nickel
and Moe got into the booth with him to find it and they ended up getting tangled in
the wires and really badly hurt! But what I really thought was scary
was when Shemp had his face smashed against the glass of the phonebooth, he looked
like a deformed Professor Snape! Poor Shemp, he had a lot of bad things
happen to him in this short, but that is just typical Three Stooges, they always
have a lot of bad things happening to them! This short is another must
see for Three Stooges fans! 10/10
The Stooges are back and funnier than ever. "Brideless Groom" in my opinion was
probably the best Shemp flick. Shemp has the opportunity to inherit
$500,000(which was probably more than a million dollars compared to today) from his
dead uncle. BUT! There is a catch. He has to marry someone that day by 6 o'clock.
Shemp is a bachelor with not too many admirers, except for one high pitched
aggressive annoying singing student of his. But he doesn't want her, he wants
someone a little more on the Victoria's Secret model type of women. But obviously
he has no choice since he's no Collin Ferrel himself. But when it is printed in the
papers that he is to inherit all that money if married, his ex girlfriends are on
the "I want my man back" attack! What a great stooge flick! This is up
there with thewinners of all stooge flicks! 9/10
"Gargle with old razor blades. Can I help it if I'm not cousin Basil? I think the
piano's out of tune. Ginger Grey. This is your little snookums." Laughs throughout
the entire 20 minute short as the boys spoof gold diggers and opera singers. They
even manage to show us how to properly demonstrate to some attractive ladies how to
handle both a rifle and a bear trap. Wonder how many times they rehearsed the scene
with the phone booth. Adding Christine McIntyre and Emil Sitka, 2 frequent
collaborators, to the mix makes it even better. Only Vernon Dent is missing. The
Stooges did some great individual scenes, but this was their best overall.
Clyde Bruckman borrows the premise of this short from Buster Keaton's "Seven
Chances," recently tepidly remade as "The Bachelor." In the original, Buster has
24-hours to get married in order to inherit a large sum of money. In this version,
musical teacher Prof. Shemp has only 7 hours (After all, it is a short!). This is
one of the better Stooges shorts due to the storyline and wonderful routines
(Including the telephone booth scene with Moe & Shemp, reminiscent of Laurel &
Hardy's "Berth Marks" and the Marx Brothers famous stateroom scene in "Night At The
Opera - here the boys hold their own in their variation of this routine). I'm not a
huge Stooges fan, but this one should be noted by any student of comedy as one of
their very best since the early 30s shorts.
OK, the other reviewers have pretty much covered the main points of this great
little gem, i.e. the story started out in life as material for Buster Keaton's
silent classic "7 Chances". Comedy, or acting in any genre for that much, is merely
interpreting a scene and lines that someone else has written and performed before,
if it's not a totally original creation. Here we have The Stooges essentially doing
material that was written and performed by someone else and yet for a low budget,
short time span of a film, they're handling things just fine. Regardless of what
the credits say on their films, real "stooge-philes" know that they had a lot of
input on lines and direction. They took their work as seriously as a surgeon does a
vital operation. Words spoken by Emil Sitka himself during a documentary about the
boys. Here, what appears to be their usual anarchy over something so simple as
getting married, is actually organized chaos. Every line is perfectly timed with a
related physical action. How many comedians are around today that can claim such
mastery? Most obviously the Seinfeld crew but none others that I've seen in the
last 35 years of watching TV. The critics will always "pooh pooh" The Stooges or
Laurel & Hardy and others but then again...who ever remembers the critic's names or
what they said? Simply watch, laugh and enjoy!
The entire civilized world by now knows that this is where Emil Sitka says his
immortal "Hold hands, you lovebirds." But Shemp Howard, Professor of Music, steals
the show. Watch him tutoring Dee Green as she fractures the "Voices of Spring."
Watch Shemp as he shaves by a mirror suspended from the ceiling by a string. Watch
him as he gets walloped by Christine McIntyre. Watch him, and you will laugh and
learn. Moe is no slouch either. Watch him as he attempts to induce a woman to sit
on a bear trap. Larry, as usual, is the Zen master of reaction. All in all, one of
the very best Stooge shorts. You won't find one weak moment.
This film got roasted by the boys at MST3K, but it's actually a neat and nasty
piece of low-budget film noir. The plot is tight, the characters are believable
(within the good-boy-gets-obsessed-with-bad-girl genre), the pacing is solid, the
climax is well-handled, and the cast is bolstered by several fine character actors.
True, most of the time you want to hit the protagonist with a brick, but he's
actually quite effectively creepy when he plays the mastermind. The scenes between
him and his dad are quite powerful, in a minimalist kind of way. Sure it's
depressing, but that's the point. Good movie.
For those of you who have no idea what Bug Juice is or was, it was a children's
reality show about real kids living at summer camp. Bug Juice is the show that
inspired me to go to camp. It was full of romance, friendships, fights, overcoming
your fears, and dealing with the struggles of living away from home for 2 months.
It was an amazing show that is no longer shown on t.v. regularly, but is amazing
non-the-less. The show was never dull and always attracted my attention. It's
really nice for kids who have never been to a summer camp to really see what it's
like before going. Plus Disney did a really good job of picking camps to showcase
because who wants to see a show that's at a camp for like only a week. The length
of the camps where perfect for this show, and the environment they where in was
fantastic. They where camps all over the U.S., that each provided unique activities
for the campers. It was a truly amazing, unscripted show.
Bug Juice changed my life. I Know it sounds strange, odd , weird. But it did. I am
from England, Bug Juice never aired there but five years ago i went on vacation
with my family and saw it on the Disney channel. Once i saw this TV series I was
hooked I wanted to go.It took a lot of convincing to my parents to allow my brother
and I to go to Waziyatah. I have been going since i was 12 and it was my forth year
this summer. If you are a teenager reading this come to this camp it changes your
life. you make life long friends at wazi. It doesn't matter who you are or if
someone at home doesn't like you everyone likes you at camp. You have so much fun.
If you want to have a look go on to www.wazi.com and check it out for yourself. It
is so much fun I Love it there It is my Home Away from Home
President Harry S. Truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the
history you don't know. Seven years before Richard Rhodes' superb
Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", the BBC produced a seven-
part miniseries, "Oppenheimer", that was a character study of the people who
designed and built the weapon that ushered in the Atomic Age, permanently joining
science and technology to the state (and, in particular, the military), not merely
making history, but changing the world forever. The production is
impeccable, the casting nothing short of miraculous; not only the main characters,
but even secondary characters bear uncanny resemblances to the persons portrayed.
In particular are Sam Waterston in the title role of American physicist J. Robert
Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who was based at the Los
Alamos, NM, laboratory (the site for which he personally chose); Manning Redwood as
General Leslie R. Groves, who oversaw the entire Manhattan Engineering District
(the project's formal name); David Suchet as physicist, and ultimate nemesis of
Oppenheimer, Edward Teller (who, nearly forty years later, whispered into Ronald
Reagan's ear and brought us the Strategic Defense Initiative - "Star Wars") and
Jana Sheldon as Kitty Oppenheimer. The attention to detail is uniformly excellent
throughout. Part thriller, part love story - and ultimately a tragedy,
this series faithfully recreates a chapter in world history - and that of science -
that we dare not forget. Highest recommendation. (NOTE: Viewers who
enjoy this series will also enjoy Jacob Bronowski's 13-part series "The Ascent of
Man" and the BBC film of Michael Frayn's play "Copenhagen".)
I absolutely loved this show. Never understood why it was called Bug Juice though.
I must have been about 13 when it came out. I remember they ran it over the summer
holidays on channel 4, between re-runs of Pugwalls summer and Saved by the bell or
something like that. I remember sitting there and wishing i was at summer camp too
- ha ha. All the kids in it looked to be having so much fun, it was all about
"discovering who you are" and "growing up." First kisses and all that stuff. I
remember there was this really cute guy in it, i think he was the main reason i got
up in the mornings that particular summer. They should have more teen docu-soaps
like this, i thought it was great!
This movie should have easily qualified as a film that best promotes
human understanding among people. It may be rather annoying to even try
to comprehend that a young Jewish southern girl could would give shelter to an
escaped German prisoner of war. Kristy McNichol depicts an amazing
portrait of the unhappy, young girl thirsting for acceptance and love. Michael
Constantine gave a remarkable performance as her difficult father and Esther Rolle,
as the maid, Ruth, gave a superb Emmy-winning performance as an understanding maid
caught up with these events. Bruce Davison portrays the German who is
supposedly not guilty of Nazi atrocities. This is how his role appears. He has
escaped, but he joined the German army and he might have been a member of the
Hitler youth movement. The action takes place in 1944 Georgia, in a
rural area. The townspeople are filled with prejudice. Even the FBI inspector acts
as if he would like to get something on the Jews. Notice the opposite
interpretation that as McNichol is in bed, Davison is hunted down and ultimately
shot. It is interesting to see that society views McNichol as a traitor for
harboring an escaped prisoner of war. The film also deals with an extremely complex
relationship that exists between father and daughter. Constantine's outburst at his
daughter at the end is some acting. As the mother, Barbara Barrie, is given little
to do. It was annoying that she is stereotyped as the typical Jewish mother with
that loud shade of lipstick on her lips. Memorably done and well worth
viewing.
This film is a study piece for my english class, but it's depth and meaning has
amazed me. Since we're looking closely into all the facts and characters in this
film, its and interesting tale of love, hate, war, and prejudice. Well Recommended!
 Story: A girl named well-off jewish Patty Bergen meets an escaped
prisoner of war, she then hides him in her playhouse in her huge gardens, and as
they get to know each other, they begin to see the others qualities, and they earn
each others love. Patty's father despises her and treats her like dirt. Anton (the
prisoner of war) almost blows his cover to protect her, but patty manages to stop
him before he is seen by anyone.
This movie was one of the best I have ever seen. Just the other day I was reminded
of this movie by something on TV. It came back to me like a dam flooding over. I
have never been more touched by a movie than by this one. After the movie was over
I actually could not quit crying for about 2 hours. No movie has ever moved me that
way before. I was 15 at the time of the movie and have not seen it since but am
hoping I can find a copy to buy so that I can watch it whenever I want to. If
someone suggests you see this movie with them, GO....you will not be
disappointed. Peggy Fries
I haven't seen this movie in 30 years so I don't know if I would like it as much as
I did when I was 12. At the time, however, I loved this movie. This is a great
"starter chick-flick" for young pre-teen girls. Be careful of the ending, though.
There are tears and harsh emotions. Looking back at it from a 2008
perspective (with so much more knowledge of child psychology, politics and
political correctness), I think it would be interesting to watch again. Patty's
uncaring, abusive father, indifferent mother and favored sister all contributed
toward making her vulnerable and starving for companionship. Patty was sad when
Anton left. She was heartbroken when he was killed. The rage that was directed
toward her afterward was shocking. After all, she was only 12 years old. The thing that I most strongly retained is how this movie taught me even
"enemy" soldiers are people too. Not all German soldiers were hateful Nazis. When I
was older, I saw TV shows like Hogan's Heroes and The Rat Patrol which also made
the point that the "regular" German soldiers were not the same as the
Gestapo. "Regular" soldiers were drafted. The Gestapo were handpicked
among volunteers for their special attitudes of hate. I believe that one of the
privileges of being a Nazi was that they had special assignments and, therefore,
didn't go into battle. Their specialties were interrogation and torture. Later, during the cold war, I would think about Russian soldiers and
remember SOMGS. We were taught that the Soviet Union was "evil". But the reality
was that Russian soldiers weren't out to destroy America. They had a job. Their
government probably told them that our government was out to destroy their way of
life. Which, in a way, was true, since the US fought to end Communism. The lesson is still applicable today. German soldiers were not the same as Nazis
just as Muslims are not the same as Al Qaeda.
"Summer of My German Soldier" was one of the many TV movies that became a staple of
the small screen in the 1970s (others were "Brian's Song", "Sybil" and "Someone's
Watching Me!"). It portrays a Jewish girl (Kristy McNichol) befriending a German
POW (Bruce Davison) in WWII-era Georgia. One of the things that the movie shows is
that many of the German soldiers weren't really Nazis, but were just drafted.
Watching the movie, I got a real sense of how things must have been in the South
back then; I mean, can you imagine being a Jewish person accused of supporting the
enemy? So, I certainly recommend this movie. I believe that it's always
important to show the things portrayed here. Occasional overacting keeps the movie
from being a full-scale masterpiece, but they usually do quite well. I hope that
the movie eventually comes out on DVD. Also starring Esther Rolle and Michael
Constantine (the "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" patriarch).
A touching story told with tenderness: awkward young Jewish girl in WWII America
befriends an escaped German POW who is hiding out in her clubhouse. They discuss
their lives and beliefs (he's anti-Hitler), she sneaks him food, he becomes her
only friend and ally. All this reminded me of the much-better theatrical film
"Whistle Down The Wind", where Hayley Mills befriends convict Alan Bates, but you
certainly can't fault the direction here, which is smooth, or the performances,
which are sterling. Mature in her pre-teen years, Kristy McNichol carries most of
the picture and never hits a false note. Suddenly, when the prisoner is discovered
(and Kristy is found out as well), the movie gets very tough. Her father, shocked
and ashamed that his child would consort with "that Nazi", lays into her with a
quiet fury I have seldom seen before (he tells her "You are dead to me," which must
be devastating for a little girl to hear). The final scenes don't cop out; there
are no big reunions, no hand-holding climaxes. The girl has to face the world, and
in doing so learns a bitter lesson about neighbors, friends, and family. A
startling film.
When I was in 7th grade(back in 1977), I was asked to read the novel that this was
based on as part of my English class studies. I can remember being very touched by
it and excited when a TV version came out a year later. Kristy McNichol
was a popular TV actress when this film was produced and was already playing a
daughter in a dysfunctional family on the hit TV series "Family". It was clear that
she had the range and ability to pull off this part. I recall her as being a bit
"stiff" at times, but over all she does a good job. She carries the movie
well. Esther Rolle is fantastic as the domestic who appears to be the
only one in the household that seems to truly care for her. Barbara Barrie as the
somewhat frightened and slightly neurotic mother is also good, as is young Robin
Lively (who would eventually appear as the black widow Lana Milford in "Twin
Peaks")as the sweet younger sister who seems to be the focus of the parent's
affection. Bruce Davidson is also appropriately appealing as the German soldier of
the title The best performance, however, belongs to Michael Constantine.
It is truly powerful and merited more recognition than it got at the time. The
bitterness and coldness he expresses makes the scenes in which he appears difficult
to watch, but makes it much easier to understand the quiet desperation of the
rejected daughter. Constantine gives everything the right intensity and seems to
have a good understanding of the underlying psychological motivations. The film differs from the book only in some small ways. It is wonderful and
inspiring to watch, and I hope that it gets released again on to video or
DVD. 
I caught this one on cable and I was very surprised. Steady direction and some good
performances accent a twisty and very engaging story. This one will keep you up all
night thinking about what was real and what wasn't. Check out Jason Scott Lee in
the Lou Diamond Phillips role!
This is the kind of film one initially selects to make up the numbers from video
rental.....only to discover an under-rated entertaining and enjoyable movie!! The
opening sequence of the police arriving at a dark and rainy house wherein the
"wife" has committed murder.......or is it??....and the remainder of the film seeks
to unravel what really happened....OK...the film is a bit "campy"...but has good
editing and dialogue.....professional acting.....often humorous......and the very
last scene with the facial expression is one of the best of its'
kind......definitely worth watching.....deserving at least a 7 or an 8!
I, too, found "Oppenheimer" to be a brilliant series and one of the finest
offerings ever on American PBS. David Suchet was particularly effective as Edward
Teller, as I recall, and the overall conception was spectacularly good. The only
reason that the series doesn't rate a full 10/10 is for the low-budget production
values in some areas. Actual content is absolutely first-rate in my
recollection. The Oppenheimer miniseries will be released in the UK on
July 31st! It will be a Region 2/PAL set, but it would seem that a Region 1/NTSC
set should be soon in the offing. If you have a universal player in the
US, you can order the series right now from Amazon UK. http://tinyurl.com/znyyq Huzzah!!
The plot of this movie is as dumb as a bag of hair. Jimmy Smit plays a character
that could have been upset by the ridiculousness of the story. He is evil and a
wife beater. It's a character as far from his NYPD and LA Law roles as you could
possibly get. If you've thought he had the looks and the acting chops to
play the really bad boy role, her's your present. But!!!!!!!! Mary Louis
Parker wears black miniskirts and little black minidresses throughout the movie. She has always had some of the greatest legs in the history of the movies.
This makes the movie well worth it for this leg admirer. I'd buy the DVD
for this reason only if it was available.
This movie is still alive and kicking today thanks to the presence of Alan Ladd.
This is good in one way because the movie has some interesting things to say, but
bad in another because everyone who watches it expecting that tough-guy Ladd is
going to hoop through his usual paces, is going to be mighty disappointed. Without
fanfare or introduction, Ladd is suddenly introduced in the third reel. True, his
role is a key one but it's small and likely to get lost in the shuffle. There are
many key roles in former newspaperman Martin Mooney's ambivalent screenplay which
hits out at all political alliances and quite ruthlessly denigrates Reform
candidates. It's the lovely and extremely talented Joan Woodbury who ties the
various strands of the wide-ranging story together. Unlike the usual Hollywood
production, the plot actually proceeds in a series of jumps, much like the films
later turned out by the French "New Wave", though easier to follow here, especially
if you are aware that the film's original title was Paper Bullets. Nonetheless,
some of the film's narrative and character switches are a little disconcerting,
particularly in the role played by Jack LaRue who has wisely elected to act the
part in a strangely non-committal way. One of Jack's best acting jobs ever, but no-
one is likely to notice, alas!
Flipping through the channels I was lucky enough to stumble upon the beginning of
this movie. I must admit that it grabbed my attention almost immediately. I love
older films and this is or should be considered a classic! One of the most
wonderful rarities of this movie is that the main character was not only female but
she was also a bad girl. I highly recommend this movie!
Great movie. Good acting ,a wonderful script. It's exciting to find out what the
people are thinking and how they react on the situation they are in. A pity about
the ending; a 'page' of text of how Nynke's life went on, instead of moving images
was a poor choice. I hope this movie attracts a lot of people; it's worth it!
This wonderful film is a love story, and shows that not all relationships are
destined to last. Even so they can be great & worth the pain & suffering of
breakup. Director Pieter Verhoeff gives us an insight of the period
around 1900, the way society (mis)treats women, and how a very strong woman (Nynke)
deals with. With great costumes, landscapes, lovely music and good actors and
acting this photoplay draws you in for the length of the movie. At first
the ending is a bit sudden, a page describing the rest of her life scrolls. On
reflection this is a great (the best) way to have your own fantasy create the rest
of her life. This was the second movie for me that had people sit while
the end titles scrolled by (The first being Schindler's List). Apparently the movie
had this effect on everybody.
Nynke is a classy filmed movie in the same style as the Oscar winning film
Character (1997). But this comparison immediately urges me to add that the latter
was quite more exciting... Sure, Nynke is a beautiful historic & costume
drama (with fantastic acting by Monic Hendrickx!) in which you witness the personal
growth of 'Nynke van Hichtum' in her marriage to Pieter Jelles Troelstra. The
subtitle of this movie is 'a lovestory'. So it starts, and ends with their
marriage. But THAT is where the director makes a crucial mistake!
Nynke's exciting, independent life started when the marriage ended. She wrote
several children's books and travelled around the world. What a great life she has
lived. But Pieter Verhoeff puts Nynke back in the trammels of convention that
depressed her and that she struggled out of: the thought that her life extended
just her marriage to Troelstra, being no one else but the mother of their
kids. Let's all hope for Nynke II!
A touching movie about a talented woman who struggles with a society and a love
that structurally underestimate her. The issues are subtly addressed and timeless,
as many of the depicted difficulties between man and woman still exist in Dutch
society today. This movie is a tribute to all modern women without dwelling on
feminism. Not only the story is well told, the acting and the scenery are great as
well.
Recovery is an incredibly moving piece of work, handling the devastating effects of
brain injury on not only the individual, but the entire family. Without resorting
to preaching or Hollywood sappy endings, Tony Marchant's drama presents a family in
crisis in a realistic way. Highest praise goes David Tennant and Sarah
Parish for their incredible performances. I had presumed before watching the drama
that I would see some of their previous on screen relationship in Blackpool bleed
through-- but it never does. Neither actor is recognizable from any previous work,
and I didn't see either of them as an actor playing a part during the entire 90
minutes. In addition, Harry Treadaway's performance as the son just on the cusp of
starting his own life in university was fantastic - throughout the piece, he shows
the torn nature of a teenage boy thrown into the unwilling role as man of the
house, At times, nearly every character in the drama is unsympathetic.
As the viewer, I wanted to give each of them a good smack to wake up to reality,
stop moping, and start adjusting to the rotten but very present change in their
lives. But under the same circumstances, I see myself acting like any of them -
switching between trying to show the stiff upper lip to desperation to escape to
anything, including behavior that is completely unlike myself. It's the show's
greatest strength - truth, without sugar coating, to force us all to think what
we'd be able to do under the same circumstances. This is a difficult,
but must-watch show. I hope that it somehow manages to be shown in the U.S.
David Tennant and Sarah Parish's brilliant acting had me in tears as many of the
scenes were so familiar to me. My husband suffered a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage in
1977 and required a major operation which involved lifting his brain and plugging
the leak. Like Tricia I was naive enough to expect that he would return to being
his former self. After over 25 years of loving and caring for him he abandoned me
without warning to go and live with a woman he hardly knew. He then petitioned for
and I am now going through a divorce. I do hope the programme helped people to
understand what it is like to cope with brain injury.
Recovery is a well-judged and balanced drama of a sensitive subject that doesn't
sentimentalise the main characters. David Tennant and Sarah Parish bring to the
fore the complex and conflicting emotions of a couple deeply in love struggling to
come to terms with the personality changes they both endure and also must make to
survive a tragic accident. Tennant, as Alan, brings humour as well as a
dangerous lecherousness, as an engineer recovering from a memory loss brought on by
a road accident. Alan is not portrayed simply as a victim but as human being with
feelings doing the best he can to make sense of his new life. Sarah Parish's Tricia
is not a clichéd stand-by-her-man housewife who will do anything to support her
husband. She struggles with falling out of love with Alan, as the man she once new
and loved is now a completely different person - a stranger to her. Contrary to some opinion, this - in my view - makes perfect Sunday night viewing.
Too often, we are shown soft family dramas or detective series, like Heartbeat,
which rot and putrefy the brain. Programme commissioners seem to think that the
traditional day of rest is also a day when our minds go to sleep. More challenging
and thought-provoking drama like Recovery would seriously change the situation.
I can't remember the series, I believe it may have been "American Masters", but it
was broadcast on PBS around 1980. Most people have some knowledge of the
development of the A bomb, and those that have little, or none, probably think it
is a pretty dry subject. Anyone who has viewed this 7 part series does not feel
that way. You get to know the turmoil in Oppenhemiers mind, and how the development
changed his life forever. You understand the tragic figure he became, and why. With
7 episodes you get to know the major players, and the intrigue and backstabbing. I
have contacted PBS about the chance of obtaining a video, or DVD, but have never
received a response. Too bad, I would love to see it again.
I'm so glad I taped this film when it came on BBC last month! It blew my mind, so
gut wrenching and real. David Tennant is absolutely fabulous in this, even though
his character isn't always that easy to like or identify with. The final scene
where he plays the song just broke my heart, those eyes.... I'm guessing
that he made this film in between the Dr. Who series, and that makes it even more
of an achievement for me. I just love Dr. Who and yet I saw absolutely nothing of
him in Mr. Tennants portrayal of this man who knows that he has changed and
struggles to create some sort of new identity and life. great little
intense drama!
I was blubbing like an idiot during the last ten minutes of this exceptional piece
of television. I have to say that the idea of sitting down to view 90 minutes of
what was bound to be pretty depressing material on a Sunday, was not a welcome one.
The thought of yet another, over worthy, BAFTA winning possibility did not enthuse
me......However the end result knocked me for 6. This is some of the best
television I have seen in ages. For years I was under the impression that all
originality had left the BBC's drama department. Our Friends in the North was the
last production that truly blew me away and that was 10 years ago. However faith is
restored and honour is satisfied. David Tenant was incredible! So many actors I can
think of would have really gone to town on a part like this, but never once did I
see Mr Tenant as an actor or as the Doctor, all I saw was Alan Hamilton. I haven't
had my heart wrenched this much since Daniel Craigs performance as Geordie Peacock
all those years ago. Sarah Parish was also incredible and I really hope this role
brings her better roles in the future. All of the cast were great but special
mention must go to the director who really placed us inside Alans head. The toaster
scene, in particular, made me feel quite queasy.
When I saw this on TV I was nervous...whats if they messed it up? Millions of
families like mine that live with a brain damaged man, in my case my Dad, would be
let down. I watched it with my Mum and we both ended up crying, it was so accurate
and captured how the family feels as well as the person having suffered the brain
injury. The actors were all wonderful and I had no complaints, my Mums told me she
hasn't been able to stop thinking about it. I hope this program made many people
aware of what it's like living with brain damage and what it's like for the
families. More programs like this should be made, I was surprised at how good it
was and it's really shook me up emotionally.
Totally disgusting and cheap bawdy humor. I loved it!!! It is the most disgusting
and totally horribly acted film, except for Nicolas Read, who plays an un-dead
Court Jester, to comic brilliance. But being that as it may, I laughed so many
times and I have to hand it to the film makers, it wasn't pretentious or ordinary
in any way. Raping, fighting, zombies vomitting on their rape victims. What other
movie has this? Not for the quesy, but with a pizza, a bong, and a six pack of
beer, you got it made, if you have a cast iron stomach and a juvenille sense of
humor like myself.
I felt compelled to comment on this film because it's listed as the fourth lowest-
rated sci-film of all time on the IMDb. WHAT!?!? Sure, this movie is crappy, but
it's HILARIOUS! It's not awful on an Ed Wood level, it's more surreal and
uneven. There are some classic moments in the film. The brain surgery is
gross and great- and even nuttier when you consider that the film was rated PG! Gor
chasing after his dolly before getting battery acid dumped on his face- "Mine!
Gimmee!" Zandor Vorkoff's speeches at the beginning of the film- "Before Amir, Kali
was but another weak nation struggling to break free from centuries of stagnant
feudalism!" Angelo Rossito also has some great lines- "No, Gor! No!" "You want
these keys, don't you, my pretties?" It is absolutely wrong that this is the 4th
lowest-rated sci-film on the IMDb because it is ENTERTAINING. No matter how bad a
film is, if it still manages to be weird, quirky, unsettling, or entertaining, it
has merit and doesn't deserve to be dumped on and dismissed. I won't defend most of
Al Adamson's films, but this one, along with Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD OF
GHASTLY HORROR, are entertaining enough to make up for their awfulness.
This film revolves around an Arabian leader (Amir) who dies and wants to live on.
So a Dr. Lloyd Trenton is being paid to transplant Amirs brain into a "willing"
participant. But in the Doctors basement his dwarf assistant Dorro (Angelo
Rossitto) drains young girls blood for the doctors purposes. So meanwhile Doctor
Llyod pays a man to kill the people who assisted Amir into the country (Which is
Reed Hadley, Grant Williams, and various unknown bodyguards.). Grant is the only
survivor when his car crashes off the road. While this has happened the doctors
other assistant Gor is sent out to get a body for amir and hurts him so badly
Dr.Llyod cant operate. Meanwhile, Grant finds Amirs "girlfriend" Regina Carrol and
tells her his story. Grant sees the man who drove him off the road and Dorro kills
him. Then since Gor failed to get a body D.r Llyod puts Amirs brain into Gors
disfigured body. Then Grant and Regina go to the Doctors lab an ------------------------SPOILERS------------------------- find out his secret.
Soon Amir (Gor) are prancing around killing people and in the muddle of what I
think is plot Dr.Llyod has a brain-ray gun which hurts Amir on command. It turns
out Dr.Lloyd wants a country in which all scientists can work without law. So then
Regina dies. and at the end Amirs new body (I think) say that it shall be a new
country blah blah. I still don't get the ending but overall this was a
very enjoyable piece of smelly cheese.This film features Grant Williams in his
second to last film roll. I recommend it for any fan of Al Adamson or if you like
Brains.
American-made final entry in the "Blood Island" series of Filipino horror films
concerns Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley), ruler of a fictional country. He dies of cancer,
yet it's figured out how to bring him back: put his brain into a donor body. The
mad doctor in charge (Kent Taylor) puts it in a highly unlikely body: the facially
scarred giant manservant named Gor (John Bloom). A doctor friend of the ruler tries
to remedy matters and put an end to the mad doctors' plans. Film-making
partners Samuel M. Sherman (producer) and Al Adamson (director) corral several
actors they've worked with before, including Taylor, Adamsons' sexy wife Regina
Carrol, Angelo Rossitto, Zandor Vorkov, and Vicki Volante. They tried to go for the
feel of the previous "Blood Island" entries but one can tell this was made
stateside. While not necessarily a "good" film, it's got a bunch of amusing
elements to add up to an entertainingly trashy whole. A malevolent dwarf
(Rossitto), gory operations, a rather unconvincing makeup job on Bloom, the
political intrigue subplot, caverns full of cobwebs, etc. The narrative is actually
pretty coherent, with plot twists thrown in here and there. I think it could have
been trimmed a bit; some scenes drag. But it's got its fun moments and an ending
people might not expect. For this kind of thing, the acting isn't too
bad. Both Taylor and Rossitto are fun; the latter seems to be having quite a good
time in his role. Volante is appealing enough, and Williams is O.K. in the heroic
role. In any event, it's nice to see all of these familiar faces in one of these
films. Absolutely nothing special, but as a trashy B "horror" (I use the
word loosely, none of this is exactly scary) film, it certainly amuses. 7/10
Brain of Blood starts as Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley) the leader of a country called
Kahlid is close to death because of cancer, however if he dies Kahlid will tear
itself apart without anyone to lead them so doctor Robert Nigserian (Grant
Williams) & one of Amir's devotees Mohammed (Zandor Vorkov) have devised a plan to
take Amir's dead body to America where mad scientist Dr. Lloyd Trenton (Kent
Taylor) will transplant his brain into a fresh body & with a bit of plastic surgery
no-one will ever know he was even dead. Things don't go according to plan though as
when the time comes to transplant Amir's brain Trenton's freak assistant Gor (John
Bloom) brings a dead body of someone that fell from a balcony, Trenton needed a
strong fit living body & since there's no more time he decides to use Gor's body as
a temporary stop-gap until another more suitable one can be found. Unfortunately
when Amir wakes up in his new body he's not very happy at what he sees, I mean
would you be if you found out your brain was inside a badly burned freak? Also known as Brain Damage, The Brain, The Creature's Revenege & The
Undying Brain this cheapo exploitation flick was produced & directed by the one &
only Al Adamason & quite frankly I'm offended at the pathetic 1.5 rating Brain of
Blood has on the IMDb, personally I think it's terrific fun in a so bad it's good
sort of way. The highly entertaining script by Kane W. Lynn & Joe Van Rodgers is as
loopy & silly as they come from sloppy blood soaked brain transplants to crazed mad
scientists, from 7 foot tall acid scarred freaks who play with toy cars to 4 foot
tall midget medical assistant's, from basement dungeons to rooftop chases, from car
crashes to assassination's, kidnaps to screaming scantily clad women, from Regina
Carrol's hair-do which should get it's own mention during the opening credits to
teenage girls imprisoned in the basement for blood to a laugh-out-loud hilarious
ending which includes some deep meaningful speech! It's all here & Brain of Blood
has quality cheese stamped all over it, if your a fan of bad low budget
exploitation flicks with a sense of fun then this film should be right at the top
of your list of 'must see' films. Despite it's lowly 1.5 rating I am proud to admit
that I liked Brain of Blood a lot, I thought it was an absolute hoot to watch, it
slows down a bit at the end with a few too many shots of people wandering around
doing nothing in particular but until that point it had moved along like a rocket,
at only 85 minutes it's relatively short, it's difficult to second guess the barmy
plot & I just think it's loads of campy fun. This is director Adamson's
masterpiece as far as I'm concerned along with Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971)
which he made a year before this. Those who have seen an Adamson film before will
know about the none existent production values, cheap special effects & cardboard
sets & that all adds to the fun, this film manages that fine between incompetence &
seriousness to create a memorable viewing experience. I love the opening shot of
Kahlid which is obviously just a photo of the Taj Mahal in India complete with
statuesque people in the foreground! Regina Carrol's hair seems to be a separate
entity on it's own, it seems to change styles between shots & is frankly
horrendous, don't get me started about her make-up job either that she must apply
with a a paint sprayer! There is another hilarious moment when we see Amir's body
has been transported to America wrapped in what looks like ordinary tin foil, why
is the question I asked myself, why!? The effects are variable, there's a terrible
looking fake spider, Gor's burned make-up job is pretty bad although there is a
surprisingly gory brain removal which is actually quite impressive. The
budget for Brain of Blood must have been practically none existent, I must admit I
thought Trenton's lab was quite good with various computers & medical instruments
although the rest of the film looks cheap & nasty. The production values are low,
the music was taken from another film Beast of Blood (1971) & the acting is awful
but in a campy fun sort of way. Brain of Blood may have the best title
for an exploitation film ever & as far as I'm concerned it's a highly entertaining
piece of nonsense that I had a great time watching & laughing at. They just
don't/can't/won't make them like this anymore, impossible to recommend to anyone
looking for a good film but bad movie lovers should enjoy it. I liked it, but then
again I'm just weird.
I saw this black and white comedy noir yesterday at the London film Festival.
Structurally, it has been compared to Pulp Fiction but it is perhaps closer to the
structure of Amores Perros and the slacker mood of Kevin Smith's Clerks. Four
stories intersect at a French motorway diner. The first vignette has Franck
(Edouard Baer) bungling a hold up at the diner. The waitress, Suzie (Anna
Mouglalis) takes pity and tell him her story. The second has two incompetent
kidnappers, Leon (Bouli Lanners) and Paul (Serge Lariviere) take a teenage girl
from her rich family. Unfortunately for them, she is suicidal and her family don't
appear to want her back. The third is a dialogue between two ageing rock stars who
bump into each other at the diner (Alain Bashung and Arno playing themselves). The
final part is about four ex-criminals who smuggle their old partner out of hospital
to visit their old hideout which has since been turned into the diner. An
'epilogue' returns to Franck and Suzie to complete their story (not really an
epilogue, more a conclusion). The structure does not really work. The
stories are not sufficiently intertwined as in Pulp Fiction. Nor is the diner
crucial to the action to at least two of the stories in the way the car crash was
crucial in the four stories of Amores Perros. The quality of the individual stories
varies. The hideout story is a cute idea, with a couple of good gags, but does not
come off; and the rock star reunion is pointless and dull. On the other hand, the
kidnap story is hilarious, although its connection to the diner is tenuous. The
most balanced and successful story is the Franck and Suzie one. This
film isn't entirely successful but has moments of interest and hilarity. I look
forward to seeing more of Writer/director's Samuel Benchetrit's work.
This is a slightly uneven entry with one standout sequence involving an over-the-
hill gang reminiscing in the diner that once - thirty years previously - was their
hideout; one ho-hum duologue between two ageing rock musos; a noirish kidnap turned
on its head and an opening sequence (plus epilogue) involving heist artist wannabe
Edward Baer and current 'hot' property Anna Magloulis which has its moments. No
movie in which Jean Rochefort appears can be dismissed lightly and here he shines
as one of the over-the-hill quintet, indeed the film is worth seeing for Rochefort
alone but each of the sequences has something to offer and it's definitely worth a
look.
I watched this mini in the early eighties. Sam Waterson proved himself to be a
great actor. In fact when he began Law and Order I was disappointed in him as it
was not as powerful a role. Unfortunately the good roles do not pay the bills. I
wish I could find a copy of this rare series and review it. It is both factual and
entertaining. Everyone should see it to know what really happened. I was so moved I
purchased and read the book "Pppenheimer-Shatterer of Worlds". And saw how this man
became an unlikely hero who was never rewarded for his insight. If you get a chance
be sure to watch this movie and see what a performance Mr. Waterston can really
provide an audience. Enjoy the movies!
I first saw it at 5am January 1, 2009, and after a day i watched it again and i
want to watch it again. Love everything (well, almost, so 9 stars) about it. No
color, beautiful naive stories, funny gangsters, Anna, camera work, music. Well,
sometimes you just want to listen little bit longer and the music just stops. But
this is not a musical after all. I like Anna's acting, this naive wannabe gangster
girl, how she speaks, holds the gun, everything makes me smile. No, it's not that
funny, though i have laughed a bit at some moments, it's just so subtle. Excellent
work by Samuel Benchetrit. Though 3d nouvelle seems weaker, but they are also
gangsters, maybe even worse, cause they are stealing ideas. And the last scene is
my favorite. Makes me feel so warm and.. romantic. Yes, i would recommend this
movie for the romantic souls with a taste for such art-housish movies. And i don't
agree with those comparing it to Pulp Fiction. It's not about action and twisted
story, though all vignettes intersect. It's calm, and maybe too slow movie for most
of the people. It's about characters, their feelings, very subtle. Anyway, probably
this review won't be of much help to anyone (my first), just wanted to express my
appreciation. SPOILER: This movie doesn't have a Goofs section. Wonder,
didn't anybody notice that hand in the 2 part when the kidnappers decided to go
home? Looks like a part of crew, hehe. I know i should better post this in forums,
but i don't agree with some policies here.
This movie definitely shows something and sheds light on what happens in most
institutions today, and shows how one gurl just with the help of her newspaper
manages to get things done, her editor has complete faith in her and doesn't
publish something important, because it would harm her friend... and when it was
the right time she took the necessary action. The movie overall got a
rating of 9 from me , because its got everything, i mean it keeps you entertained,
and moreover, they have acted really well, for a TV movie, its really high quality
acting that deserves alot of credit.
I liked this movie. Many people refer to it as "Sabrina the Teenage Feminist". They
do that with a lot of movies that Melissa Joan Hart is in. Still, she really
surprised me in this movie because she was great in the part of Mary, who fights
for justice when her roommate is raped. You could tell that Hart was extremely
determined in this movie and it showed. I also liked Lisa Dean Ryan as Mary's
roommate. She was very effective in making me feel sorry for her character after
she was raped. Josh Hopkins was good as the cocky and egotistical rapist. Lochlyn
Munro convincingly played his character. The acting in this movie is better than in
most TV movies, in my opinion. The movie was pretty predictable though.
Also, I expected more from the ending, it was too abrupt. The delivery could have
been better. But the performances and overall plot make up for these problems.
I actually flipped to Lifetime channel by mistake, just as this movie was
beginning, and ended-up watching it. It certainly deals with a serious
issue, probably more prevalent than we realize, in terms of this type of attack of
a young woman by an ego-maniacal fellow-student, who feels he's above the system,
and, unfortunately, often is. The cast here was believable, and the
performances credible. A lot of these Canadian/Lifetime flicks are decidedly "over-
the-top." However, this is one I might label as "under-the-top." While
appreciating the fact that it wasn't presented in an overblown fashion, this film
somehow seemed like a record being played at a slower speed than proper, the 96
minutes seemed like many more, and it had the effect of looking like a shorter
film, looped over-and-over, seemingly going on and on and on and ON - before
reaching its inevitable and predictable conclusion. Yet the engaging
characters and performances made it better than the average film of this type,
despite these criticisms. And while these pictures often "milk" the
climax, this one could have given it a bit more detail and length.
In my work with the only nationwide non-profit organization, Security On Campus,
Inc. dedicated exclusively to the issue of college campus crime prevention and
student awareness I see all too often the type of campus violence and `cover-up'
through secret campus courts portrayed in the movie `Silencing Mary.' In fact we
receive numerous calls and requests for information every month from campus
reporters such as `Mary' who are facing similar situations. Its
depiction of a campus rape and the subsequent crusade by `Mary,' the victim's
roommate and a student journalist played exceedingly well by Melissa Joan Hart, for
justice was very well done and accurately researched. This was the first
television movie that I have ever seen that I felt truly reflected and encompassed
all of the various complex issues associated with how rape and other violent crimes
are dealt with on our nation's college and university campuses. Although it would
not be possible to address all of these issues in depth in 2 hours, this movie
comes closer than any others I've seen.
This production was quite good. The usual fabulous scenery, interesting, quirky
characters. It was just so strange not to have Captain Hastings, Miss Lemon, and
Poirot's office/residence, so prominently featured in the original PBS/BBC
mysteries. In the original series, so much took place at the office.
Hastings reading the paper, while Poirot "exercises his little gray cells." Miss
Lemon pitching in whenever needed. Poirot without Capt. Hastings would
be like Holmes without Watson ... he can most certainly solve the crime, but it is
not as interesting. And what would a Poirot mystery be without Hastings,
with his impeccable manners, falling for some beautiful, unattainable woman.
Count me as being one who is happy to see no Hastings in this episode. The poor-
man's Dr. Watson does nothing for me, as he simply drags down every scene he's in.
Japp is often necessary to the story as the representative of officialdom, and a
little Miss Lemon is fine for seasoning, but Hastings swings from painfully dim to
over-mannered in different episodes. If I have to sit through one more vacuous "Oh,
I say there!" I'll take the gas-pipe. As a general rule, the more Poirot
you get in a Poirot story, the better. Every line for Hastings is one taken away
from Poirot. And I've never read the books, so I really don't care about fidelity
to Christie's characters. A lot of viewers/reviewers seem to have a problem with
separating the movies from the books. If you want the book as written, then read
it. I don't see the point of watching the television version if you know what will
come next at every stage. Theatre is not prose - don't expect a transcription.
Richard Abernethie, a very wealthy man, has died and his relatives have assembled
for his funeral. Included in the funeral party is Abernathie's youngest sister Cora
Galaccio. While none of the family has seen Cora in at least 20 years, they all
agree that Cora was always a bit different. So when Cora says something about
Abemethie having been murdered, most laugh it off as one of Cora's eccentricities.
But someone is obviously taking Cora seriously. The next day, Cora is found dead in
her bed having been beaten violently. Is there a connection between the two deaths?
It's up to Hercule Poirot to find a killer. After the Funeral is one of
the most well put together episodes of the entire Poirot series. I've always been a
fan of this particular Agatha Christie book and, from what I remember, the movie is
as faithful to Christie's source material as any of the Poirot installments. The
mystery is top notch with plenty of clues, suspects, and red herrings. And as I've
written before, I always enjoy an Christie story where Hercule Poirot gathers
everyone together in a drawing room for the final reveal. It might be old
fashioned, but that's the way I like it. Getting beyond the plot, technically and
artistically After the Funeral is a winner. Sets, editing, direction, and
cinematography are as good as you'll find in one of these movies. The acting is
equally impressive. I've come to expect an enjoyable performance from David Suchet
as Poirot and he doesn't disappoint here. The rest of the cast is just as strong
with Monica Dolan giving an especially noteworthy performance. Other than a minor
quibble with the rapid fire way the characters are introduced, I've got no real
complaints. It's a good show all the way around.
Although I have definitely read this particular Agatha Christie book at some point,
I didn't remember anything about it except the name "Abernethie". Which is a good
thing, because seeing this story unfold without knowing how it will play out
allowed me to appreciate once more the sheer GENIUS of Agatha Christie: the way she
misleads you and then pulls the rug out from under your feet is the main reason for
her success and timelessness. In addition to her stories, the excellent production
values, beautiful locations, wonderful music, top-notch acting, elegant directing,
etc. are the reasons for this series' success and timelessness - and all those
virtues are present in "After the Funeral". A word of advice: be alert right from
the start - there are clues dropped all over the place even in the opening
sequence! There are some quite unnerving moments as well, in contrast to the
peaceful-looking English-countryside locations, and some small touches of humor. A
must-see for mystery buffs, and just a very good film in general. (***)
As most other reviewers seem to agree, this adaptation of 'After The Funeral' is
very good indeed. Always one of my favourite Poirot stories I was worried that it
might be 'messed about with'. Well, it was a little bit but ONLY a little bit and
the end the result was thoroughly entertaining. David Suchet continues to be well
nigh faultless as Poirot and (as others have pointed out) the other star of this
show is Monica Dolan who surely could not be bettered as Miss Gilchrist. I also
really enjoyed Fiona Glasscott who was spot on as the cutting Rosamund Shane but
really, the casting was quite impeccable throughout! One point is
knocked off for the adaptors not being able to resist cramming too many revelations
into the final fifteen minutes. The business with the will and house deeds was all
a bit unnecessary although I didn't mind how they tightened up the structure of the
Abernethie family (in the book the family tree IS really quite complicated). The
final moments when the murderer is revealed however are really incredibly well done
and I found the very end, when they all leave Enderby, quite touching. This is
really one of the very best of the Poirot series so far.
Absolutely the best thing I have ever seen on TV. It was both entertaining and
informative. The reason I found this site is an attempt to find out how I can again
see it. In the light of present understanding of history we have to
sympathize with Gen. Leslie Groves who was responsible for the nuts and bolts of
running the Manhattan Project. Most certainly he was not as paranoid about security
as most have thought in the past. The casting for the real life people
portrayed was outstanding. It was the first time that I noticed Sam Waterston as an
actor. Except for height he looked very much like Robert Oppenheimer. The early scene in which Oppenheimer is leading a class of graduate students was
especially intriguing to me.
Some less than inspired opening string music notwithstanding, we somehow know that
from the word go this is heading straight for the "big fun" drawer. By the time we
observe Monica Dolan (in a truly genius bit of casting) delightfully goofing it up
as Cora early on we're already hooked, but it is only later on when she reveals
herself in her marvellous screen creation, that deranged, scheming, maleficent
queen of murder and deceit posing in the guise of the uptight Miss Gilchrist, that
she not only effortlessly steals the entire telemovie for herself but quite simply
blows off screen anyone who comes near her, including the ever well measured David
Suchet who himself seems to be somewhat bedazzled by her acting talents and, very
gentlemanly, allows her to take centre stage. Dolan is the true engine of the film
and her Miss Gilchrist a genuinely well rounded character in this Christie
rendition, helped by a zesty script and the sprightly paced direction - and also by
the rest of the cast led by Geraldine James and Dominic Jephcott, who all display
signs of sympathy for the given material and play with relish accordingly. The production values are spot on as usual, and if there are any weaker links
they might be located in the comparatively substandard music score to the majority
of later Poirots, and also perhaps in the lacking of a genuine Italian-born actor
for the role of Cora's husband. Other than that, this is an hour and a half of pure
televisual delight which is as self indulgent and entertaining as it is lovingly
put together.
I saw this film on the A&E channel this past weekend. The mystery was okay, I was
not able to guess the culprit before the end. But I enjoyed the characters and
their development much more than the mystery. There was a mystery about some of
them, especially George Abernathie, performed by the wonderful Michael Fassbender,
and George's cousin, Susannah. In fact, the story of those two characters left me
wanting to know more. From what I've tried to glee about the Agatha Christie book
of the same title, I think this film did not follow it to the letter. Very good
performances by the actors involved, especially Fassbender and the lady who played
Cora/companion.
After The Funeral was absolutely superb, and by far the best episode of the season.
I was disappointed with Cards On the Table, that started off so well but let down
considerably by the last half hour, and I didn't know what to think of Taken After
the Flood, though I do remember being confused at the end. After the Funeral as
I've said is one of my all time favourite Poirot episodes, up there with Five
Little Pigs, Sad Cypress and The ABC Murders. I was afraid that they would ruin the
story, but instead it is very faithful to the book. Now I will say I don't mind
changes to books, and try not to compare movies and TV adaptations to their
sources, except when the book is a masterpiece and the adaptation doesn't do it
justice. That's why I disliked some of the Marples like Nemesis and Sleeping
Murder, and so far out of the Poirots The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Taken At the
Flood and Cards on the Table are the only ones that really did disappoint.
Everything else ranges from good to outstanding, even the recent Appointment with
Death, despite the many deviations from the book, which I admit isn't a favourite,
was surprisingly good, thanks to the marvellous production values, stellar ensemble
performances and outstanding music score. Back to After the Funeral, the production
values are fantastic. It has a really cinematic feel to it, and the stunning
photography and splendid scenery and costumes made it a visual feast for the eyes.
The music was very stirring and even haunting, and the entire cast give wonderful
performances. David Suchet is impeccable as always as Poirot, and Geraldine James
and Anna Calder Marshall are just as terrific. But for me, the standout was Monica
Dolan as Mrs Gilchrist, she is up there with Donald Sumpter and Polly Walker as the
best supporting actor/actress in a Poirot episode, that's how good her performance
was. All in all, a must see, one of the best Poirot episodes by far, and one of the
more faithful ones too. 10/10 Bethany Cox
For those of you still in the dark, I will not spoil this Christie, as it is
definitely one of her finest works, and I stress that you should see it whenever
you next have free time! If any of the adaptations are to be watched before (or in
lieu of) reading the book, I would suggest "After the Funeral" for the following
reasons. I wanted to praise the performance by Monica Dolan (Miss
Gilchrist), whose employer-companion Cora is brutally murdered at the outset of the
film. Her portrayal of a shocked, nervous, insignificant woman is actually moving,
especially when she has a moment of personal connection with Poirot, another person
who travels alone in "the journey of life." And when the murderer is being revealed
in typical Poirot denouement fashion, Dolan's reactions to the revelation are
acting at its finest: you feel as angry at the murderer as you do sympathetic to
Miss Gilchrist... something uncommon in Christie lore. Although there
are a couple of discrepancies between novel and film adaptation, as per usual (the
business of the will perhaps making less sense in the film), the unbelievably
lavish recreation of post-war England, thoroughly high calibre of acting and
directing, and preservation (if not heightening) of Christie's mystery and intrigue
render these discrepancies insignificant. Bravo Suchet, Dolan and the
whole team for crafting this masterpiece of murder mystery theatre, and the
producers who gave it the green light! Encore!
Aunt Cora had always been tactless, and her well-bred family ignored the remark she
made after her brother Richard's funeral: "He WAS murdered, wasn't he?". They
remembered it the next day, when Cora was found brutally murdered with a
hatchet... For some reason, the POIROT movies this year have been far
from faithful to the original book. I was disappointed about the changes made in
CARDS ON THE TABLE-- my favourite Poirot book. AFTER THE FUNERAL is my 2nd
favourite Poirot book, and I was scared the story would be destroyed. It wasn't!
The movie was nearly page-for-page faithful throughout, right down to the killer's
motive! All the actors were wonderful, but my favourite has got to be Monica Dolan,
who gives a great performance as Miss Gilchrist, the companion to the late Aunt
Cora. Without a doubt the best Poirot movie ever!
David Suchet is Agatha Christie's mustached detective Hercule Poirot in "After the
Funeral," produced in 2005. Anyone who has heard David Suchet speak with his own
British accent knows what a shock it is, because his accent as Poirot is so perfect
and organic to the character. Suchet is the Poirot of Agatha Christie's books, and
although I confess a love for Peter Ustinov in the role, his portrayal doesn't have
that much to do with what Christie wrote. In this episode, Poirot is
asked by a solicitor friend to investigate the possible murder of one of his
clients. Enroute on the train, the solicitor recounts the events after the death -
a strange will disinheriting the expected heir and the pronouncement of the man's
sister that he was murdered. When Poirot meets the family, he discovers adultery,
lots of secrets, another will and murder. The story is excellent with
rich production values and a wonderful, detailed depiction of the time period. All
of the acting is superb, particularly from Monica Dolan, who plays Miss Gilchrist.
Poirot here is without Hastings, his beautiful office, or Miss Lemon but he's
effective nonetheless. I had the privilege of seeing David Suchet on
Broadway in "Amadeus." Breathtaking. What an actor - when he's playing Poirot, all
I see IS Poirot.
I was surprised that I liked this movie. But it reminded me of a 2004 version of
the first Friday the 13th. There were a number of cheesy elements, yet at the same
time there were many cool ones. The story line was good--predictable if you have
seen more than one or two horror movies, but full of one-liners to make it
worthwhile. There are some memorable scenes worth watching. A few issues I had with
the plot had to do with the continuity of the characters. For instance in the
opening scene the scarecrows (which were humans on stakes, whose blood was drained
to grow the crops), looked very real, but later in the film they looked more like
fake scarecrows wearing blue colored masks. There were more than several gaps in
the plot, and the acting was mediocre, but at least it sounded like how real people
talk, unlike Hollywood movies where the dialogue is really fake sounding when you
think about it. The culmination of the last scene, when the main character says
"I'm not a Baker, I'm a Connell!" and lops the head off of the scarecrow is
satisfying, as his friends have for the most part been killed off by these
creatures at that point.
This movie was to me a fairly enjoyable watch, I mean it wasn't great but it was
one of the better horror movies of late. It seems to have been low, almost state
benefit budget size but it has it's charms like the lovely ladies in it. The
atmosphere was good also (which is what is missing froma hell of a lot of horror
movies these days). The acting was your typical 80's low budget affair, that being
in case you don't know is that it is "dud" acting. But that is what Lucio Fulci's
movies were full of, they like this movie had atmosphere what they were lacking in
storyline and money etc. They more than made up for in the horror & gore &
atmosphere for the movie it's self. It is just a typical low budget
horror movie that is watchable, I watched it all the way and I love horror movies.
I've seen movies where I just turn off within 10 to 20 minutes or sit and fast
forward it if it's on video, or skip scene's on the DVD. This movie didn't make me
want to do that, I sat and watched it all the way to the end, without wanting to
skip parts. I would have liked it however if the zombie type folk in
this were a little more scarier as they were about as scary as having Freddy
Kreuger as your babysitter, not. But seriously though if they were a little better
it would have been low budget perfection, maybe. The music in this movie
was top notch stuff, ideal horror music so it was. I've seen horror movies where
the music is good or average but it could have been better, thank goodness though
this movie didn't have nay of the Metal music in it. I've been a die-
hard Metal fan since 1990 but in horror movies metal music spoils it, the movie
looses atmosphere a lot when any type of music other than a score is playing. So
i'm glad there was no music in this movie other than just your typical score which
was rather creepy, well done. It could have use "Profane Grace - Epitaph
Of Shattered Dreams" on it though. As it is keyboard music no guitars no nothing
except "really" creepy keyboard tracks. Like track one "Forever Sleep" you hear the
wind blowing all the way through it and some goose bump inducing keyboard music
that follows it. Ever track on that cd is the same, ideal horror music at it's
best, it would have suited this movie perfectly. The only unattractive
chick in the movie to me was the one who got chibbed/killed (or so we are led to
believe) and hung up as a scarecrow, only to get free and try to escape later.
Every other woman in the movie was lovely indeed, a big 9 out of 10 for them all
except the one I mentioned above. I wish that Hollywood (mainstream side
of things) would give money to Romero and the guy who made this movie. As giving it
to them for movies is way better a decision made than giving it to a goon muppet
called Paul Anderson of the "resident evil" mince. Well done guys, it is
not bad, not bad at all, I loved the part at the end credits when they kept showing
you clips of them making the movie (behind the scene's) Not many movies do this
kind of thing, which I thought added a little to the movie, as it also showed you
some outtakes of sorts and that's always a good thing if you ask me. Rating for this movie 8/10, rating for the lovely ladies in the movie 9/10,
rating for the atmosphere in the movie 9/10, rating for the score for the film
9.5/10.
Do not expect a classic military comedy, which claims to make fun of the military
while only enhancing a militaristic outlook. Instead it deconstructs the elements
that make the military such a murderous machine. Kind of East German version of
"Buffalo Soldiers". "NVA" works on a meta-level that it sympathizes with
its heroes' attempts to escape from army drill any which way they can. It's not
about loud laughs but about long lasting smiles. Utopian, of course (in one scene
you will be shown the harsh reality), but very thoughtful. Just to fill
the required 10 lines: Do not go into that movie if you have been an army officer
and liked your job.
Don't quite know why some people complain about this film not being a comedy and at
the same time being too unrealistic. If it had been realistic, there certainly
wouldn't have been much comedy. I also don't think that a comedy needs to make you
laugh aloud twenty times. There was much subtle humor, sweet feelings, and Kim
Frank just portrayed a dreamy character. In real life, there are many people whose
facial expression doesn't change much so Kim Frank keeping his was quite all right.
The ending was quite unrealistic, I'd say, but happy. It's a light-hearted movie
with a feel-good ending. I liked it. Loved it, actually. A serious part was Krueger
going to Schwedt, and I'm glad they didn't show what happened to him there. Showing
how he was when he came back hinted at it quite clearly.
I saw this series on PBS in 1980 in college and I still can't get it out of my
head, although I have never seen it since. I remember every cast member (the
casting WAS perfect, as mentioned in other comments), the design, the lighting and,
of course, the story, which is by itself is enough to keep you glued to the set.
Probably the best TV series I ever saw next to the original "Roots."
NVA combines eastalgia-humor, military comedy and teen movie. Although it is
somehow typically German-movie-like sentimental, I think it's a great and very
funny movie. You will not only laugh in NVA but also get a bit of an insight in the
Eastern Germany armed forces of the late 1980ies and how the young recruits as well
as the professional soldiers experienced the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of
the German Democratic Republic. You will enjoy NVA if you liked
Sonnenallee (another movie directed by Leander Haußmann), but not necessarily if
you enjoyed Good Bye Lenin which is much more serious and less obviously
funny. The acting is acceptable. But watch for former boy band singer
Kim Frank who has only two facial expressions: natural and shocked saucer-eyed!
It's just stories, some we wish happen to us, some we wish never happen to us, all
about unfulfilled desire. The locations and nude bodies are beautiful, but after
the second story all I could think was 'it takes more than just beauty to create a
real film'. Then of course the film unfolds. The stories are moving except Sophie
Marceau fails to communicate her story in this film. Malkovich plays the story for
both of them though. The voiceover fails to link the stories but helps Malkovich to
provoke some thought. I'd say it is worth seeing and the best of
Antonioni I have seen. Given his age - remarkable!
Antonioni with Wim Wenders --some of the best of the best. story-character-visuals.
Like most of their works, it is not really aimed at the children or the childish.
Don't miss the genius contained in this one.
A wonderful cast thrown into modern mystical romances for the intellectual grown
ups. Yes, they too need a love story to stir those hidden urges without the
Hollywood fluff. This all under the masterful direction of Antonioni and Wenders
who both love to pin his characters in exotic locations and have them dwarfed by
the surroundings with long wide shots. It is great to see that there is lust in the
mid-life crises sector.
"Beyond the Clouds" is an over-the-top artsy group of four vignettes each a
offering a glimpse into a man-woman relationship from the tenuous to the turbulent.
Although the film offers superb cinematography, some exquisite visual beauty, and a
cast of fine performers, there's little meat on the bones of this fragmented work.
A taste of a relationship cannot impart the fullness of it and synergism suggests
that much more can be accomplished with one story in 2 hours than with four.
Nonetheless, "Beyond the Clouds" will be fodder for dilettantes and a visual feast
for the all albeit superficial, stilted, and lacking in substance.
looks like the bet movie I've ever seen. not too much for intelligent perception
but so rich for perception sensitive. Antonioni is comparably wise to his movie.
Malkovich's so organic, roles are so true, situations are so real. I've change my
world outlook after this cinema. I'm a beginner literati in Russia -- country of
Tolstoy and Dostoevskiy -- and I'm quite sure watching Antonioni is good and fun
for russkies, because I and we do understand his point of view. so I don't
understand his lesser raiting on IMDb. I'm sure, speaking from Russia and our
people, we like Antonioni because of his romantic soul and positive sensation of
surrounding reality
First, the positives: an excellent job at depicting urban landscapes to suit the
mood of the film. Some of the shots could be paintings by De Chirico. Sophie
Marceau, beautiful. The negatives: the stories are hard to believe.
Unreal, uni-dimensional characters preen and posture 100% of the time, as if they
were in some kind of catwalk. This is neither the Antonioni of his earlier, much
better movies nor the Wenders we've all come to know and appreciate. Malkovich is
excess baggage in this movie.
amazing movie. Some of the script writing could have been better (some cliched
language). Joyce's "The Dead" is alluded to throughout the movie. Beautiful scenery
and great acting. Very poetic. Highly recommend.
If you speak French or can put up with sub-titles, you will really enjoy this
movie. If on the other hand you just want to see God's most beautiful creatures,
this is a must see. Not an ounce of silicon in sight. Zalman King eat your heart
out. Sophie Marceau's body is the epitome of perfection and everything I had ever
fantasized about. Her part is even in English. Even the fact that she was nude with
John Malkovich did not detract for her beauty. Sophie is a ten if ever there was
one. Chiara Caselli and Inés Sastre are 9.5s. Oh yeah, it is a pretty good story.
Several little vignettes are woven together in a sort of Six Degrees of Separation
style.
This the the final feature film that Michelangelo Antonioni directed, with the help
of Wim Wenders, and adapts from his short story collection "That Bowling Alley on
the Tiber". Beyond the Clouds contain 4 short stories with familiar themes that
we've come to be accustomed to from his earlier works, and sums up those themes in
vignettes which are weaved together via Wenders' directed scenes involving John
Malkovich's The Director character. However, most of the stories seemed to offer
little or no depth that we're used to from an Antonioni movie, while Malkovich's
narration of supposed depth rattled on with unclear diction that sounded a tad
pretentious and out of place. Nonetheless, all four stories seem to
touch on chance encounters, and extremely quick romances that played out more like
lust at first sight, perhaps due to the lack of time (since they're short stories
anyway) to allow for a more layered approach to carefully define and craft the
characters as we know from a typical Antonioni movie. And the obsessive approach
here is for the characters to disrobe to showcase a lack of deeper connection
sacrificed for the immediate satisfaction of the flesh. Maybe this is the point to
want to bring across with an observation of the more modern relationship? The first story, Story of a Love Affair That Never Existed, tells the
romance between Silvano (Kim Rossi Stuart) and Carmen (Ines Sastre), who meet when
one asks the other for directions to a hotel, and later meet at a cafe. It's as if
Fate is playing games on them when they meet, but part and meet again much later,
but like the games people play, it's almost like a L'Avventura or a La Notte with
the lack of communication, and of the expectations from the man. John
Malkovich's director character takes central role in the next short, who exhibited
some really lecherous looks toward a girl working at a shop, played by Sophie
Marceau. She is deeply disturbed and made to feel uncomfortable, but somehow
plucked up the courage to approach him, and in what I thought was to scare him off,
tells him her background that she murdered her father by stabbing him 12 times. But
in a flash these two are off toward bedroom gymnastics. The next short,
Don't Look for Me, is the longest of the lot, with Peter Weller playing a cheating
husband who has to choose between his mistress (Chiara Caselli) or his wife, played
by Fanny Ardant. Perhaps the more star studded of the lot, with Jean Reno also
stepping in for a coda at the end of it, which sort of expands the little universe
in which this short exists. But unfortunately Reno's involvement also got relegated
to some stifle of laughter as it goes into the implausible domain with laser quick
romantic tanglements. There was a key element adapted from L'Eclisse with a kiss
between a couple through a glass panel too, while the introductory tale about the
story of souls was quite interesting. If there's a negative theme here this short
wants to play upon, it'll be the duplicity of man. In between this short
and the next was a small scene which reunited our couple from La Notte, Marcello
Mastroianni and Jeanne Moreau, where the former was painting a landscape which was
reminiscent of that in Red Desert. Finally, we have the final shot This Body of
Dirt, with Vincent Perez as a young man going after a girl (Irene Jacob) whom he
just met, and falling in love with her, only to realize that it is a love that is
too late. It's a relatively talkie piece, just like the first story, with the
characters engaging in conversation while walking the streets of the city they're
in, which sort of brings to mind Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise. While on the whole the movie may have succeeded as individual pieces, they never
quite measure up as a combined effort given the "excuse" to link them up was a film
director's exploration of possible stories and a look for inspiration for his next
film.
I posted on IMDb on this series recently, giving a snail mail address at the
commercial arm of the BBD where one would write to appeal release. I wrote to that
address, mentioning Sam Waterson and his popularity prominently. I just received
the following reply: From: emilyfussell@hotmail.com Subject:
Oppenheimer Date: May 14, 2006 1:44:00 PM MDT To: kk2840@earthlink.net Dear Kate, I work for the BBFC, the British equivalent to the MPAA,
and we classify DVDs and videos as well as films in this country. Anyway, I am
currently in the process of giving a certificate to the 1980 miniseries
'Oppenheimer.' While researching the work on the IMDb, I noticed your post and
thought you might like to know that the work is about to be released (hence the
need for a certificate). I don't know which company is distributing it,
but keep your eyes peeled! Kind regards, Emily ++++++++++++
+++++ hooray! I also want to contact Netflix re purchasing
this. Kate Killebrew kk2840@earthlink.net I emailed the BBC
recently regarding whether their terrific series Oppenheimer had ever been released
on video or DVD. I have not been able to find it. I received the following reply.
If you do write the BBC, be sure to mention that Sam Waterston is very popular in
the US. You can also enter "Oppenheimer (1980)" on amazon.com, and find a box to
check to request release by the owner (BBC) and be notified when it's released. Kate Killebrew kk2840@earthlink.net Here's the reply from the
BBC: Dear Kate Thank you for your e-mail regarding
'Oppenheimer'. I was interested to read that you would like a copy of
this programme which you have enjoyed. I have checked the BBC Shop and on-line
retailers and can find no record of it being available. We are unaware of plans at
present to release this programme on DVD. However, if you would like to make a
suggestion, can I suggest you put it in writing to the commercial arm of the
BBC: Commissioning Editor BBC Worldwide Ltd Woodlands 80 Wood Lane
London W12 0TT May I thank you again for taking the time to contact the
BBC. Regards Elaine Hunter BBC Information
______________________________________ -----Original Message----- {Comments:} i am trying to find a copy of the terrific BBC production
"Oppenheimer', a six part series made in 1980 with Sam Waterston from a book/script
by Peter Prince. I watched parts of it then on PBS American Playhouse, but can't
find it on video anywhere. http://www.bbc.co.uk/
Even though the story is light, the movie flows so beautifully and its visual so
tranquil and poetic that it could almost carry the whole movie. The film
consists of four interconnected stories, all about different aspect of attraction
between man and/or woman and how it frequently is ethereal. Their true desire seems
to be always something that they cannot hold onto, it will flow out like a handful
of sand. I thought the most intriguing story was the last one where the
more unattainable the woman was, the more the man desires her. It parallels her
deep love for god, who is infinitely out of reach, but never closer to her
heart. A very good movie. 7/10
I saw this film for the first time last night. I have been thinking about it all
night and this morning. I cannot say that it was my favorite film, at least not
yet. I need to see it again. The cinematography is stunning. Each shot
has a lyricism that one would expect in a film that has Wim Wenders's name attached
to it. It is always tempting to see de Chirico in any picture of rows of
orders vanishing into the gloom, but in this case the analogy fits. In many ways
the figure of Malkovich walking through the fog and wind of Ferarra echoes the
shadow of the off-canvas statue that haunts Milan in the major works of the Italo-
Greek painter. He is slightly menacing, a presence who watches and, in his capacity
as a film director, exerts influence on the entire story. The dedicated
Wenders fan cannot help but think a little bit of Damiel and Cassiel wandering
through the streets of Berlin, watching all but not directly interacting with the
inhabitants. And, following the Himmel Uber Berlin metaphor, the angel (or in this
case Malkovich the Director) gets to interact with one of the stories. At this point I have to bow out of taking this line of criticism too far. I need
to see the movie again. I am fairly sure that this is the thread that will bring
Malkovich's monologue together. Perhaps his musings and pontifications
are pretentious, empty dialog that sound good but cannot possibly be parsed into
real communication. Maybe that is the whole point of it. No one can make that
judgment with any degree of certainty or authority until having done his
homework. We must be careful when throwing around the word
"pretentious." It is easy to write off anything that smacks of the intellect as
pretension, but that leads to a terrifying mental state, one in which the only
conversation seen as genuine, earthy or authentic is the most banal. When we shun
all discussions of philosophy, God, existence, meaning and all that brain candy, we
are setting our culture up to die a slow, stupid and ugly death. Perhaps this is
the warning that Wenders and Antonioni are giving us. It certainly is not the only
theme of the film, but I think that it cannot be ignored. The other (and
most obvious) leitmotif is that of satisfaction. There is a lot here on that, and a
thorough review of all the subtleties and consequences of the development of this
leitmotif would well exceed the 1000 word limit for this review. My
advice is to see the film. But I offer a caveat: it is not an autonomous film (at
least I don't think so yet). Some films interact with the intellectual and artistic
thinking of their times so much that the viewer needs to have a background in the
Zeitgeist before approaching the film. Par-dela les nuages is one of those films.
I was stunned by this film. I have been renting Antonioni's films/rediscovering
them, and this film showed me the climax and fruits of his 50 years of directing.
What an eye for setting, color, and detail! I have never seen such visual beauty
and poetry filmed before. I had to stop after the first story and hold back the
tears. Yes, beauty moves me, like it moved Keats to write Ode on a Grecian Urn.
This movie is made for the mature, emotionally and intellectually, audience. Those
hoping to see physical action and soap opera will be disappointed. I will have to
see this film several times before I can truly appreciate it and judge it. This
film should be required viewing for all cinematographers and directors. Possibly a truly great film, on the order of Kurosawa's Dreams.
Beyond the Clouds is in many ways the weirdest film I have ever seen. Not for its
Cult appeal, gore, or even for its ideas, but because of the elements that combine
to make this a masterpiece of cinema. Beyond the Clouds was directed by
Michelangelo Antonioni, one of Italy's most famous directors. However, if you gave
this film only a quick watch-over, passively I mean, it would seem one of those
melodramatic and often pointless romances. This movie deserves great attention, to
the point of embracing all its cheese. By cheese I don't mean a slice, but a whole
brick of cheddar! The music seems like it's from some Italian porno, the story and
dialogue like they are from a corny Japanese soap, and the metaphors are so obvious
you want to smack yourself on the head. But once you get passed all
this, you are engaged in an existential work of art. The cheese feeds into the
subtle filming and draws our attention, perfectly, to what needs to be known. The
basic plot is of four chapters, unrelated, and all about love. What we learn is
that no matter what happens or what is said, people cannot communicate to each
other. Instead they can only communicate through each other. I suppose that's why
the dialogue and plot is so cheesy, because the conversations are overly irrational
with lack of causality and people's reaction overly melodramatic. I left
that film thinking to myself; maybe all life is one big melodrama. We judge our
feelings towards others as real and purposeful. I hate, because I have reason. But
what does the hated think? Maybe they think that my hate is stupid and arbitrary.
In other words, melodramatic. So melodrama is actually an existential
function. A corny romance is simply human interaction put under a magnifying glass,
allowing us to see the futility of who we are and what we do. This is a
great film, I recommend it to all!
I'm not really sure what to make of this movie, especially after seeing a great
film like La Notte. Unfortunately I saw this in German during an Antonioni film
festival at the Frankfurt Film Museum, so I didn't get to hear Malkovich's great
voice. He is supposed to tie together four stories about couples in Italy. However,
as good an actor as he is, Malkovich cannot rescue the most ridiculous of the four
stories portrayed here: a woman who comes up to him at a waterside cafe near a shop
she owns and blurts out about how she killed her father nearby. Then the two of
them go home, have sex, and he leaves. It seems as if Antonioni lost the subtlety
had in earlier films (like The Passenger) when dealing with sex and replaced it
with blatant nudity. However nonsensical the storyline is, the film
features two things that make it watchable: eye and ear candy. The actors and
actresses are all beautiful people, and the cinematography is marvelous - scenes in
old Italian cities contrasting with a bit in a tall apartment building overlooking
a city (reminiscent of La Notte). The ear candy, however, is what really
makes the film worth watching. U2 and Brian Eno collaborated on "Your Blue Room"
and "Beach Sequence," both of which set the mood perfectly in the film. The songs
are available on "Passengers: Original Soundtracks 1."
I was stunned by this film. Afterwards, I didn't even want to see any films for a
long time- any other film would be so unsatisfying by comparison. For
many, it may be the worst of Antonioni- very slow, without an engaging conventional
story line, microscopic examinations of human emotions and interactions- and the
worst of Wenders- verbose, confused transcendentalism. It is composed of short
distinct episodes linked by Wenders' typical meandering hero's stream of
consciousness, so it doesn't produce the temporary oblivion of escapist
cinema. But for fans, the worst is the best and the disjointed story
line is sketching a single poetic image that stretches across the film. Wenders and
Antonioni create a discourse between their segments that seeks out the heart of
things. 
This is a special film if you know the context. Antonioni, in his eighties, had
been crippled by a stroke. Mute and half paralyzed, his friends -- who incidentally
are the best the film world has -- arranged for him to 'direct' a last significant
film. The idea is that he can conjure a story into being by just looking at it. So
we have a film: about a director who conjures stories by simple observation. And
the matter of the (four) stories is about how the visual imagination defines
love. The film emerges by giving us the tools to bring it into being
through our own imagination. The result is pure movie-world: every person (except
the director) is lovely in aspect or movement. Some of these women are ultralovely,
and they exist in a dreamy misty world of sensual encounter. There is no nuance, no
hint that anything exists but what we see; no desire is at work other than what we
create. I know of no other film that so successfully manipulates our own
visual yearning to have us create the world we see. He understands something about
not touching. No one understands Van Morrison visually like he does. Morrison's
Celtic space music is predicated on precisely the same notion: the sensual touch
that implies but doesn't physically touch. Antonioni's redhead wife
appears, appropriately as the shopkeeper and she also directs a lackluster 'making
of' film that is on the DVD. Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
I first saw the movie a couple of years ago and was totally and utterly impressed
but its sensuality. It is one of the most touching films I have ever seen, though
it might appear a little bit pretentious and artificial - too much beautiful, if
you will. Anyway, one thing is for sure - the camera man has done a great job -
each picture deserves to be cut off the film and displayed as a separate peace of
art, comparable to the Chirico's or Bernard Buffet's paintings. The
music forms a perfect background for the story, especially U2's one played between
the first and the second novels at the beach scene. As for the casting - I cannot
be objective since I like Sophie Marceau and Jean Renaue very much and cannot add
more to the praising comments of others. However, the very fact that
many people (critics and those sophisticated in cinema) criticized the movie made
me watch it with a more critical eye for the second time. No doubt, the setting is
splendid and the casting is gorgeous. But this is somehow not enough to make a
comprehensive and cohesive film. The second novel (when Sophie Marceau tells her
story to Malcovic is somehow superficial and does not tell much about the
motivations of the people involved - was it only about shooting a beautiful and
sensual love scene with the naked Marceau or what?). Apparently, it does not add
anything to the idea of the movie and even the husky voice of Malcovic is being
unable to link it to the main plot. Other stories are more justified and
are really beautifully shot, which indulges many of the logic fallacies within
them. The scene when Jean Reneau is overlooking the city through the huge window of
his apartment on the top of the high building is absolutely incredible. The feeling
of moist air and fine haze, which is being spread by the first "Ferrera" scene can
literally be sensed through the screen. No doubt, Antonioni is a great master of
shades and semi-shades. My favorite novel is the last one - the most romantic, deep
and meaningful - I guess that it the most Antonioni-like one in the whole movie -
almost a parable.Probably, the overall positive impression from the movie is mainly
due to the last one shot somewhere in a small Ghotic Italian town, with its winding
narrow streets and crooked pavements, fountains with the l'eau potable and
monumental cathedrals... It was laconic but really touching. I hope that
my impressions and comments on the movie, however chaotic they are would motivate
somebody to spend an evening watching it (it works better with the home theater,
having somebody caring by your side, than in the movie theater). Enjoy. I beg your pardon for the imperfect English and any possible misspellings
Here's another Antonioni that will be rediscovered again and again as soon as it
comes out on tape or DVD. I saw it a few months ago when it ran for the first time
(even in metropolitan movie capital L.A.!)for a couple of weeks and then
disappeared (art house audiences seem to have opted for their own special
territory, where older favorites like Antonioni and Resnais are only welcome as
occasional curiosities). At first I was disappointed, thought the pace
to be unbearably boring, and that the man had lost a chance (for years Antonioni
had found it difficult to find financing)at an advanced age to add another
masterpiece to his canon; but knowing Antonioni for what he was and how I had at
first reacted to Blow-Up and the Passenger, I refused to pass judgment until I had
seen the film again. I went back the next day and I should not have been surprised
that the film kept pulling me in, making me aware of things I had thought about and
lost track of throughout my life, driving home, in a contemporary setting, points
exposed for the first time some forty years ago in 'L'Aventurra,' forming an
environment of subtle moods so characteristcally and fascinatingly alienated in
tone (and quite comedic actually) that I couldn't get enough. The scene with
Malkovich sitting on the fancy colored swings on the windswept beach, with the
weather so beautifully silver skied, and the Eno/U2 track in the background flowing
through at just its rhythm, had been my favorite; it still was, but now the whole
film was just as great! What a strange phenomenon, the complex simplicity or the
invisible complex which Antonioni's eye alone seems to be able to pick up and
communicate. The odd thing is, though it does look at first glance like a softcore
porno of some kind and it does feature plenty of sex and the maddeningly gorgeous
Sophie Marceau and plently of other international stars to distract you, this film
is unmistakably Antonioni's to its core, but you will not sense to what a profound
extent, until you have seen it a few times and got used to its rhythm. For example,
it is quite a funny film with a deep sense of humor, something I did not notice at
first, but was turned on to by another critic, and noticed to much delight on
further viewings (4 before they pulled it and would've gone back for more). If this
film had been promoted right and people guided to a certain extent as to how to
approach it, I have no doubt it would have succeeded on the art house circuit like
most of Antonioni's '60s films. But the '60s are no more and the film will have to
find its audience on the small screen where half its beauty will be lost even in a
letterboxed DVD version (if and when it's released). I urge all film nuts general
or esoteric to see 'Beyond the Clouds' and add a piece of magic to the tragic.
Beyond The Clouds is a hauntingly beautiful, elegiac work of art. The overall
softness of the light that this movie is bathed in, makes you want to touch the
screen. The autumnal mood conjured up could only been achieved by a director who
has seen many summers of experience. Or, to put it another way, an old man. I know
of no other movie that captures and uses the softness of light and seasonal mood
with such ravishing quality as Beyond The Clouds. Nearly all the people in this
film are beautiful, unless your idea of a beautiful woman is a pneumatic blond
bimbo, that is. The dialogue doesn't really matter too much, not that there is much
of it anyway, and as for storylines, forget it. Some films exist just as visual
experiences, this is one of them. Don't bother if you want "simple
entertainment",this not for you. I could enthuse about the visual
perfection of this movie for days, but I won't. If you are at all interested in
cinematography, photography, film direction etc., watch this film.
...a true geek-girl's dream: high tech, high drama, smart guys, steamy sex, and
large explosions. (VERY large explosions.) Sam Waterston is so natural in the role
of Oppenheimer that tapes of the REAL Oppenheimer sound odd: apparently, he had a
voice similar to Ronald Reagan! The triumph and tragedy of Oppenheimer is one of
the 20th century's most stirring dramas, and this movie stands as a model of what
docu-drama ought to be: the facts are allowed to speak for themselves, while the
fictional parts are used to amplify and fill in the record, not to call attention
to themselves. An interesting fact: some of the technical details used had only
recently been declassified, and so are of special interest. A must-see!
...means "take up and read", which is precisely what I felt like doing after having
seen this marvelous film. Von Ancken stimulates and inspires with this
breathtaking and superbly executed adaptation of Tobias Wolff's 1995 New Yorker
article of the same name. The incredible performance by Tom Noonan is brilliant and
provocative and the editing, sound design, cinematography and directing are truly
inspired. The nuanced changes and embellishments on the original story are subtle,
clever, and make the film cinematically more dynamic. It's lyrical pacing is
mesmerizing and begs you to watch it again. Watch out for this young
director...he's going places.
Like a lot of horror fans out there that went looking for the next great scare
flick, we plundered the Asian horror market for whatever we could get our hands on,
leaving no dark haired ghost lady unturned. We had good reason to do so, the Asian
market had spawned such terrifying wonders as Ringu, Dark Waters, Juon - the
Grudge, and a Tale of Two Sisters. By the time Takashi Miike started ripping the
mick out of the genre with One Missed Call in 2003, the market seemed to be drying
up, leaving it open for mockery and derision, despite the continued Hollywood
Remake Machine working full steam ahead. Now, don't get me wrong, there were still
plenty of good Asian horrors being made, the likes of Marebito and Shutter, to
mention but two, will stand as minor genre classics some day. But the lank haired
ghost lady had definitely had her feed at the party, and was time to take that
success-drunk tramp home to bed! Then along comes a film like Noroi - The Curse. A
film that is smart enough to pay subtle homage to it's roots, yet throws the
rulebook out the window whilst doing it. What I'm about to describe in terms of
plot will probably make you think there is nothing new here at all. The film is a
documentary about one of Japan's top paranormal investigators as he receives
stories and tip offs on ghostly goings on. He starts investigating the claims by a
woman that she regularly hears a baby crying in the house next door, yet there is
no baby there, apart from a middle aged woman and her son. These two disappear
sharpish when the reporter pokes his nose around, but strange other coincidences
start popping up. A psychic young girl, a mentally ill clairvoyant, a pretty young
actress who had a strange vision, a lot of dead pigeons, and a very sinister demon
by the name of Kagutaba, leading to a truly terrifying showdown in a small
historical town... To say any more on the plot might ruin the fun a bit.
The film is shot in 'faux documentary' fashion, and incorporates footage from TV
shows and news reports, and the labels via subtitles lets you know where you are in
terms of the time line. The film has drawn more than a few comparisons to the Blair
Witch Project, but apart from the shooting format and the creepy trip through the
woods late at night, the comparison ends there really. What is
refreshing about Noroi is how it doesn't pander to modern horror audiences. If you
are expecting croaky ghost ladies to pop out of the attic, look elsewhere. The
film's strength lies in it's slow, gradual build up of terror, a terror so profound
that it will stick with you for days after watching it. The climax is pretty damned
freaky, but just when you think the film is over, you get treated to the 'real'
ending when the credits start to roll, and sweet holy f*ck, is it a killer. In
terms of acting, it is mostly convincing. You get some 'comedy' relief from the
crazy, tin foil covered clairvoyant, but that soon dries up half way through the
film. The film also has a slightly 'nastier' feel than a lot of Asian ghost horror,
as there is a violent streak to some of the events too. Overall, Noroi
is one to watch on your own, late at night. Not since my first viewing of Ringu ten
years ago have I been so delightfully creeped out watching a horror film. It is one
that will itch away at you until it is too late, then it is under your skin. Just
let yourself go to this one completely. And not a lank haired ghost lady in sight??
No wonder it has barely been released outside of Japan, let alone had an American
remake lined up yet. Check this one out if you can, essential viewing in my books!
Another hand-held horror means another divisive movie that fans should still seek
out and make up their own minds about. Imagine a cross between The Blair
Witch Project and The Grudge and you're close to the overall content of this movie.
It's another videotaped horror but this time most of it is edited together in
readiness for a video doc that was never completed by a supernatural investigator
who disappeared. I certainly had a feeling of dread while watching this
movie (does anyone do dreadful better than our Asian friends?) but the creepy
moments, the genuinely creepy moments, were sadly a bit fewer and farther between
than I had hoped. I also felt that I was two or three steps ahead of the
investigator when apparent "revelations" appeared throughout so I certainly can't
recommend this as highly as [*Rec]. Having said that, it would be remiss
of me not to highly recommend any film that goes on at length about ectoplasmic
worms, contains at least two subtly spooky ghost moments and made sure that I had
to put the lights back on for a while when the sun went down. Check it
out if you have been enjoying some of the other hand-held genre releases of late.
And the finale is a hair-raising doozy. See this if you like: The Last
Broadcast, Pulse, Angel Heart.
A documentary filmmaker explores seemingly unrelated paranormal incidents connected
by the legend of an ancient demon called the "kagutaba." From the looks
of it, the film looks like one of those camcorder movies that have been popular
these last few months, even one that's going to be released next week (PARANORMAL
ACTIVITY)! However, unlike movies like CLOVERFIELD, REC, and BLAIR WITCH, where
most of those movies are in complete chaos and mayhem with all of the shakiness,
this one is basically shown in a traditional documentary style. It has TV excerpts
and interviews and the scares are very subtle, well, excluding the last 20 minutes
where we go into the chaos effect and where the fear factor is raised up
tremendously. And it works. The film is very engrossing and it makes you
think. Yes, you heard me right: It makes you think. You have to pay attention to
those unrelated details given throughout the film and the payoff is great when, in
course of the film, these things start to intertwine one another. The film is also
very slow moving, which, in this case, is a good thing. We, as the audience, get to
absorb the details shown on screen, however subtle or blatant they are. Above all, it's a frightening little film. I'm a person who is scared of ghosts
and the paranormal more than killers who slashes away teenage victims so yes, the
film gave me some nightmares. There are some images in here that are really
disturbing to watch, including one closer in the end where it makes you go "What am
I looking at?!" Well, it's better left unanswered. There are around ten reoccurring
characters in here, all of which gave authentic performances in their roles. The only thing I don't like about the film is the ending because most
questions are left unanswered. The question "That's it?" went though my mind. It
left a bad taste in my mouth. However, the rest of the film is just engrossing and
really frightening. Don't see this alone in the dark because you'll regret that
choice. Also, I can see in a couple of years that Hollywood would remake this film.
That will be interesting.
I, for one, absolutely loved this movie. It is not a "typical Asian
horror" where you would see a gruesome looking ghost (usually a woman) that is
going around scaring people. You barely see any ghosts for a majority of the film,
but the way this movie keeps you interested in the plot and characters is genius.
This is not the movie for you if you're into gore (e.g. Saw, Hostel) or "surprise
scares" where stuff pops out at you (Hollywood horror, slasher films), but this
movie has an underlying "creepy" factor throughout the entire movie which I loved.
Noroi is a progressive and somewhat experimental approach to horror amongst the
ridiculous remakes and unoriginal crap being released by Hollywood in today's
society. Please don't let the documentary-style of filming turn you off
(why should it?!). It is far superior to the Blair Witch Project because, for one,
the acting in Noroi is brilliant and it really makes you really feel like you're
watching something you're not supposed to be seeing. Noroi is definitely
one of the best horror movies I have ever seen. Only a few films have made it into
my Top 5 horror; and this movie holds a solid #1 spot on my list.
Being a great fan of horror, especially Asian horror, I have seen tons of movies,
but this one is outstanding. Why? It does have a plot (which is unfortunately quite
rare among horror movies). The actors did a good job. It feels like a real
documentary film (even if it's not). It does not get boring for a moment. The
director cleverly combines the plot with the acts of a certain Japanese magic cult
(perhaps this cult never existed, but still, it's believable). It reminded me of
the similarly great movie "Forbidden Siren". To me the one and only
annoying thing about the movie was the character Hori, the psychic, but this is
subjective. I recommend this movie to all fans of quality horror. 9 out of 10.
I can't praise this film enough. It had a lot of that hand-held, first-person
shaking camera which I love (and some hate, because it makes them sick), like REC,
Cloverfield and Blair Witch Project. It is a long movie for its kind,
but I didn't even notice because the film was so interesting. By just showing the
footage from a paranormal reporter's work the movie keeps up the pace, making it a
real-time experience for the viewer. While I would never call this film
the "scariest horror ever made", I'd have to say it's certainly one of the best
I've seen. The fear factor here is constructed by details in the images, camera
glitches, events linked to one another which lend a very mysterious and haunting
tone to the movie. The horror is more in what is not shown, but left to our
imaginations. The ending is perfect, and be warned that you might have nightmares
afterwards. A second viewing is highly recommended, though. Watch this
one alone in the dark, don't expect anything and you'll have fun.
NOROI follows a documentary filmmaker, Masafumi Kobayashi, as he slowly uncovers
something mysterious and evil that's leaving a trail of dead bodies in its wake.
After interviewing a woman who claims to hear loud baby's cries coming from the
house next door (where there is no baby), Kobayashi heads over to talk to the
neighbor. He's greeted with hostility by the unhinged, disheveled woman (Maria
Takagi) who answers the door (and promptly slams it in his face) and gets a peek at
her 6-year-old son through a window. Strangely, both the woman and her son
disappear just days after his visit (leaving behind a pile of dead pigeons on their
back porch), and the woman who first complained about the noises, as well as her
daughter, are both killed in a mysterious accident not long after that. This piques
Kobayashi's interest and he sets out on a quest to find out what's going on. He
soon uncovers that those with psychic abilities and extra-sensory perception seem
to be tuning into something sinister, unexplainable and possibly even apocalyptic.
Well-known 10-year-old clairvoyant, and TV celebrity, Kana (Rio Kanno) seems to
think we may all be doomed, but she mysteriously disappears before she can be of
much help. Another female psychic/actress (Marika Matsumoto) becomes involved, as
does Mr. Nori, a mentally unstable kook/psychic who wears a hat and jacket made of
aluminum foil and thinks people are being eaten by what he refers to "ectoplasmic
worms." Clues eventually lead back to the site of a small village that's now
covered by a lake, and the legend of an ancient demon known as Kagutaba... Unlike many other hand-held horror flicks, this one depends just as much on the
plot as it does reactionary first-person scares. Thankfully there's something of a
storyline here, a very interesting and intricate one at that, so it doesn't rely on
glimpses of horrific things through spastic camera-work every once in awhile to
keep your interest. The way Masafumi travels around following leads in search of
the truth - with well placed jolts along the way - reminded me somewhat of THE OMEN
in its pacing. The film also doesn't entirely consist of footage shot by the
documentarian, but weaves in news reports and television variety shows as if what
we're watching is an already completed documentary. That helps to break up some of
the monotony usually associated with films shot in this particular style. The
performances are good enough not to harm any of the realism of the 'actual' footage
either. Overall, it's a well-made horror film, with lots of plot shifts, some
suspense and quite a few genuinely creepy moments, that's well worth checking out.
My only real gripe is that it could have used a little trimming here and there and
seems to go on a bit too long. Otherwise, pretty good stuff.
This review contains some small, yet significant, spoilers. --- I just finished watching my copy of Noroi... ...and it was GREAT! This
might sound cheesy, but several times during the film I forgot it wasn't real XD
The acting is convincing, although the acting from Masafumi Kobayashi (playing
himself, I think...) seems a bit hokey at times. Marika Matsumoto (Yuka in Takashi
Shimizu's Rinne) seemed to change levels of believability throughout the movie:
sometimes she's REALLY good, then the next moment she's really cheesy (especially
at the end's exorcism and subsequent re-possession. A character that was
ridiculous at first was Mr. Hori, a man covered in tinfoil believing "ectoplasmic
worms" are coming to eat everyone. He provides unintentional comic relief at the
beginning (acting like the stereotypical alien abduction-type victim) but near the
end has some really creepy scenes. The plot was very interesting and
really kept me wondering how everything tied together. There are some things that
aren't really explained (like a mass suicide in a Tokyo park and where the
reincarnated Kagutaba-boy came from) but everything else turned out fine. The
ending has GOT to be one of the most unnerving, if not the scariest, sequences I've
ever had the pleasure to witness. All in all, Noroi is a very fun way to
spend 2 hours and the new Hong Kong R3 DVD provides great picture and sound (most
importantly the English SUBTITLES- Engrish free!) for a great J-Horror experience.
I highly recommend picking it up.
Never posted anything here before, but after watching Noroi I just felt that I had
to write down my thoughts about it. Firstly do not compare this to Blair
Witch, this movie deserves far better than that! Simply put, Noroi is (probably)
one of the best horror movies I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot!). I really liked how the movie presents itself not as a standard horror
flick, but as a documentary filmed by a reporter (i think?) named Kobayashi and his
cameraman. Without spoiling to much about the plot, I can say it that it starts
with Kobayashi doing research on a series of seemingly unrelated events, that turns
out to be connected to something far more darker and sinister. While the
story might not be that original in itself, what really hooked me with Noroi was
the incredibly eerie atmosphere. If you're looking for cheap scares and seat-
jumping scenes this movie might not be for you. This movie is all about the mood it
presents, with haunting images and a general feeling of foreboding suspense. The
documentary style filming just makes it farm more believable. This is
also helped a lot by the acting which is superb, although not perfect for the
general part of the movie! Far better than in most other movies in this type of
genre. Well enough ranting from me, I highly recommend Noroi to
everyone, it is suspenseful, creepy, well acted and the first movie that has scared
me in ages.
Anyone familiar with horror films knows that most of them are not scary at all.
Some people enjoy gorefests with subpar story lines and character development. I
personally enjoy horror films that focus on atmosphere and interesting concepts
(e.g., A Tale of Two Sisters, Kairo, etc.). Whatever the type of horror film one
personally likes, there are only a select few that really scare you. Noroi is one
of them. This is a documentary-style movie, which means that the entire
film is a compilation of video clips that are linked by the legend of a demonic
entity named Kagutaba. The premise is that a journalist filmed his own footage by
interviewing people associated with the demonic rituals associated with Kagutaba,
then compiled footage from other sources that link with his research. What results
is a relentlessly chilling experience that feels very real and very disturbing,
despite the fact that the story itself is fake. Some have compared Noroi
with The Blair Witch Project, but the only similarity is the documentary style. One
obvious difference between the films is that Noroi scares the viewer by linking
events to one another using different sources. For example, the journalist records
the exterior of a house that he is researching and sees something strange on the
porch. Later in the film, a clip from another character's home video introduces
that very same strange occurrence. The viewer's memory links the two incidents and
chills start running down their spine. Another example involves a television show
with a child psychic who answers every single question correctly except for one. In
fact, her answer is so wrong that the viewer may wonder what the filmmakers were
thinking. Later on, however, that wrong answer turns out to be linked to an
extremely disturbing event. This is intelligent film-making indeed. Another difference between Noroi and Blair Witch is that Noroi provides not one,
but two very long finales, the second of which is placed a minute after the credits
start to roll and is the single greatest scare scene in the history of horror
cinema. I do not say such things lightly. It totally wrecked me in a wonderous
way. Other aspects of film-making are well done. The legend and
ritualistic background of Kagutaba are very interesting and most of the actors did
a good job. The only over-the-top performance comes from a guy who's supposed to be
crazy anyway, so that's expected. The cinematography is intentionally gritty
because all of the footage is supposed to represent videos shot on camcorders.
Japanese films are not known for their special effects, but the effects used here
were awesome. In some cases they create an other-worldly feel (e.g., the static
interference or the first finale) but in other cases they are alarmingly realistic
(e.g., the second finale). When all is said and done, Noroi goes down as
the scariest film I've ever seen. I would go so far as to say that there is no film
in existence that provides such sheer terror from beginning to end like Noroi does.
See it now.
Has anyone found a way to purchase copies of this series yet? I can see that a lot
of people have inquired but I can't tell if any of them have been successful. It's
hard to believe that a series this good cannot be viewed by people today,
especially one based on real issues faced by real people during what were both
tense and exciting times in our country. How can this be true and what can we do to
change it? As an aside I agree with all the comments other writers have made about
this series on this web site. This is an excellent story about events that everyone
should be aware of and know something about today. Lots of us saw this series when
we were in college or around that time anyway. Now we want to share it with our
children ... but we can't? If that is true what would some good written materials
be that would relay the same information?
www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html An excellent TV series that should be
captured on DVD. This was a show I rarely missed. I found a petition to bring it
back on DVD. I recall one show where this obese lady wore a pair of glasses that
let her food talk to her. Needless to say she could not eat her friends so she
starved to death. Another episode had an accountant visiting an underground sewer &
subway security branch. The accountant wanted to shut down the funding for the
project. As it turns out the security branch was underfunded to fight the
cannibalistic creatures that lived in the dark.
www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html
One reasons why they call the 80's, "The Awesome 80's" is quality television. Shows
like the Wonder Years, War of the Worlds (the series), V, Amazing Stories, and many
more have always left an impression to each "fortunate" one of us that in time will
always find a way to reawaken itself. To top that, here comes Monsters! A series
quite unique of its own, and a theme fully dedicate to - monsters. May it be the
good, the bad, and the morbid. If you're a fan of classic shows or if
you have the fascination of horror films then this one is absolutely for you.
Provided you can find this rare gem. Even the newer generations will be
in awe with some of the episode with its grittiness, it's indiscriminating use of
gore effects or its story telling power and simplicity. I guarantee, because I'm 23
:). Be sure NOT to miss this! Although, it's a show seemingly
forgotten by the modern world, it will always be with those who can always
remember...
I think that it's great how Chiller picked up this series and showing it for this
generation. Film making has come such a long way especially with the special
effects and for one to be able to watch archived shows that they never knew
existed, they will certainly be able to see the progress compared to now. MONSTERS
is neither lame nor spectacular but it is entertaining. It takes creativity for the
types of story lines they came up with and each generation seems to have it's own
horror series. This particular series was not as horrifying as the Friday The 13th,
The Series, nor as adult oriented as the Freddy's Nightmares..it was something that
an entire family could watch and still get a laugh and a fright at the same time. I
am happy the Chiller Channel shows it in their line-up, I am just about caught up
on the episodes I missed when I was growing up.
This was one of the best half-hour horror/suspense/fantasy shows of the eighties,
without a doubt. Granted the show had a barely capable cast with every single
episode, and it stank as far as production values (i.e. the sets) went, but darn it
I have to give it some credit for being gutsy with the plots. I mean the plot of
each episode was edgy enough that even I, a hardened horror movie, shock-film, and
70's grind-house buff got a little sickened and creeped out. Great show, just
great, regardless of what the other reviewers have said here. My favorite episode
was called "Bug House", yeah that was the title I think? Anyhow it still gives me
the willies every time I think about it to this day, almost 20 years after it first
premiered. Other shows like "Tales From The Darkside", "The Outer Limits" and (of
course) "The Twilight Zone" were definitely better production values-wise, but in
my opinion they ain't got a thing as far as plot lines go when compared to this
sick little show! It definitely paved the way for the even more graphic cult
classic phenomenon that was, "Tales From The Crypt".
This show has to be my favorite out of all the 80's horror TV shows. Like Tales
from the Darkside, also from the same creators, this show is a rare gem. If you
agree with me, PLEASE sign this petition I started, to get the word out for
Monsters and get it out on DVD. Here is the petition address:
www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html Some of my favorite episodes would
have to be Glim glim, and Rain Dance. I also loved the opening intro with the
monster family. That used to creep me out! One of the things I would have to ask
the DVD creators to include would be the organ sound heard right before where the
commercial break would be. I don't know if any of you remember that part but that's
one of the main things that brings back memories to me. I mean, come on! War of the
Worlds the TV series already has been released on DVD, so I say Monsters, and also
Tales from the Darkside, and Friday the 13th the series should be released too! We
the fans need to speak our minds! We need this awesome show on DVD so PLEASE spread
the word!!!
This picture is an interesting saga of the struggle of pioneers led by Daniel Boone
in the wilderness of Cumberland Gap while being threatened by hostile Indians. A
treacherous Frenchman is the cause of all the trouble between the settlers and the
red men while Boone tries to convince the Indians that the pioneers only want to
build homes and live in peace. The film has a certain appeal because it is not a
polished production but there are good action scenes, although somewhat violent for
its time. The cast is comprised of B actors but they are all good, especially Lon
Chaney as the Indian chief. Bruce Bennett is okay as Boone but is a bit too clean
cut and soft spoken to be believable as a frontiersman. The dialogue is rather
trite but the scenery lends itself to the realism of the Kentucky backwoods.
I was enchanted by Niami's debut. I hope that we'll soon see more of his work. I
was lucky enough to catch the film during its brief NYC run and it struck me as a
worthy successor to such downtown 80s flicks as Desperately Seeking Susan and After
Hours, but with a gentle European whimsey that made it fresh and fun. A strong
ensemble cast playing mostly against type was a pleasure. And I thought the
complexly inter-threaded plots were just right. Sandra Bernhard puts in her best
performance since King of Comedy, while Peter Stormare is hilarious, and Ling Bai
touching. See it.
Despite its New York setting & New York characters, 'Summer in the City' is not an
American movie, it is better than that. What is most unusual is the mixing of
styles and genres. Director Niami's shows a deft touch in combining comedy with
tragedy, pathos with drama. The secret of Niami's success appears to be
a smorgasboard of great characters - each could have their own film built around
them - and then filling them out with beautifully realized performances from one of
the most wonderfully eclectic casts one would struggle to find in the same country
let alone in the same movie, ranging from Bai Ling to Ornella Muti, Robert Burke to
Peter Stormare who here reveals that he has a lot more in him than the bad guy
stereotypes he plays in Hollywood pictures. Even Sandra Bernhard is funny here ! An added bonus, cream on the substantial cake, is John Cale's soundtrack.
This film did a wonderful job of capturing NYC stereotypes at there best. If you
want a simple, cute story however, you won't find it here. The related tales are
woven together in a manner that does an excellent job of capturing the close-knit
yet contrastingly anonymous lifestyle that is Manhattan. A perfect watch for those
who enjoy and can laugh at New York life in its most natural state.
I put this film in the queue on a whim after a recent trip to NYC, and I couldn't
believe I'd never heard of it anywhere! It has all the makings of a cult classic,
starting with the characters. They are archetypal roles we recognize from every
stretch of daily life, but were so nuanced and fully realized by the actors playing
them (Peter Stormare and Bai Ling's performances were particularly strong). Their
interactions are poignant and grounded while at the same time brimming with a
subtle, quirky humor that is (sadly) all too rare in American films these days.
Writer/director Ramin Niami does a beautiful job of weaving these scenes together
into a funny and moving portrait of a city of the past. Highly recommended!
This is the best work i have ever seen on television. The story is compelling--all
the more so because it is true. The writers did their homework--the accuracy of
events is well documented. The acting is great. This has to be the best role Sam
Waterston has ever had. And the black and white cinematography was exceptional. My
only regret is that it is not available to buy. A few years ago I contacted someone
involved with the production (either with PBS or in England) and was told they had
no plans to release it on VHS (at the time). This was a BBC production and ran in
the U.S. on American Playhouse. There is such an interest in seeing this--just hard
to believe no one can make it available.
The director, Ramin Niami, delivers the goods with Somewhere in the City. This
hilarious farce, I believe, is in the tradition of a Mel Brooks comedy. Niami pokes
fun at New York society by creating the believable, eccentric, and tragic
characters of one tenement apartment building bringing them to life from the very
opening one shots that introduce them. Peter Stormare's performance as a gay
Shakespearean actor is absolutely award worthy and the film in general does a good
job at showing the hopelessness and laugh-ability of self-centered ambition. Sandra
Bernhard is cast perfectly as the straight, self-obsessed therapist. I really
enjoyed Sandra's performance immensely especially since I haven't really been a
very big fan until now. Bai Ling, Ornella Muti, and Bulle Ogier round out an
international ensemble par excellence. I loved the scene with Robert John Burke and
his gang of idiot criminals who couldn't plan a robbery if their lives depended on
it. With a cameo appearance by Mayor Ed Koch and a solid performance by Paul
Anthony Stewart, the revolutionary momma's boy, Somewhere in the City entertains
without missing a beat.
I agree with the Aussie's comments for the most part. However, there id seem to be
a fairly decent plot, if unoriginal. Christina (Kelli McCarty) inherits a rural
property that she intends to open a mountain lodge. She gets reacquainted with Chip
(Bobby Johnston) whom she had known when she was growing up in there. The plot
thickens when James (Paul Logan) arrives with his new stripper friend, Shene
(Devinn Lane) because Christina had been James' stripper friend in years gone by,
and the implication is that James had done her wrong somehow. To add interest to
the movie Sophia Linn (Monique Parent) a romance novelist shows up as a guest at
the lodge, as do Eric (Sebastien Guy) and Linda (Flower), pair of lawyers from the
city. James sicks the local building codes inspector on Christina's business as one
of his dirty tricks to shut her down. So the question is, "How far will James go to
sabotage the lodge and will he succeed?" Watch for Devinn Lane here and
in "Beauty Betrayed." She seems to be making a transition from the hard core
business to the "R" world. Another notable is Samantha McConnell, playing the role
of "Bait," clearly the most outrageous character name in the movies!
Wow, I've sure seen quite a bit of Kelli McCarty this summer. I didn't know this
woman made so many softcore flicks in the past three years. It's like seeing a
future softcore star blossom in front of me, much like Michelle Hall did a couple
of years ago. "Passion's Peak" is the third quality softcore flick I've
seen Kelli McCarty in, with "Girl for Girl" and "House of Love" being the others.
"Desire and Deception" was okay, but it wasn't spectacular. There's spoilers in
this review, so read only if you want to. The story begins with
Christina (Kelli McCarty) heading out of the big city and to the mountains. She has
inherited a house from her dear departed grandmother and plans to turn it into a
mountain lodge. Before she can even set her things down, some woman named Kim
(uncredited in this film, but quite the aggressive one) begins booking guests to
stay there. Now she has to get the house into shape quickly--in comes Chip (Bobby
Johnston), a childhood friend, to the rescue. Chip helps her get the house in
workable condition. She hires two local slackers to work in her lodge--Chip's
sister Bait (Samantha McConnell) and her sex buddy Hank. Now the guests
start coming. The first to arrive are Eric and Linda (Flower), two stereotypical
money-first lawyers. Linda and Eric get into a huge argument during a dinner party
halfway through the film which leads to their breakup; sad stuff there. Next,
there's romance novelist Sophia, played by B-movie goddess Monique Parent. She's
using that silly alias Scarlet Johansing again, and she's got a very professional
look this time--with blonde hair, of course. It wouldn't be Monique if she didn't
have at least one scene where she plays with herself--and she obliges, during one
of Eric and Linda's sex scenes. James and Shene (Devinn Lane--yes, the
porn star Devinn Lane) show up for a little weekend getaway as well. Unbeknownst to
Shene, James and Christina have quite a history. James and Christina used to date,
but Christina broke it off to head to this mountain lodge. James comes up to the
lodge to get Christina back, but his plan backfires. Christina spills the beans to
Shene, which causes Shene to walk out on him and down to the local bar to strip for
the locals. Shene ends up in the sleeping bag of the now-single Eric, and they
leave together. Bait realizes she wants something more than just sex with Hank, and
Christine finds true love with Chip, with Sophia soaking it all in and writing it
into her next romance novel. In fact....if you ask me, this whole movie
played out like a romance novel. I don't know if the screenwriter was going for
that effect, but I sure got that impression. Sophia had some of the best lines in
this film, playing up the idea that this is a live-action romance novel. She seems
to enjoy all the fighting and backstabbing going on. Now to the sex.
There was a fair amount of it, and it was the usual bump-and grind stuff. Monique
did her fair share of moaning in her two sex scenes. This film was tapeworthy, and
the story will actually keep the audience somewhat interested in between the sex
scenes. Women: A- (Monique was simply Monique. Out of all the softcore
actresses I've seen over the years, she's the best at acting, in my opinion. She
can really act and be sexy, which is why she's holding on to the #1 position in my
Skinemax Top 10. Kelli McCarty is better at doing softcore films than she is on the
soap opera "Passions"; I don't know why she's not doing more of these. Flower was
merely background scenery for the most part in a limited role. Samantha McConnell
continues to impress me, and Devinn Lane is yet another hardcore actress crossing
over into the softcore realm and doing a halfway decent job at it.) Sex:
B (It was good, but not awe-inspiring spectacular. Plenty of moaning. Don't watch
the R-rated version, trust me....most of the good stuff is taken out. My grade is
for the uncut version.) Story: B (A solid storyline which throws in a
contrived "Ooh, the building inspector's gonna shut us down" subplot toward the end
which messes up things. The underlying story between Christina and James was nice,
and Sophia's dialogue, full of the metaphors and imagery usually found in romance
novels, was a nice touch.) Overall: B+ (I found this movie to be quite
entertaining. It's not a surefire Softcore Hall-Of-Famer like "Girl for Girl" is,
but it's a respectable addition to the Skinemax collection.)
One of Keli McCarthy's best. This movie is filled with sex, and nudity. It has
gorgeous, sexy women and some sexy settings. Believe me, there are many
spicy and steamy sex scenes but not as hot as the women. We have outside settings,
a hot tub, beds of course, and some other nice places to have sex. Monique Parent is great in the opening sex sequence where she behaves like a
naughty girl. Keli is amazing, she's extremely sexy and performs in at least 4 hot
sex scenes. My favorite is when she has sex during a picnic or something like that.
She has this short dress removed and the rest you can go figure it out! Renee Rea
also has a sexy sex scene where again, she demonstrates that beautiful cute faces
can also perform great in soft core sex movies. The most memorable scene
in my opinion comes near the ending. It's a double sex feature that has to do with
hottub sex, intense sex! and Kelli McCarthy receiving it REAL hard so loud that the
couple in the hottub feel interrupted. The scene is long, steamy, VERY explicit,
and fun. My favorite from 2001. The other good scenes include Keli
getting it on the woods (really kinky); then dressed as a bride. Renne
Rea, always super gorgeous, dressed like a skater girl has a steamy sex scene.
Nice! Please, watch this movie if you enjoy b-soft core sex. It's among
the best from the new millennium. I had a blast with it.
This was a very nice soft-core movie for both men and women. Plenty of nudity/sex,
but without the overall raunch you'll usually find. They could not have done a
better job in casting as the entire ensemble was stunning. Trust me guys, if you
want to get your woman in the mood, get something with Bobby Johnston in it! And
I'm sure lovely Monique Parent, Samantha McConnell and the rest of the ladies would
do it for any heterosexual male. Unfortunately, Bobby and Monique do not share a
scene together and if you are aware of a movie where they do, please PM me! I'd
love to know. The photography was much better than usual. So was the story.
Predictable, but nice, sweet natured and romantic. At the very least it was not one
of those annoying predictable murder mysteries full of bottle blonde women with
huge fake breasts. I give this 7/10!
Don't know what film or version Jeff saw, but this entire film was awesome, not
just Poitier and Going. The story was riveting, suspenseful and engaging. And for
the guy complaining about historical accuracy, get real. Yes there were some Black
deputy marshals in the Indian territory, but they had no authority to arrest Whites
outside of Indian territory. As a rule, they did not "patrol" but exercised
warrants on criminals only. I did find it odd that Corby didn't seem to have "any'
Indian friends. I know their numbers were diminished but it still strikes me as
strange. Even as Corby returned to his people, his Indian cohorts remain faceless
and nameless.
i LOVED THIS MOVIEE well i loved the romance part with COlby and the girl...Rachel
(?) 4got her name....i honestly was only interested in those too. i loved them in
the movie i want to see more movies like that. but please no more sad endings where
they cant be 2gether! =( it made me cry! but the romance between them. the plot the
trauma everything was great. =) i just was more into Colby and Rachel. ha ha =)
everything about this movie was thrilling the kind to keep you glued to your seat.
because i sure was. Honestly my only personal want would be more focused between
the couple (Colby and Rachel) and at least a decent ending. I hated the ending, a
better one could have been more thought out, not the fact of forcing COlby to his
death and Rachel having a son. The ending would have killed the movie.
This has to be one of the best movies we have seen and we highly recommend it for
it's exposure of the injustices of bigotry. Billy Wirth is an incomparable actor
and truly awesome as Corby/White Wolf. However, felt the story would have been
enhanced if his character had more scenes. This is a movie that can be watched over
and over without tiring.
I am a big fan of this film and found the TV mini series "Children of The Dust",
the version fans should look for. At least 20 minutes or more are cut on the DVD
version of this film. I would also suggest viewers who enjoyed this film
to check out the book there is a more rounded storyline with Corby/Whitewolf and
Rachel, more on Black History and Buffalo Solders. There were two many storylines
for the series or this film. Sidney Poitier only shows he gets better
with age, the talent just keeps growing the chemistry between his character of
Gypsy Smith and Regina Taylor were wonderful viewing. I also enjoyed the Billy
Wirth/Joanna Going storyline, they seems to play off each other well. Billy Wirth is of course the "Model of Indian Vision". The look, the attitude,
the dream of every woman who was wanted to be carried off in one of those romance
novels by a native hero. Worked for me also. Much more could have been
done with this storyline but it did give the viewer a brief glimpse of racial
problems back in the 1880's, white take over of native schooling, lack of Black
pioneers to setup towns in the west. Michael Moriarty (Maxwell) as always a great
actor comes across as a very caring and confused teacher, not sure if the "whites"
should be interfering with native culture. For anyone who enjoys
characters and watching them change this film is for you. I thought the chemistry
between Poitier's character and that of the orphan Whitewolf very moving and
thought Wirth and Poitier worked very well together. Billy Wirth did some of his
best scenes when working with Poitier. Going got on my nerves sometimes
when you want to just stop and shake her or give her a " wake-up and grown-up"
call. But on the whole it was a great evening of entertainment. Look for
the two tape version of this mini series if you are a fan you will really see the
difference.
I don't understand why more people have not commented on this, other than the fact
that perhaps not very many have seen it. It's an amazing cast of characters, one
after another after another, all done by the guy who wrote the play. If you don't
like filmed plays, you may not like this (after all, plays usually don't look good
on TV), but it's a one-man show that will have you paying attention throughout.
Highly recommended.
I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck who was, perhaps, the hardest working lead
actress of the 30's and 40's although few of her movie roles are memorable. Today
she is remembered most for the TV show "The Big Valley". Stanwyck worked so much
because she was durable; it seems that she would accept most any role and make the
most of it to make the movie a success and so directors loved her and many an
ordinary picture gained credibility by her presence. And so it was for
"Christmas in Connecticut" a very ordinary effort whose plot strains credulity and
isn't even really about Christmas. It does, however, have Stanwyck and Dennis
Morgan as well as some supreme character actors including Sydney Greenstreet and
S.K. Sakall so there are plot twists and funny moments which undoubtedly seemed
more real in 1945 than they do today. To begin, the plot concerns a magazine writer
(Stanwyck) who the magazine's readers believe is a domestic goddess, married with a
child and living on a farm in Connecticut but who is really single, lives in New
York City and knows nothing about cooking or homemaking. Could anyone get away with
such a fraud even then? Apparently, and even the owner of the magazine
(Greenstreet) is deceived although one would think that he would have long since
seen though the deception but the story moves on and Stanwyck, Greenstreet, a
sailor recently survived from his sunken ship (Morgan) and Stanwyck's restaurateur
friend (S.Z.Sakall) find themselves spending Christmas in Connecticut at a farm
belonging to Stanwyck's boorish boyfriend (Reginald Gardiner). You can imagine all
the possibilities there are for this as the fraud unwinds as it must. Gardiner
wants Stanwyck to marry him to perpetuate the rouse but one wonders how she can
stand him at all. Morgan and Stanwyck fall for each other but he is supposed to be
engaged and she is supposed to be married. Regardless, they begin what seems to be
a make believe affair dancing cheek to cheek and stealing off in a horse drawn
sleigh. Meanwhile, the incredibly naive Greenstreet character who has seen Stanwyck
and Morgan go off together but still doesn't get it sees one of the neighbors take
back a child that has been borrowed as part of the deception and calls the cops to
report a kidnapping. Stanwyck and Morgan are arrested for stealing the sleigh and
the hoax begins to unwind. At this point the movie is funny as in
ridiculous or absurd, not funny ha,ha and it routinely ends like screwball comedies
always did. The good guy gets the girl and presumably they live happily ever
after. I watch this movie every year at Christmas to enjoy these
character actors at their best in a story that reflects way it was in 1945 and
because of a long held fascination with Barbara Stanwyck. Thank goodness it was set
at Christmas or like 95 percent of Stanwyck's movies it would have been long ago
forgotten and we would not get to see it each year anew.
A very well directed version of Eric Bogosian's stage play. Well worth checking out
for Bogosian's great characters and for anyone who wants to see how to bring a play
to the movies correctly.
Eric Bogosian's ability to roll from character to character in this 'one man show'
exhibits his true range as a character actor. Each persona has their own message to
convey about truth, society, class, drugs, etc. This is an absolute Must Have for
anyone who is a serious fan of acting! His performance contains some of the most
Hilarious and Real moments I have ever experienced as a viewing audience.
This is absolutely the best movie I have ever watched. At the age of 12 I was up
late and ran across the movie. It was on the USA channel, Gilbert Godfrey's Up All
Night. I will never forget. At the time my friends and I were really struggling
with different issues, some sexual. You know 12 is a very rough and weird age. It
seems you are stuck in between being a little girl, and being a young lady. This
movie really helped to answer a lot of questions for me. I now have a daughter that
is 12. Have been searching for a couple years for this movie. If it ever does come
out on DVD I would be the first to buy. Would recommend for any parent to watch
this with their child when they reach that very rough and difficult age.
Many teenage sex comedy movies come and go without much fanfare, however, every so
often a movie might come along thats honest, funny, entertaining AND memorable. The
Last American Virgin is a special movie that has found its place and has stood the
test of time blending all four ingredients. This film follows three friends (Gary,
Rick and David "The Big Apple") misadventures into the world of first-time sex and
true love. Along the way they learn hard lessons and the value of true friendship.
We follow hopeless romantic Gary (The main character) on his quest to win over the
girl of his dreams which leads him down an uncertain road with a surprise twist at
it's ending. If you haven't been lucky enough to see this movie yet, by all means
take a look...sprinkled with many memorable 80s songs throughout the movie to keep
things moving at an even pace. L.A.V. truly is an original film, a rarity among
films of it's genre.
The Last American Virgin (1982) was one of the few teenage comedies that I really
enjoyed. The subject matter and the acting was well above the usual tripe that
Hollywood was (and still is) cranking out these days. But for awhile, the smaller
studios were producing movies about teenagers that wasn't toned downed or soften
for the kiddies. The men pulling the strings behind this production were from your
friends from Cannon. Three teenage buddies are trying to lose their
virginity whilst still in high school. They'll do anyone or anything to achieve
their dream goal. The sensitive one of the group (Andrew Monsoon) what's to find
the right girl while his two best friends will take whatever they can get. One day,
the kid finds his perfect girl (Diane Franklin). But fate would play one of their
foul tricks. His best friend moves on in and sweeps her off of her feet. After
knocking her up, the sensitive kid helps the girl get back on her feet and pays for
her abortion. He still has feelings for her and tries to win her heart. Meanwhile
his best friend has a very violent falling out over getting her dream girl
preggers. Still, he tries his best to get her to love him. The night comes when he
pops the question to her. But his heart is shattered when he sees her dancing with
his former best friend. In tears, the kid leaves the party. What I
enjoyed about this movie was that it pulled no punches. Instead of being filled
with phony situations, it was very realistic, honest and brutal. The movie's filled
with it's share of funny moments and hysteria. I have to recommend this film for
fans of teenage comedies. Highly recommended.
i see there are great reviews of this film already, i've got a few points to
comment on, reasons i thought there was something special about this film... first and foremost, the film is realistic. it may not seem realistic to an
adult who has forgotten what it was like being a teenager, but that's really the
kind of superdrama that goes on amongst teens all the time. second, the good guy,
the guy who treats women with respect, doesn't get the girls. that's the way it is,
in real life just the same! he's too nice for his own good. people are just
selfish. third, it was nice to see a fat guy who had some self-confidence. i mean,
that role already takes confidence from the actor, i'm not just talking about the
character. overall i thought the film was a positive surprise that secretly hides
amongst wacky, partyin' teen sex comedies at the rental shelf. don't get me wrong,
it's not all sad, it's a good laugh as well.
I first saw this movie when I was about 12 years old. It has been one of my
favorites since... It's so perfect in all it's glory complete with awesome
soundtrack, cheesy dialog, and it was both hilarious and terribly sad. The first
movie I really just had a fit about at the end... I won't ruin it for you guys but
boy is it a tear jerker... I just remember feeling SO sad for Gary! What a bunch of
cool characters in this movie it's genius!!! They are all so great even the nerdy
girl Gary doesn't like...(she had a nice little body though). I can't believe all
the girls go for Rick he is such a sleaze ball with his handkerchief tied around
his neck!!! ha ha ha... When watching this movie be prepared for lots of sex jokes
complete with sexually transmitted diseases(almost). But a love story at heart with
real problems, dealing from insecurity to life altering decisions that make you
think and feel genuine sorrow for the cast. I love this movie !!! If you like
Valley Girl another all time classic you will too!
I saw this movie for the first time just a short while ago. If you ask me it does
not get the credit it deserves. It is a little like American Pie meets Fast Times
at Ridgemont High but with more depth. It handles the same issues as both movies,
but in a way that holds with it some grain of truth. The ending is sad, but that is
how life is. I think everyone should see it. I have it on DVD form, and it took
such a long time to find it too. That should say something, heh and another thing I
will add is that it is quite difficult finding the soundtrack. I believe they
stopped it, but the soundtrack to this movie is amazing. It has songs by artists
like The Commodores, U2, Devo, REO Speedwagon, The Cars, KC and the Sunshine Band,
and many more.
i totally loved this movie, tried to buy it and can't find it. a must see, a movie
you can watch again and again, funny but also a tear jerker in one. really good
album for the movie. it's a really good 80's movie, i wish i could find a copy to
buy this movie, cause i would,the actors in it acted really good.there's a lot of
people out there that probably could relate to this movie.that's what makes this
movie so good. so go out and try to rent this one, you won't regret it. it's an
older movie but it's worth watching, i would not be surprised if they made a remake
of this movie soon, but i'm sure it would not be the same. anyone who hasn't seen
it, go rent it.
I don't think I will include any spoilers but If I do, I can cover my butt. "The
Last American Virgin" came in a time were such teenage coming of age/high school
sex romps were the rave. Films such as "Prepies" (1984), "Hot Times" (1974) and the
popular "Porky's " (1981) were making mucho money. Yet it is the "Last American
Virgin" the one that actually has a more serious plot story amidst the nudity and
sexual situations. It is the often told tale of three high school buddies who want
to lose their virginity. The go to the wrong places (prostitutes), the dangerous
ones (older woman with jealous boyfriend) and the convenient ones (luring their
high school female counterparts). The movie has a lot of funny moments, and
although the cast did not produce a single major movie star, it is worth
remembering for a fantastic 80's soundtrack that includes: Devo, The Cars, Journey
and others. By today standards is raunchy and might have grabbed a NC-17 rating,
but is a well told story of how sometimes personal fixation can only bring
pain,while love might be right in front of us. It is a little piece of 80s
Americana and worth having in your movie collection.
While it's not "perfect", it's close. Love Barbara Stanwyck, SZ Sakall, Sidney
Greenstreet, Dennis Morgan, Robert Shayne (Superman's police chief), the
housekeeper, the waiter at Restaurant Felix, and the judge......I can go on and on.
This movie has been part of my family's holiday tradition since I was a youngster,
and my children grew up with it, too! "The baby swallowed the watch" was always my
son's favorite line. Sexy Barbara Stanwyck in pants and gowns stole the
show along with the cuddly, funny S. Z. Sakall. Dennis Morgan has a few great
songs, too. I highly recommend this movie and suggest you skip the
remake (blah).
Reality before reality TV? Copy of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"? A precursor to
"Say Anything" that's grittier? I can't decide, but the soundtrack *is* the 80's--
Blondie, Journey, REO Speedwagon, Devo, Lionel Richie, AND U2--I can't believe
this, they would never throw all those genres together in a teen movie of today. I remembered this like a teenager--mainly the sex parts and not a hint of
the altruism. Why? I was a horny teenager in the 80's. Watching it again, I just
can't describe how much I love that Rose, play by Kimberly Richardson, turns out to
be the voice of "Pepper Ann" in the 90's, and she was almost 30 when she was in
Last American Virgin, playing alongside 16 year-olds--fantastic! Complete cheese,
reality, fantasy, and comedy--with a sincere cherry on top.
I really like this movie. I like it not just because it's a great early 80s movie
with a GREAT soundtrack but I found that it has some thought-provoking moments.
They are just moments; not the entire film. It's definitely not like "Less than
Zero". The scenes deal with typical peer pressure and also with more
difficult problems, like the betrayal of trust. These problems are not easily
resolved or forgotten by the characters. Certain scenes will stand out and invite
reflection on one's own teenage experiences and how those experiences may have
affected one's character and outlook as an adult. You can watch this
movie and think about the problems young adults must face, and about your own
experiences. Or you can just pay attention to the boys' quest to de-virginize
themselves! :) Either way it's a good movie.
When I watched this movie in my adolescence, I attempted for the soundtrack. Some
bands of the soundtrack I still didn't know. However, during the film, I already
noticed her quality. U2, Blondie, Police. , Quincy Jones , Commodores .Sensational
soundtrack. In Brazil, there is a long time this film didn't pass in TV.
Today, he passed in cable TV and I remembered to access the site to do the
comment. The End of the film surprised me a lot, but it is what happens
in the real life. Not always, what thought about being the ideal, it is what
happens. The life brings us a lot of surprises.
This movie was release when I was 15 and I could easily relate to the themes the
film portrayed. That was over 24 years ago and I haven't seen the movie
since. This time around I cringed at some of the acting but still appreciate the
film for what it is. Life is not always fair and the good guys don't
always win in fact I think the movie did well to reflect that especially as a
teenager the pricks always did better with a lot of girls. Also it doesn't matter
how nice you are you cannot make someone like you. Girls/boys like who they want to
like no matter how hard you try otherwise. Sometimes you just gotta let go and say
next. Gary does a good job showing the intensity of his feelings for
Karen. This is so true of teenagers when they get fixated on someone. I
remember sitting around with mates laughing our arses off at some of the antics.
The acting is not quite there compared with Fast Times at Ridgemount High but it
kicks ass over this movie simply because FTARH has a lame viewer friendly ending
where as this movie has a realistic ending. Nice guys finish last!! Gary comes
across as pretty lame cringe worthy material but we all know guys like this who are
far to sensitive. We all know a David, fun guy who makes you laugh. Some
people on here bag the ending but hello the ending is exactly what can happen in
real life. Some chicks just go back for more no matter how bad the dude treats
them, especially at that age. I have experienced that first hand. Great
sound track too!! U2 "I will follow" - Jesus is it that old??
as i said in the other comment this is one of the best teen movies of all time,and
one of my personal favorites. to me this movie is the second best teen movie of all
time. second only to the breakfast club. the last american virgin is also maybe the
most honest teen movie of all time. it's underrated,and pretty much an unknown
movie to a lot of people. it comes on TBS maybe once a year,but sometimes longer.
the first half of this movie is a sex comedy with a few honest scenes. then the
second half is pure honest,and most of the time serious. with only a few comic
scenes. in my opinion this is the best soundtrack of all time. i've never heard
this many great songs in one movie before. there are 4 love songs in this movie
that i think are some of the best love songs in history. the movie is about a pizza
boy named gary who is a virgin. hes in high school who has a couple of best
friends. his two friends are sex-sarved teens. the first half of the movie is
pretty much sexual misadventures. that are very funny. gary is major in love with
the new girl in school. he later finds out that his best friend is going out with
her. he also cheats on the side. you can feel the love gary has for this girl very
much. you can feel it even more in the second half. gary's friend turns out to be a
creep. but his other friend is pretty cool. the movie shows how mean people can be.
you can relate to a lot of this movie. the plot sounds like your typcial teen sex
comedy. but it's so much more than that. it's a very honest movie. it's also very
80ish which i love. if you love the 80's or grew-up in the 80's,rent this movie.
but there may be some people that don't like the 80's,but still may like this
movie. i first saw this movie back in 1987 i think. it's very entertaining,and very
funny. it combines very touching moments with very funny moments. it's an
underrated gem! i have the movie. i love it! i give the last american virgin ***1/2
out of ****
It plays like your usual teenage-audience T&A movie, but the sentiment is
incredibly bleak. If it was made today, it'd be considered an art house movie. It
goes through the usual routine of a guy trying to get laid, but the results of his
efforts are harsh and cruel and unsatisfying. The whole teen flick
formula is adhered to, but nothing turns out the way you'd expect. Imagine a
director's cut of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where, at the end, James Stewart wasn't
allowed to return to the real world. An incredible film that subverts all of the
expectations of the genre. It makes you feel dirty afterwards: there is no
redemption for the characters. I'm amazed it ever got made. The eighties version of
Detective Story.
"The Last American Virgin", along with "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" is one the
last great teen films ever made. It is tender tale of envy and unrequited love set
in the early eighties. Much-maligned by critics that it was a sophomoric, banal
attempt to recreate the magic of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", these same critics
fail to recognize that the two films were actually filmed concurrently during late
1981, and released at only slight intervals from one another. Either way, the
studios would never allow such a bold and uncompromising portrayal of the issues
many male teenagers are confronted with as they reach their sexual maturity.
Especially considering the heart-wrenching discovery the protagonist, Gary is
confronted with in the end. American Pie this is not. The story revolves around a
trio of male teenagers, and their mostly unsuccessful sexual pursuits. Gary is the
least successful of the group, hence the tagline LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN. Secretly,
Gary lusts after Karen, who is involved with Rick, his best friend. Rick and Karen
begin having sex, and Karen gets pregnant, only to be dumped by Rick, who is not
interested in the obvious responsibility which lies before him. Gary glides into
help Karen, which leads to the aforementioned, unexpected conclusion. Overall as a
film, I find it was very successful as a comedy, as a commentary on the sexual
dilemmas of young men, and a remarkable coming of age tale dealing with issues such
as envy, unrequited love and abortion, which are just as pertinent today as they
were over twenty years ago. Also, it has one of the rockingest soundtracks ever
made!!!
Spoilers: This movie has it's problems, but in the end it gets the message across.
I liked it because it ends the way things really do. The nice guy tries and tries,
gets his heart broken several times, but in the end there is no typical hollywood
ending. It ends the way such things always end, or at least always have in my own
and friends' experiences. Anyone who thinks that the ending to this isn't how it
really happens, as the first comment seemed to, believing that the girl would come
around, realize she's dating an asshole who treats her bad because he doesn't care
about her at all is either naive or lives in a more perfect world than I. I give it
7/10, extra points simply because it wasn't afraid to end on a down note, give no
real resolution, just the main character left heartbroken, confused and alone as so
many men of countless generations have been before.
Ahhh...the '80's. 1982 makes me think back to the really crazy time we were facing
in America. Fresh off the "Do What Feels Good" '70's, "The Last American Virgin"
comes as a wolf in sheep's clothing as yet another 'teenage sex comedy' from the
glory days. Oh sure, there's sex, but, I can't think of another movie--OK, this and
"Fast Times at Ridgemont High"--that really wasn't killing time between topless
teenage scenes--there was some pretty good stuff here amongst the cleavage. The movie follows three hormonal friends. Gary (wanting to lose his
virginity), Rick (stud incarnate), and David (overweight, but, not inexperienced)
as they try desperately hard to make sure Gary joins the world of manhood. But, a
funny thing happens on the way to the kegger--Gary falls for Karen (pretty brunette
who loves the bad boys), and can't seem to follow through with any sexual conquest
that David and Rick can facilitate. Only trouble is, Rick and Karen get hot and
heavy and Karen skips a period. It's Gary who is by her side as she goes to get her
abortion, and it's Gary who truly cares. But, who is Karen dancing with by film
end...Rick. Subtract the "R" and add a "D" where necessary. What
separates this film from others from the '80's we think about is that, by god, they
attempt some real drama here, and not of the "my parents just pulled in the
driveway variety." And, you know what? I bought it. It wasn't sloppy. It
wasn't far-fetched. And, when Gary sees Rick dancing with Karen at the house party
at the end of the film, I actually felt sorry for the guy. Our teenage Romeo
actually believed in unrequited love--and when his heart was broken at the end, it
all sort of touched me. So, all the T&A aside, there's an actually
pretty believable and engaging story here. Oscar worthy? Not by a mile, but, I
don't know that I'd lump it into the "let's get laid" category, either. Like "Fast
Times at Ridgemont High," they actually were trying to do a true film here, letting
the hi-jinx in between fall where it may.
What looks like a ho-hum Porky's rip-off turns out to be quite a touching film
about being young and in love. The story concerns three friends, Gary,
Ricky and David, who spend their after school hours looking for sex. When a new
girl arrives in town Gary falls head over heels in love with her. The
film goes from being a sleazy sex film to an examination of teenage insecurities.
It is funny and sad at the same time. It never completely gives into that love
story formula that seems prominent in every movie made. You know the guy meets
girl, guy loses girl, guy gets girl back in the final frame formula. That formula
is tossed aside after guy meets girl. Maybe that is why I liked the film so
much. The soundtrack is especially good and the ending is a definite
tear jerker. It also might be one of the most realistic endings I've ever seen in a
love story. 
I absolutely adore this film about a lady columnist (Barbara Stanwyck) for a major
homemaking magazine who delivers a welcoming article each month that includes
details about her awesome home life as a wife and mother in a beautiful Connecticut
home. The trouble happens when the owner of her monthly publication demands that
she have him and a WW2 hero as guests during the Christmas Holidays. Why is she
worried? Because she lives in a small New York apartment, isn't married, and
doesn't have a baby - and can't cook at all! Hilarity (and romance) ensues when she
tries to put on a believable act in an effort to save face/ keep from being fired
by the magazine owner (played by Sydney Greenstreet). This is a delightful comedy;
one that I highly recommend to classic movie lovers!!!!
I have always liked this film and I'm glad it's available finally on DVD so more
viewers can see what I have been telling them all these years. Story is about a
high school virgin named Gary (Lawrence Monoson) who works at a pizza place as a
delivery boy and he hangs out with his friends David (Joe Rubbo) and Rick (Steve
Antin). Gary notices Karen (Diane Franklin) who is the new girl in school and one
morning he gives her a ride and by this time he is totally in love. That night at a
party he see's Rick with Karen and now he is jealous of his best friend but doesn't
tell anyone of his true feelings. *****SPOILER ALERT***** Rick asks Gary if he can borrow his Grandmothers vacant home but Gary makes up an
excuse so that Rick can't get Karen alone. But one night Rick brags to Gary that he
nailed her at the football field and Gary becomes enraged. A few days later in the
school library Gary see's Rick and Karen arguing and he asks Karen what is wrong.
She tells him that she's pregnant and that Rick has dumped her. Gary helps her by
taking her to his Grandmothers home and paying for her abortion. Finally, Gary
tells Karen how he really feels about her and she seems receptive to his feelings
but later at her birthday party he walks in on Karen and Rick together again. Gary
drives off without the girl! This film ends with a much more realistic version of
how life really is. No matter how nice you are you don't necessarily get the
girl. This film was directed by Boaz Davidson who would go on to be a
pretty competent action film director and he did two things right with this movie.
First, he made sure that there was plenty of gratuitous nudity so that this was
marketable to the young males that usually go to these films. Secondly, he had the
film end with young Gary without Karen and I think the males in the audience can
relate to being screwed over no matter how hard you try and win a girls heart. Yes,
this film is silly and exploitive but it is funny and sexy. Actress Louisa Moritz
almost steals the film as the sexy Carmela. Moritz was always a popular "B" level
actress and you might remember her in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". Like "Fast
Times at Ridgemont High" this has a very good soundtrack and the songs being played
reflect what is going on in the story. But at the heart of this film is two very
good performances by Monoson and Franklin. There is nudity required by Franklin but
she still conveys the sorrow of a young girl who gets dumped at a crucial time.
She's always been a good actress and her natural charm is very evident in this
film. But this is still Monoson's story and you can't help but feel for this guy.
When the film ends it's his performance that stays with you. It's a solid job of
acting that makes this more than just a teen sex comedy. Even with the silly
scenarios of teens trying to have sex this film still manages to achieve what it
wants. Underrated comedy hits the bullseye.
Yes it's a Fast Times wannabe, but it's still decent entertainment. Some
of the comedy parts are really funny. The scene when the three guys visit the
Spanish lady is hilarious, with a little flamenco music in the background. The
reaction when her sailor husband comes home is a riot. The guys' exploits in
dealing with crabs are funny as well when they try to "drown them" and when they
visit the pharmacist. The abortion scene is a Fast Times ripoff too,
but it does do a good job of capturing the terror of the situation. You really feel
for what Karen is going through, and for Gary in his mad scramble for cash to pay
for the abortion and accommodating her recovery. The ending is painful
to watch, but refreshingly realistic. First-time viewers will not be prepared for
it and it will be a shock. There is a decent eye-candy for guys with
young girls and the milf Spanish lady, but heterosexual guys will probably want to
skip the penis-measuring competition. Underrated soundtrack too. Check
out early, early U2(!), The Cars in their prime and an appropriate tearjerker song
by James Ingram for the surprise ending. Some people will hate it and it
is somewhat dated, but those who like teen flicks or grew up in the early 80s
should like it.
This is one of the best and most under rated teen movies ever made. I
saw this growing up and it was, and is one of my favorites, maybe not as popular as
"Fast times" but just as great. There is a serious side to this movie,
as mentioned by other reviewers it starts as a comedy and morphs into a drama about
halfway through. That's the beauty of it though and what sets it apart. You get it
all. Humor(not unlike that of "Fast times" ), Drama, and a GREAT GREAT
soundtrack. I personally think every kid about to enter high school
should see this, it would give an idea about the journey their about to embark on.
Cmon-what kid watching this, wouldn't be able to relate to SOMEONE in the movie?
The fact that it becomes so serious halfway though is also cool and just superbly
well done.You don't even see it coming. Definitely a lot of surprises. SPOILERS:DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW. Great, knee
slappping humor.(who could forget the scene between Gary and Camilla?). I can still
hear it:"Oh my big strong burrito!!" Priceless!! Some of the scenes
between Gary and Karin are hard to watch(particularly the final scene of coarse).
There are SO SO MANY women like Karen out there who would have made the exact same
choice she did. Think about it-how many women reject men with hearts of gold(like
Gary) for jerks? I know I've done it-and so have many females I know. This movie
will inspire discussion and, despite the countless times I've seen it, still leaves
me filled with admiration for the film makers and performers. Everyone will find
someone to relate to in this movie or what's more likely more then one
person. Lastly, the music used is just great(a lot of Cars, u2,lots of
obscure(now) songs from the 80's.-an 80's purist's dream.) But make no
mistake, it is not the music that makes this movie unique, it is the story itself,
plain and simple. One of the best of it's kind and a teen movie classic.
Spoilers in this review! Despite a few highly improbable scenes, including the boys
in PE measuring their penises in a contest and the few obligatory teens-trying-to-
get-laid vignettes, this movie captures the painful essence of high school in ways
that few teen films have ever done. It achieves this by not only showing the trio
of friends, Gary, Dave, Rick, as smoking, drinking, ever on the prowl teens, but
also dwells on the nature of friendship itself as these three friends have their
loyalties tested. This film is a snapshot of the time when childhood ends. For the
shy romantic Gary, when he sees the lovely Karen for the first time he falls
instantly in love. The awakening emotion in Gary is writ large on the screen, and
he proves his love for her by taking her in when she is jilted by her lover. This
love for Karen signals the end of Gary's innocence, as the bonds with his two best
friends will be tested, and broken, over the course of the story. The confident
ladies man, Rick, is the person in high school we all secretly wish we were:
handsome, cool, and always has the impossibly beautiful girls in a swoon. Rick
turns out to be a cad, but you have to bear in mind that his character is only 17
years old. He panics and makes a bad decision. From Rick's perspective, the story
is also about finding the one girl of his dreams, a bad breakup, and then at the
end reconciling. The look on Rick's face as Gary walks in and sees Karen kissing
Rick, shows that he at last understands that his best friend and he love the same
woman. As in real life, you don't bow out because your friend has an unrequited
love. This is the tragedy of the film. Rick is no villain, and constantly through
the film he reminds Gary and Dave that they're his best friends. The soulful
quality of Gary's performance, however, is the heart of the story. Lawrence Monoson
is a beautiful loser. He does everything right, his heart's in the right place, and
he's consumed by love for Karen. Yet, Karen, in the end, is not moved by Gary's
devotion and kindness. Karen represents all the people in the world who take in
without giving back, who exist in a vacuum of their own ego and never stop to
realize the emotional damage and trauma they inflict on others. This film is brutal
in its statements on love and friendship, but that's what makes it unique among
teen films. It ceases being a comedy and becomes a hopelessly romantic film, albeit
one doomed to a tragic conclusion. Anyone who has ever found the girl of his dreams
and did not win her, will understand. The heartrending crushes of high school are
every bit as real as the emotional strains of adulthood, and this film will remind
you of that in bold strokes. Gary's final reversal, as he drives away with the
inscribed locket, is as poignant a moment as any in cinema. One feels, after
watching this, that it's really made of two movies. The first part is a silly teen
sexploitation film, and once the story begins, it's a strongly affecting drama. A
terrific movie. It should also be noted that the soundtrack was prescient in its
selection of many rising stars including The Police, The Cars, Devo, Oingo Boingo,
The Plimsouls, The Waitresses, Gleaming Spires, and Phil Seymour.
When I was in 10th grade me and my buddy were up late at his house and were
flipping around cable and started watching this movie. We watched it because it
looked kind of funny and because it had boobs. But then the ending came and we just
sat there completely speechless. I think after a minute of watching the credits
roll he just sort of whimpered "Oh dude....." It goes from dumb 80's teen sex
comedy to nihilistic realism so quickly that it catches you off guard. I have been
trying to rent this movie for years and have not been able to find it - and nobody
has ever seen it except for me and my friend - so it seems. But now it is
available! I highly suggest renting it and brace yourself.
Perhaps this movie was meant to be nothing but funny. Maybe it was meant to get
teenage boys excited at all the nudity in it. But what I got out of it was actually
something that many people believe in. And that is, " Nice guys finish last
". There is a line in Angel Heart from Lisa Bonet's character that says
" It takes a bad ass to make a girls heart beat faster. " True. Most likely. Women
always say that they want the flowers and the candy and politeness and whatever.
But ( at least at an early age ) they end up going for the good looking, slimy,
disrespectful, untamed guy. The one they know they can't conform to their beliefs.
And that is part of the attraction. After all, what is exciting about a guy that is
already the way you want him to be? I believe this may have happened to Boaz
Davidson. And what he has to say in this film that is disguised with sex and nudity
and parties and everything else that teens can relate to, is that you will get your
heart broken. It happens to everyone and it will happen to you. And that is a
strong final statement in the film. But having said all that, the movie is fun. It
is funny and it shows the antics of highschoolers quite well. This is a
rare film that is sleezy enough to please the teenage crowd it caters to but also
intelligent and poignant enough to show what it;s like to get your heart broken. No
highschool film has ever done this better. Like I said, I think the writers must
have experienced a situation like this first hand. Maybe we all have. This is an old film, but if you ever come across it gathering dust on a shelf in
your local video store one night, pick it up, you may be surprised. It is a hell of
a lot better than Never Been Kissed.
I saw this in a theatre back in 1982. I expected a stupid T&A movie. That's not
what I got. It's basically about three teenage boys trying to have sex.
We get the expected sex jokes and scenes--but, for once, they're actually pretty
funny! Yeah, they're stupid but I enjoyed them anyways. Also, there was
a surprising amount of male nudity. Then the movie, about halfway
through, takes a sudden dramatic turn as one of the boys (winningly played by
Lawrence Monoson) falls in love with a girl. Then the jokes stop and things get
very dark. I'm not going to give away what happens but I was very surprised at the
sudden turn in events. The movie brings up some very important subjects and treats
them realistically and with intelligence. And it has a real heart-breaking
ending. I'm giving this a 10 because this is probably one of the best
teen sex comedy/dramas ever made. It mixes fantasy and realism together and works!
What more can you ask for? Also it has a GREAT soundtrack.
Feels like an impressionistic film; if there is such a thing. The story
is well told, very poetic. the characters well developed and well acted by the
interpreters (or interpreted by the actors :)). The film delights in its
own sumptuous emotions at times and works well, unless you hate such emotion in
movies - not so in my case. It's a very humanistic film. The
landscape and even the extraordinary situation of the displaced cook are very
poetic in their own right. Well done. A good classic for any
good film collection.
The movie begins almost achingly slowly, a "romance" (yawn) that seems to ramble
off course (all part of the plan...) Then, roughly one hour into this solemn movie
is The Feast. It's worth paying attention to that first hour. The Feast is still
solemn, but humorous. Suddenly, the withdrawn and slightly petty characters come to
life, and everyone (you AND the characters) leave feeling enriched by the
experience. Women will love this. Christians of all sorts will enjoy the
profound faith demonstrated by the characters. Not my favorite movie of all time -
no dinosaurs OR laser beams, after all - but definitely a movie I am happy to have
seen. Not to be missed. Jim
Simply one of the greatest films ever made. Worthy of sitting alongside such
European masterworks as THE RULES OF THE GAME, GRAND ILLUSION, NOSTALGHIA, ANDREI
ROUBLEV, 8 1/2, WINGS OF DESIRE, VIRIDIANA, THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING STARS, LA
STRADA, ORDET,THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, THE FOUR HUNDRED BLOWS and MADAME DE...
Both a blessing...and an almost perfect work of art.
Barbara Stanwyck probably didn't think of it, but it is a relief to see her in a
more becoming dark hairstyle (if it wasn't a wig) than the one she had to wear in
"Double Indemnity" the year before. That film, while the premiere "film noir" and
an all-around great film, gave her a great role, but oh, that hair. Here, she is
more chic and certainly no femme fatal, but she is certainly a 40's woman. She has
gotten used to life without men since most of them are off at war, and as a
successful Martha Stewart like columnist, she writes a homey column in which she
describes her country home as the camera pans over what it really is. We meet her
boss, Sydney Greenstreet, who has no idea that she is living a lie, and when he
pushes his way in for a Christmas away at her supposed Connecticut home, she has to
come up with a husband (Reginald Gardiner) and baby before we can say "Jingle
Bells". Hungarian chef S.Z. Sakall steps in to help and ends up in a cutsey pie
one-on-one with Irish Una O'Connor. "It's not Goulash, It's Irish Stew". Sakall
simply takes the paprika, pours most of it in, and says, "Now it's goulash",
totally changing what she has prepared for lunch. Then, when it comes to the
flapjacks, he flips and she scoops. For years, a few friends of mine and I will use
that line every time pancakes come up in a conversation. "I don't flip. I scoop!".
She won't even flip just one for Greenstreet, saying "I've never flipped in me
life." O'Connor can get on the nerves when she screeches over and over in some
films, but here, she is delightfully lovable, and her pairing with Sakall is very
charming. It is obvious in the romance department that Reginald Gardiner
is not Barbara Stanwyck's cup of tea, especially when she meets handsome Dennis
Morgan, who is a bit dimwitted when bathing the baby, which eats soap, causing
Stanwyck to get a bit alarmed. He should suspect something instantly, but doesn't.
But it doesn't matter. The film is so charming with the country setting filled with
snow, an abundance of rocking chairs, and a dog running towards them as the sleigh
comes up. Living in New York City after 25 years in Los Angeles after growing up in
a small town on the western side of New York State made me miss this kind of
Christmas. While Central Park is beautiful after a first snow and the Christmas
tree at Rockefeller Center is exsquisit too, there is something about looking out
at a snow-covered field of trees, and catch an occasional glimpse of deer, rabbits,
or other wild life. This is a great holiday film that can also bring on
the Christmas spirit out of season, and makes a great pairing with another Barbara
Stanwyck country Christmas film, "Remember the Night", an underrated gem. Add on
the big city Christmas of "Meet John Doe", and you've found perhaps one of the
busiest stars of holiday films around.
There is no need for me to repeat the synopsis rendered by Glenn. The black and
white rendition is even more powerful in portraying the bleakness of country
village life at that time. The deep measure of friendship shown by Babette toward
the two elderly sisters touches the heart strings. The supporting cast is excellent
and their performances superb, it would not be fair to single out any one character
since the entire story depends on the cast as a whole. I cannot put my finger
exactly on why I rate this movie so highly since I am not a professional critic;
individual viewers may or may not agree with my rating since enjoyment of this type
of movie is always in the eye of the beholder.
This film offers many delights and surprises. When Achille and Philippa beautifully
sing a duet from "Don Giovanni" that perfectly describes their situation in the
movie, you appreciate the subtle layers of this excellent film. The story unfolds
in 18th century Jutland and the use of period music played on period instruments is
just one more fine touch. You share General Loewenhielm's exquisite joy in his
partaking of the Cailles en Sarcophage even though you are just watching a movie -
but you do wish for just a small sample to savor. Babette is an artist
whose medium is food. Perhaps no other art form allows the artist to share her
creations so directly. The main theme of this movie, the potential that
the sharing of food has to transform how people see each other and how they see the
world, is much the same as the theme of "Chololat," but "Babette's Feast" does not
hit you over the head with its message. The townspeople are conservative puritans,
but not exaggeratedly oppressive. You come to understand and respect them and
ultimately to appreciate their humanity. Many issues are raised for you
to reflect on: the nature of art, the contemplation of paths taken and paths not
taken, the relationship between the spiritual and the physical, the effect of
environment on behavior, the taking of life to give life, among others. The only disappointment for me was General Loewenhielm's speech delivered at the
climax of the meal. I expected deep heartfelt observations, but I got some vague
mystical ramblings. The speech had such a minimal impact that I hardly remember
it. But this understated film leaves a lasting impression. The warmth it
generates is in contrast to its austere backdrop. You will leave the theater
wanting to go out and dance under the stars.
this is one of the finest movies i have ever seen....the stark scenery...the
isolation...the ignorant bigoted people hiding behind their religion...a backdrop
for some wordliness and sophistication...the acting is completely natural...but for
me as a"foodie' the best is the actual choosing and preparation of the feast..i
have spent time in paris and know the cuisine well...whether or not the cafe
anglais really exists i don't know but i do know of similar establishments and
babette's menu and choice of wines are authentic...and of course the end where
despite themselves the perfect meal mellows them back to friendship is the only
ending there could be..this is a 10 out of 10 film and should be seen by anyone
with enough brain and taste to understand it
Sometimes it is difficult to watch films with subtitles (in this case Danish) but
the watching is worth it. As the story progresses, the reasoning for the choice of
two sisters, to take care of their father, is questionable but their society is
different. Their choice leaves them alone until a French woman comes. There may be
a question on why the French woman came to their place to stay and this is never
fully developed. The feast which happens later as a result of unexpected funds from
France is a source of unusual pleasure to all who attend and something they have
not experienced before. It provides a fitting thank you for the kindnesses given to
the guest. Filmed with a dark aura and the display of poverty, it is a beautiful
experience for the viewer.
This movie embodies the soul of modern "elite" foodculture, even though the movie
is 17 years old. The standing principle in the movie is: Food is more than just
nourishing matter. It is also a powerful symbol and a medium for culture itself.
The main characters literally get drunk on the finest wine and food, become
inspired by idealistic thoughts and culture, as they let go of their puritanism and
passion-denying table manners. Karen Blixens shortstory makes use of the difference
between North Europe and South Europe, to point out their inherently different
approaches to food. As the strict and and rather dull scandinavians get infused
with "Eros" from south, the party gets going. So what are you waiting for? Go watch
it.....again!
This is one of those movies which get better with each viewing. I watched it three
times and actually registered on IMDb because I wanted to comment on it. Movies
"about food" have been done before, some of them are really good - as, for
instance, a certain Japanese comedy which aficionados of Asian cinema will know
anyway. But this one really is in its own league. At its core is a protestant
Christian parable symbolizing the ideal of kindness but, far from being dogmatic,
it also addresses the "good" in each and every of us, regardless of our religious
beliefs or lack thereof. There is a pervading understatement and refinement in
Babette's Feast but this makes the message of the movie, if anything, stronger, not
at all weaker. If you cannot attend the extraordinary physical banquet offered by
Babette, you're still welcome to this feast of the soul. Highly recommended!!
It has started quietly. If your are looking for an action-packed movie this is
absolutely not the right choice. All characters are slowly depicted on the scene.
Stroke after stroke on the scene canvas. None can take away his hands to the priest
and so the sisters lifespan devotion can only remain into the village. Philippa and
Martina know their destiny, belong only to the village. So when you understand
that, you are on the movie scene, in the village that becomes the whole known world
in that time. When, no technology can let you imagine anything else than the
campaign, the village, the sea. You feel the rhythm of that ancient village's life.
Watching the movie in a cold snowy late afternoon can cause you to approach this
evening dinner with some sumptuous expectations ... The final sentence
that give a title to Babette's sacrifice far from Paris: An artist is never
poor. Superb photography. Many situations depict portraits and
landscapes as they were styled on canvas there, in Jutland, in 18th century.
I just watched this film this morning and I found it to be a great showing of the
richness of faith. Babette gave them another way to look at life; not a
replacement, but an enhancement. She shared all that she had with those who gave
what little they had to her. I see the story of God in here. He sent his only son
to man. Man could not possibly give anything that would equal that. So, for our
small sacrifice, we are given an ultimate treasure and are transformed because of
it. In this film the bickering townspeople have so consumed themselves with a small
interpretation of God. Babette showed them that life and God can indeed be
beautiful in it's fullest sense. The love that God's son showed to man is the love
we should show to one another and our lives will be the richer for it. Even the
film is a metaphor. It seems slow in the beginning, but the investment of time and
attention to detail is rewarded in the end. It was truly a feast.
I don't know whether this film hits my heart the way it does because of the
feelings of friendship, love, closeness to others or the warmth of that
transformation Babette's cooking creates, but when the feast starts and for the
rest of the movie, I choke up often. Yes, this is a feel-good movie,
but without a speck of mawkishness or facile sentimentality. Please note that
elements of the plot are discussed. Babette's Feast tells its story with restraint
and care, and it lets us discover for ourselves the values of grace and love. All
we need to know is that Babette Harsant (Stephane Audran) was a French refugee who
was given shelter by two aging sisters in a tiny community on the coast of Jutland.
The sisters lead what remains of their father's flock. He was a pastor of
conviction who taught that salvation comes through self-denial. The sisters made
their sacrifices to duty and faith. Those who still remain honor the now long dead
pastor's teachings and his spiritual guidance. Still, as they have grown older the
tiny community has become querulous and argumentative. The sisters do what they
can. For the pastor's 100th birthday, Babette wishes to cook the dinner for the
small group the sisters will invite. The sisters reluctantly agree, but when they
see the supplies Babette has ordered, they and their guests become uneasy. They are
used to the community's usual fare of dried cod, boiled, and a soup made of bread,
water and a little ale. Even though Babette over time has made improvements, what
they are seeing now seems close to godlessness. At the dinner also will be a
visitor, General Lorens Lowenhielm, who years earlier had chosen ambition over his
love for one of the sisters. What do we experience? There is the
austerity of the aging community's faith and the stone, wind-swept cottages they
live in. There is the warmth by candlelight of the sisters' small, crowded dining
room. And then there is the transforming power of Babette's artistry as we watch
her cook, watch Erik, a young boy helping her, serve and pour, and watch the old
parishioners, with the help of fine wine and exquisite cooking, gradually
rediscover their community and love and friendship. The General serves as our
unexpected guide because he is the only one who knows what extraordinary dishes
they are eating. The General tells a story to his uncomprehending dinner
companions, a story about a famed woman who was the exemplary chef at the famed
Café Anglais in Paris. "...this woman, this head chef, had the ability to transform
a dinner into a kind of love affair...a love affair that made no distinction
between bodily appetite and spiritual appetite." He, too, is being transformed into
a man who will accept what he has become and yet will always know the value and the
love of what long ago he chose not to accept. An old couple kiss. Two old men
remember past friendships. And Babette, who spent all that she had won in a lottery
on this dinner, has had an opportunity to be the artist she once was in France, an
opportunity she accepted with love and friendship. Babette, now as poor
as she was when she arrived penniless years earlier, will continue with the
sisters. The general in a carriage with his aunt returns to her estate. And the
elderly guests leave the sisters' home to return to their own cottages. They pause
and look at the clear night sky and the stars overhead. They spontaneously hold
hands in a circle and dance and sing this hymn... "The clock strikes
and time goes by Eternity is nigh. Let us use this time to try To serve the Lord
with heart and mind. So that our true home we shall find. So that our true home we
shall find." They smile at each other. All has been reconciled. Babette's Feast is a wonderful movie, full of restrained emotion, unspoken
understandings, wisdom...and, of course, a meal that will leave you with a growling
stomach as you exit the theater. If you win a lottery so you could afford what
Babette created and have her skill and artistry, here's what she served: Potage a la Tortue (a rich turtle soup), served with amontillado sherry
Blinis Demidoff au Caviar (small buckwheat pancakes with sour cream and caviar),
served with Veuve Clicquot champagne Cailles en Sarcophage with Sauce Perigourdine
(boned quail stuffed with foie gras and truffle in puff pastry with truffle sauce
enriched with Madeira), served with Clos de Vougeot, a fine burgundy Salade Cheese
and fresh fruit Baba au Rhum with glacee fruit and fresh figs Coffee and a fine
brandy
Food always makes a good topic in movies, as "Chocolat" showed. "Babette's Feast"
is the same type of thing. Babette Harsant (Stephane Audran) is a French cook who
flees her native land after the repression of 1871. She moves to a very religious
Danish village. The people in this village simply have no use for joy. That is,
until Babette cooks them one of her exquisite meals. It's not just that
this movie deals with bringing fun to a place that has never known it. Like other
Scandinavian movies (and non-Hollywood movies in general), it shows that a movie
can hold your interest without the use of explosions, car chases, etc. This is one
movie that you can't afford to miss. One more thing. Do you think that
the Danish word for "feast" sounds a little bit like "tastebud"?
I've discovered this movie accidentally and it was really a nice surprise. A
Christmas Classic,it's also one of the fine comedies of the 40s. The story line is
simple : Elisabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) makes out her living by writing culinary
columns for a magazine. At Christmas time, her boss, Alexander Yardley (Sydney
Greenstreet) asks her to invite a young weakened sailor in the Connecticut farm she
write about. The only problem is : She hasn't got any farm and she can't cook. To
get out of the jam, Elisabeth agrees to marry a wealthy friend (Reginald
Gardiner,who has a farm) and flies for Connecticut with her wonderful cook Uncle
Felix. There's a fine direction by Peter Godfrey and the cast is really
wonderful : Stanwyck has never been better as this witty and yet romantic woman.
Greenstreet, Gardiner and Sakall make hilarious and human supporting characters.
The only weak point is the leading man, Dennis Morgan. He starts well but as the
movie goes on, becomes really a bore. One almost feels sorry for Elisabeht Lane to
ends up with him rather than with Gary Cooper or David Niven who both would have
been more suitable for the part. Anyway, this is a joyful Christmas time movie with
a refreshing score and I advice it to everyone who likes to spend funny and sweet
Holidays...in Connecticut.
In all this dogma fuzz, please note that this is the Danish masterpiece of the 20th
century. The humour, the fate, the sorrow is so clean - so simple - so touching. This movie is a masterpiece. Go see it. There's nothing more to say.
The French Babbette appears at the modest house of two Danish sisters wet, cold,
and alone. Fleeing revolution in Paris, she seeks refuge in an obscure religious
community on the windswept Jutland coast. Unbeknownst to those who so
generously take her in, she is a great chef, an artist of food. Babette gives
herself to her adopted community through thrift, productivity, and shared faith.
She leaves only when she wins the French lottery--10,000 francs. She returns laden
with exotic cargo, the makings of a single meal commemorating the birthday of the
sister's father, the community's founder. This meal looms darkly in the
minds of the pleasure-denying faithful but its subtleties are translated by an
aging military officer who, as a young man in Paris, learned to appreciate the
sensory experience unfolding here. The meal is the film's climax, a communion of
love in the transitory artistry of food--unaffectedly uplifting about art, love,
and the meaning of life.
Yes, you can look at Babette's Feast as some sort of slap at Puritanical
Christianity, but it is much more than that. The surface story of how a gifted
Parisian cook flees Paris after one of its revolutions by the middle classes and
finds herself cast ashore in Jutland in the north of Denmark is simply the grease
that allows the deeper tale to develop. Babette is an artist, one of the
small army of people who are driven from pillar to post over the centuries by
fatuous politicians, vane, greedy and arrogant, who kill beauty for profit,
something that politics always does, pace National Endowment for the Arts, which
simply institutionalizes creativity for propaganda purposes. Babette is
on her last legs as she arrives in the tiny village where two virginal sisters
reside seeing over their diminishing flock of devotees to their late pastor father.
They live on salt cod and black bread gruel. Babette shows these simple
pious people that God is in pleasure and sensuality as well as behavioral and
mental purity. She also shows them how that mental purity can lead to control
freakishness, something we all know about in these days of the neo-authoritarians
in government who would limit our personal freedoms because they are somehow a
crime against the state, or as they would tell us, humanity. Babette
cooks up a bang-up French dinner to celebrate the 100th birthday of the late
reverend. The daughters and their flock think it is the devil come amongst them and
vow not to notice the food or drink. It is at this point, in the
preparing of the meal, payed for by Babette's winnings in a French lottery, that I
begin to tear-up. It is a poignance brought about in comparison to the daily
vulgarity and mendacity that floods our consciousness from morning to night via the
media and power-mongers manoeuvring to gain advantage over all of us out here in
the dark. The simple sophistication of Babette's art spits in the face
of all the pretentiousness on display in our modern society, and it hurts to watch
it played out so exquisitely in this splendid film. It is, along with
Fanny och Alexander (Bergman), my favorite film ever, yet I can only watch it once
in awhile because, like a rare bottle of wine served with Blinis and fresh oysters,
it is something that must not be over-done. A great, great film that
should be in every movie-lover's library.
I can think of no movie that better captures the concept of grace, in a theological
sense. The well-intentioned religiosity of a small congregation, gone awry after
the death of their leader, robs from them the very thing they preach: grace. The
costly gift of a humbled Parisian culinary genius returns them to their calling to
love one another, and humbles an aging general concerned that he's wasted his life.
CHOICES is a central theme, as well as grace. At the same time, artistic gifting is
recognized as having a powerful, transcendent role to play in everyday life, and
the life to come. Impossible to improve or ignore. This is a life-changing film for
those who hear its message.
A gentle story, hinting at fury, with a redemptive message and glorious
celebration. The photography is wondrously well executed. Cinematographers look at
this kind of film to hone their craft not just for what the eye can do to enhance a
story, but what the right camera vocabulary can do to heighten an emotion. Feeding
the soul is by definition what this movie addresses, but with an elegance and grace
of delivery that simply doesn't not happen much anymore, at least with this degree
of taste, restraint and finesse. If you care about story and character development,
this is a also a great movie to see as an example of what simple lines and the
right delivery can do to completely fill out a character's impression. Match all
this with a film score that is almost minimalist in character and also perfectly
conceived, and you'll "get" this movie.
Some have commented on the subtitles not being a problem in this film - I beg to
differ - the nuisances in the facial expressions and subtle interactions between
the characters is such that you can not afford to take your eyes away for even a
fraction of a second. I tried to watch, on the DVD, in English to overcome this
problem (don't make this mistake the result is a travesty). The only way to get the
full benefit is to watch it two or three times in quick succession so you know it
and then ignore the subtitles. An acting master class - not in the dialogue but
body language. It is the little things - the postmaster/shop keeper
puffs out his chest and goes in to get his cap before delivering a letter from !
France!. The General's bemused expression as his delight in a bunch of perfect
grapes elicits a biblical reference with a profundity worthy of 'Being
There'. The cinematography is awesome and the bleak minimalist village
with its washed out colour just accentuates the sumptuousness of the feast when it
comes. I have a friend who claims to be descended from the Borgias and who's family
motto is 'If it is worth doing, it is worth doing to excess' - Amen. I
laugh out loud and cry each time I watch this film
This film says everything there is to say about religion - I wish it were required
viewing for all bigots and would-be clericals. The story, set in a turn-
of-the-century Danish villages is about two very religious sisters whose late
father was a rigid priest who discouraged all their dreams of love and exploring
the world and its many beauty. They are now old and their life and beauty spent.
Their quiet new help - whom they "teach" to cook - is Babette (played by the lovely
Stephane Audran who graced so many of her husband Claude Chabrol's films). The life
in the village is simple and the stark direction reflects that. When
Babette wins the lottery, she requests a chance to prepare a feast - a true labour
of love. The course of the feast and its Chief Guest reveal messages of love and
spirituality and how there are many ways to love God and life. This is a
must-see for the devotion with which Babette prepares the feast and for the speech
the General gives at the end. Possibly the best international film of the 1980's.
This movie is almost unknown, but it is very good. In a lonely Danish town, two old
sisters live remembering a far youths, when, due to a strict puritan education,
they had to reject happiness. Lonely, then, the live in a dignified austerity,
until Babette, who flies from Paris, frightened by the horror of the war, arrives.
In few time, she will be able to turn the goodness and love she received when she
arrived. A good lottery prize lets her organize a great banquet, following the best
rules of French gastronomy. All neighbourhoods are invited (all fanatically
puritans). They accept, but they pact to not show any trace of pleasure or
enjoyment, as it would be a sin. However, the seductive force of the delicious meal
they eat, that they become seduced by the sensuality of French gastronomy. The
banquet end in a very felt, though quietly, happiness. The love between humans has
awaken. The miracle of rise the human kindness due to the pleasure of the sense has
begun. The movie is surprisingly good, but it is not for all tastes. During most of
the movie, nothing happens, all is so quiet and so peaceful, that during many
minutes, you can only see the life of the inhabitants of the town. But, as the
movie develops, it becomes more precious, when Babette wins the lottery prize
(after 30min movie), the show begins. The author is able, with a perfect directing,
to show us how Babette prepares the banquet, how she mixes all the ingredients with
the most wonderful one (Love), all told in a quiet delicious way, with a perfect
knowledge of photography and acting. Then, as the banquet goes by, the quality in
showing us how the mood of all eaters changes due to the meal, only with first
shots, with impressively filmed scenes one after another is simply astonishing. In
addition, the tact with the colours and the photography is also superb, almost
every scene of the movie is like a picture, so work is involved there. If you are
able to admire good cinema and are able to realize that sometimes the way on
telling you something rather than what is told is more important, this is your
movie. If you happen to like good meals and just love the good gastronomy,
probably, you'll feel amused, as most feelings of the movie will be familiar to
you. An Oscar totally deserved. The only problem is its slowness at setting up the
story, but, I can forgive it (I hope everyone too)
If not the best movie ever made, "Babette's Feast" is certainly among the most
loving. This is a wonderful exploration of the meaning of artistry, generosity,
loyalty, and grace. Humor is mixed with tender longing; characters are treated with
searching honesty but also deep respect. There are meditations here on memory,
fate, old age and faithfulness. Marvellous camera work by cinematographer Henning
Kristiansen: seldom have wrinkled faces looked so luminous in the candle-light. The
meal is accompanied by delicious period music, Brahms, Mozart and simple folk
hymns. Enjoy this feast for the eyes and the spirit, for as the General says:
"Mercy and truth have met together, and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one
another."
"Babette's Feast" and "The Horse's Mouth" are the two most insightful, accurate
films on what it is to be a real artist. The key lines in "Babette's Feast" are
not, as some other commentators here have said, "an artist is never poor," but two
lines that come before and after it: "I was able to make them happy when
I gave of my very best. ... Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart
of the artist: give me the chance to do my very best." I spent nine
years producing experimental multi-media music theater in San Francisco, raising
money for productions that involved dozens of singers, actors, designers, etc., and
the artists I supported stretched every penny in their effort to do their very
best. They were just like Babette: they were desperate to get every dollar
necessary to do their very best work. Babette's art is fine French cooking, and for
her to perform her art at its very best costs 10,000 francs. When, after years in
political exile from France, isolated with two caring spinsters on a bleak
Scandinavian coast, she suddenly gets a windfall of 10,000 francs, she does what
every real artist would do: she sees that she unexpectedly has the chance to do her
very best, and so she does it. She spends all the money so that she can do her very
best work as an artist. The twist in the movie is that we don't know she is such an
artist, until she is actually cooking and serving the meal. Up until then, she
appears to be just a working-class French lady who haggles a bit with the
tradesmen, and is very serious (her husband and son were murdered in Paris violence
in 1871). To such an artist, it is secondary whether there is an
audience for the art that is competent to appreciate it. That is why the author set
this dinner in a community of people who could not possibly have any understanding
of what they are receiving. Babette did not cook this meal as a gift to the two
spinsters, or to the religious community. It was not her goal to achieve a
reconciliation or spirit of good feelings among the members of the little religious
sect. Indeed, she never once leaves the kitchen to speak to any of them. After the
meal, she is sitting alone, sipping some wine, not paying the slightest attention
to how the guests reacted. She is basking in the satisfaction of finally having the
chance to have done her best as an artist. That is why it is so
satisfying, and so important to the story, that the General unexpectedly shows up
-- for, as Babette knows instantly, a general will know what she has placed before
him, and will appreciate it. For there is a sort of tragedy in a great work of art
being shown to an audience that lacks even one person competent to appreciate it.
She is glad, very glad, he came, in fact he is the only guest she ever mentions
during the entire dinner, the only one she singles out for special treatment -- not
either of the spinsters. But she did not plan the meal knowing that such a person
would come to receive it. To anyone who has had the chance to enjoy a
real first-class Parisian dinner, as I have (my father was Naval Attache to Paris
in the 1980s, and I had my honeymoon in France), this dinner, and Babette's
satisfaction in making it, and the pleasure it brings to the diners, is absolutely
convincing. If any art has the power to suffuse the recipient with a sense of joy,
it is a fine French meal cooked and served in France. This movie makes a claim
about the transformative effects of great art on the recipients. Before the dinner,
the members of the little religious sect are quarrelsome, dredging up old
resentments. The old hymns fail to restore good fellowship; people ignore them,
talk over them. But the shared experience of sensual great art -- for the people
can enjoy the tastes of the foods and wines even if they have no conception that
they are experiencing great art -- contents the people, puts them in a forgiving
mood, reconciles them, and by making them happy, encourages them to love each
other, and thus has a god-like sacred effect of bringing peace. This is the claim
found in the modern art movement today -- that art can supplant the traditional
religions in making mankind more peaceful. Thus, contrary to those commentators
here who say that this film speaks for the power of Christian belief, it is more
accurate to say that the film claims that art can heal wounds that Christian ritual
cannot. After all my years in the art world, I have to say that this claim -- that
art brings peace that religion cannot -- is overblown and invalid. But it is a
pretty conceit and it is the second main theme of this beautiful film. One last note: at Babette's arrival at the spinsters' home, a particular French
general, Galliffet, is named as the person who in 1871 executed Babette's husband
and son, and imposed a military rule that she had to flee. At the end of the film,
as the General tells the story of the magnificent meal he enjoyed in Paris many
years before (before 1871), at the conclusion of some military maneuvers, it turns
out that this same Galliffet was his host at the meal. As the General tells the
story, French general Galliffet praised the chef of that meal as the greatest
woman, the only woman he would risk his life for. Of course, that woman was
Babette. Thus, ironically, the same French general who said he honored Babette
above all other women was responsible for driving her away from France forever.
A magazine columnist who writes about life on her farm house when in fact she lives
in a NY apartment must come up with a plan when she learns that her publisher and a
war hero will spend Christmas with her. After a slow start, it turns into an
entertaining little screwball comedy, thanks to a fine cast. In a big departure
from her previous role as a femme fatale in "Double Indemnity," Stanwyck displays a
nice comedic flair. Morgan is smooth as the affable war hero while Greenstreet is
well cast as the publisher. However, Sakall steals the film as a chef trying to
master the English language while speaking with an almost incomprehensible European
accent.
If you find the first 30 minutes of this film to be so slow that you wonder why
you're watching it, don't give up. Also, hearing the Danish language is a bit new
to most North Americans, who don't see and hear a lot of Danish films. Anyway, as
the film progressed it got better and better and the viewer is rewarded for his/her
patience. Being a fan of the movie, "Out Of Africa," this film piqued my
interest because it's based on a short novel by Isak Dinesen (Karen Blixen), the
major character in that film. The meal - Babette's feast - was amazing.
I'm no chef, but I was impressed! How one interprets the story, too, varies, I
suppose depending on how much you read into this, and where you stand religion-
wise. If the latter, how you look at the definition of "legalism" can affect how
you interpret this story. In any case, it's a fine film, but don't watch
this if you're dieting.
This movie came aside as a shock in the eighties.Far from trends,that is to say in
the heart of sincere creativity,Babettes gaestebud stands as one of the finest
movies of its time.Stephane Audran,the wonderful actress of her ex-husband Claude
Chabrol's greatest achievements (le boucher,la rupture,les noces rouges,all
unqualified musts for movie buffs)gave a lifetime performance.To see her prepare
with love and affection her meal is a feast for the eyes.All the people who saw
this masterpiece actually tasted,ate Babette's culinary triumph. But the most
moving part of the story is its conclusion:Babette was a great French chef,she was
famous,now she found a new homeland but her heyday is behind her and she won't
never be allowed to come back to her dear France.So the two old sisters do comfort
her:In heaven,there will be huge kitchens where she cooks for eternity.While
sharing her fortune with her new friends,Babette changed their life,she gave them
pleasure and a magic evening they would remember forever.In this simple but
extraordinary screenplay,human warmth is everywhere,and I wish everybody a
Babette's feast,would it be only for one starry night...
The dead spots and picture-postcard superficiality of "Out of Africa" just about
buried any interest I might have had to read Isak Dinesen. So when my brother
bought me "Babette's Feast," and knowing it was based on a Dinesen story, I didn't
exactly race to the VCR. But as the titles rolled, it became clear that this was no
ordinary movie. Jutland (where it's set) is not Africa; the chill mist that
collects on the camera shots is not inviting. The cold, forbidding sea; the heavy,
gray clouds; the pale, icy green cliffs--translate to hardships that show on the
faces over which director Gabriel Axel draws the curtain. The craggiest is Bodil
Kjer's as Philippa; amid the myriad merits of this movie, the most memorable is
that face. It stands like a map laying before us the cherished wonder of her
minister father's apostolate; like a maze of long-overlooked fjords where the
complications of her congregation's perseverance and commitment hang like gleaming
escutcheons. I gather it's Dinesen's point how the world is drawn
inexplicably to Christian dedication, when Philippa is rejected by her only serious
suitor (because he fears he'll never measure up to the rules and rigors of her
small religious clique), and he returns to find her mistress of whom he regards as
the greatest chef on the continent. I figure it's also her point that Christ
answers the doubts and regrets of those who give up worldly success (Philippa's
sister Martina rebuffs efforts by a visiting baritone (Jean-Philippe Lafont whose
jolliness creates an uplifting counterpoint to the sparsity of spirit that
surrounds his discovery) to turn her into an opera star; the title character leaves
France and an enviable reputation and seeks sanctuary as the servant of two
spinster sisters) to pursue artistic triumphs for only God and those closest to Him
to witness. But it's Axel who weaves the asperity of these people's lives with the
richness of Martina's voice and Babette Hersant's table and effects a sumptuousness
you'd never expect from a movie about sacrifice, faith, and religious
conviction. What sets this movie apart from other religious movies is
its sly humor. "Babette's Feast," that is, the banquet itself--a posthumous
commemoration of the minister's 100th birthday--is a beautifully orchestrated clash
of sensibilities that delivers comic moments by an ensemble of actors that are
unparalleled in their subtlety. It's just this deft comedy that enriches the solemn
sentiments at closing. Together they do something pious movies seldom do. They
leave a believer tremulously hopeful and unexpectedly resolute and humbled.
Stephane Audran is the eponymous heroine of this beautifully measured study of a
small Danish community towards the end of the last century. Two beautiful and
musically talented sisters give-up their own prospects of happiness and marriage in
order to look-after their ageing father. One day, a French woman, Babette, comes to
work for them. After some years she wins the lottery and is determined to do
something for the sisters who have taken her in. Her solution is to prepare an
exquisite and sumptuous feast, which changes the lives of all those invited. This
is a film about human and cultural interaction, reflected in the changing language
of the dialogue from Danish to French, and especially between the dutiful sobriety
of Protestant northern Europe and the sensuousness of the Catholic south. It is
also about human needs, and how warmth and kindness can be expressed and stimulated
through the cultivation of the senses. A profoundly uplifting film.
Sublime--perfect--profound--a true lesson on the idealized meaning of life. We get
completely caught up in the life journeys of Martina and Phillipa and Babette. Their yearnings, desires, sacrifices resonant long after the movie has
ended. Seeing it years ago--as it was gaining a great deal of notoriety at the
audaciousness of its subject matter--half the movie being a single dinner--the
audience was "oohing and aahing" as some of the courses took their final glorious shape, laughing at the reaction of the diners, as they became
totally seduced by the gustatorial pleasures being introduced to them by Babette,
and being totally surprised at the turn of events at the end of the film.
Subsequently seeing the film years later after my own twists and turns of life, I
realized just how profound the film is. On this viewing tears flowed freely. The
film's meditation on the passage of time and the way it uses a seemingly
simple story to comment on life and love and art and generosity is truly something
to cherish.
Flawlessly directed, written, performed, and filmed, this quiet and unpretentious
Danish film is an example of cinema at its best, and if a person exists who can
watch BABETTE'S FEAST without being touched at a very fundamental level, they are a
person I do not care to know. The story is quite simple. In the 1800s,
two elderly maiden ladies (Birgitte Federspiel and Bodil Kjer) reside in remote
Jutland, where they have sacrificed their lives, romantic possibilities, and
personal happiness in order to continue their long-dead father's religious ministry
to the small flock he served. One of the women's youthful admirers sends to them a
Frenchwoman, Babette (Stéphane Audran), whose husband and son have been killed in
France and who has fled her homeland lest she meet the same fate. Although they do
not really require her services, the sisters engage her as maid and cook--and as
the years pass her cleverness and tireless efforts on their behalf enables the
aging congregation to remain together and the sisters to live in more comfort than
they had imagined; indeed, the entire village admires and depends upon her. One day, however, Babette receives a letter: she has won a lottery and is
now, by village standards, a wealthy woman. Knowing that her new wealth will mean
her return to France, the sisters grant her wish that she be allowed to prepare a
truly French meal for them and the members of their tiny congregation. The meal and
the evening it is served is indeed a night to remember--but not for reasons that
might be expected, for Babette's feast proves to be food for both body and soul,
and is ultimately her gift of love to the women who took her in and the villagers
who have been so kind to her. The film is extraordinary in every way,
meticulous in detail yet not overpowering in its presentation of them. As the film
progresses, we come to love the characters in both their simple devotion to God and
their all-too-human frailties, and the scenes in which Babette prepares her feast
and in which the meal is consumed are powerful, beautiful, and incredibly
memorable. There have been several films that have used food as a metaphor for
love, but none approach the simple artistry and beauty of BABETTE'S FEAST, which
reminds us of all the good things about humanity and which proves food for both
body and soul. Highly, highly recommended. Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT,
Amazon Reviewer
Babette's Feast, for me, is about healing: mending the schism between spirit and
body in orthodox Christianity. This puritanical community in remote Denmark is
missing an adequate appreciation of all of God's gifts in creation. They have taken
the dualism of St. Paul to an extreme, and stress the life of the "spirit," not the
life of the "flesh." Both elderly sisters, in their youth, were frightened by the
lure of love and the temptations of life outside their simple village. They, and
their parishioners, cling to the narrow biblical interpretation of their former
leader, and the sisters' father. The aging congregation has become testy and
quarrelsome, and the sisters don't know what to do. Enter Babette, a French
stranger, and someone to whom they can show kindness. They have no way of knowing
that she will ultimately return their kindness and give fertile soil to their dry,
dusty theology. Babette will give everything she has, and in the process, will
teach the sisters and their flock about grace, about sacrifice, about how sensual
experience (as in the bread and wine of the Eucharist) can change lives, and about
why true art moves us so deeply. When they can forgive each other, and themselves,
they can focus on God's love that unfolds before them in a concrete way in the
present. As a minister, and an artist, I can't recommend a movie more highly. True
art and true grace!!
PRICE OF HONOR aka PRICE OF POWER is an ambitious Western melodrama, light on the
action, which seeks to tell an Old West version of the JFK assassination. In 1881,
the president travels to Dallas and is shot from a window while parading thru town
in his carriage. Corrupt officials have carried out the murder and have a humble
slave take the rap. Our hero, the earnest but bland Giuliano Gemma, aims to unravel
the conspiracy. An engaging story, audacious for its subject matter, but
entertaining despite the paucity of shoot-em-up action. The film is a 7 out of 10,
despite the poor presentation of the DVD, which is overly dark with poor sound.
Look for a good copy.
I was unfamiliar with this film, until I saw it included in a list of the Top 20
Spaghetti Westerns I recently came across (following the marathon I made these last
few weeks of films from the subgenre); it was auspicious, then, that the film had
to turn up almost immediately on late-night Italian TV (for the first time, I'm
pretty sure, in a good number of years)! Unfortunately, the cable
reception of the channel on which it was broadcast hasn't been great lately: I
recorded the film on VHS but I decided not to keep it due to this factor; as it
happened, the very next day I watched the film, I found out that it was available
on a Region 2 DVD from Italy (featuring an interview with uncredited scriptwriter
Ernesto Gastaldi) - and, having been sufficiently impressed, I decided to order it
there and then, even if I knew that I wouldn't be getting to the DVD for quite a
while as I like to allow some time between one viewing of a film and the next! A
brief parenthesis here: when I recently purchased a spate of Spaghetti Westerns on
Italian DVD, I opted not to order Sergio Sollima's FACE TO FACE (1967), since I was
under the impression that it was a bare-bones affair; however, I've just learned
that the disc actually contains an interview with the director (as had been the
case with THE BIG GUNDOWN [1966], which I bought). It did seem baffling to me that
Sollima wouldn't offer similar contribution to that film's DVD edition when he
actually considered FACE TO FACE as his favorite work (as per the director's talent
bio included on the Blue Underground Region 1 disc of yet another Sollima Spaghetti
Western - RUN, MAN, RUN [1968]); the trouble is that I loved THE BIG GUNDOWN so
much that I followed it with a viewing of FACE TO FACE via the recording I owned
made off Italian TV! I did order the DVD of that film now - especially since it's
still discounted - but as I said with respect to a second look at THE PRICE OF
POWER (although I may still check out Sollima's interview when the disc arrives)...
 O.K., rant over: the film under review is quite an unusual Spaghetti
Western and a very interesting, indeed ambitious one at that, being a transposition
of the JFK assassination case to an Old West setting! Actually, it's reminiscent of
Anthony Mann's terse black-and-white thriller THE TALL TARGET (1951) - which dealt
with an assassination attempt on the life of then-U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.
It features one of the most popular Italian stars from this subgenre, Giuliano
Gemma, in what is perhaps his most impressive Western role (many of his other films
tended to have a light-hearted bent). The supporting cast includes at least two
other notables: Van Johnson (in one of his few and mainly unremarkable Italian
films) as the American President killed in post-Civil War Dallas and Fernando Rey
as the head of a conspiracy of Southerners - who not only plots his assassination
but also conveniently maneuvers the new acting U.S. leader, Johnson's Vice-
President, by means of blackmail! Benito Stefanelli also makes a good
impression as a corrupt sheriff who pursues Gemma all through the picture, and with
whom he's engaged a couple of times in a 'duel in the dark' - with the guns resting
on the floor rather than in their respective holsters and the only light in the
room provided by the end of the cowboys' cigars! Also involved is Ray Saunders as
Gemma's black sidekick whom the narrative eventually turns into the doomed "Lee
Harvey Oswald" figure. Stelvio Massi - who later cut his teeth, as director, on a
number of poliziotteschi - is behind the film's luminous cinematography; similarly,
Luis Enrique Bacalov supplies yet another great "Euro-Cult" score - which is
different enough from the style of Ennio Morricone as to be equally
distinguishable. Valerii's direction here may mot be as imposing as that in other
Spaghetti Westerns but he handles the proceedings efficiently enough (the final
gunfight is especially nicely done); the film is certainly one of the more
underrated entries in the subgenre and, for those so inclined, the novelty of the
plot line alone should make it one to look out for...
Tonino Valerii's "Il Prezzo Del Potere" aka. "The Price Of Power" is an excellent
and enthralling Spaghetti Western that mirrors the Kennedy assassination. A great
leading performance by Giuliano Gemma and an excellent score by Luis Bacalof are
just two of the many reasons to watch this movie. In 1881 Texas is
divided into those who appreciate the abolition of slavery and just want to live in
peace, and those who, after 16 years, still want to reinstall the confederacy. In
spite of warnings, President James Garfield, who wants to establish a new policy of
equality, decides to visit Dallas, where corrupt law enforcement officials are
planning his assassination. Bill Willer (Giuliano Gemma) and two of his friends, a
black man named Jack Donovan (Ray Shaunders), and a crippled guy named Nick (Manuel
Zarzo) are determined to prevent the President's murder. Since James
Garfield was not assassinated by racists, who wanted to reinstall the confederacy
in Texas, but in Washington DC by mentally unstable Charles Guiteau, the storyline
of "Price Of Power" is, of course, historical nonsense. Since the movie, however,
doesn't claim historical accuracy, but tries to allude to the 1963 Kennedy
assassination in Dallas, the fact that the story is fictitious is legitimate.
 Giuliano Gemma delivers an excellent performance as the main character
Bill Willer, Benito Stefanelli is great as the villainous and corrupt Sheriff
Jefferson. Some other good performances are those of Ray Shaunders as Bill's black
friend Jack, Warren Vanders as Arthur McDonald, the president's adviser, and
Fernando Rey as Pinkerton, a villainous rich businessman. The Score by Luis
Enríquez Bacalov is great, the cinematography and locations are great and (such as
in Valerii's earlier "Day Of Anger") remind a lot of Sergio Leone, for whom Valerii
used to work as an assistant director for "A Fistful Of Dollars" And "For A Few
Dollars More". All said, "Il Prezzo Del Potere" is, after "Day Of
Anger", another excellent Spaghetti Western that shows both the great talent of
Giuliano Gemma as an actor and Tonino Valerii as a director. "The Price Of Power"
is a must-see for Spaghetti Western fans, and I also highly recommend it to
everybody else. 8/10
This film reminds me very much of the later Rock Hudson film MAN'S FAVORITE SPORT--
about a fishing writer who has NEVER fished and is forced into entering a fishing
tournament. In this case, Barbara Stanwyck is a Martha Stewart-like writer who
can't cook and doesn't really have the perfect family she describes in her
articles--in fact, she has no family at all. Well, like Rock, she is maneuvered
into performing--in this case, creating a huge holiday dinner while vacationing in
the countryside. Since there is no family, she takes home a veteran and a few
friends and tried desperately NOT to "let the cat out of the bag" that she can't do
any of the things she is known for doing. A cute little comedy and a welcome film
to the annual holiday film lineup.
This is a gripping story that borrows elements from the Kennedy assassination, and
uses them successfully to create an excellent western tale. The movie
has a good music score, though it relies on repeating the title theme a little too
much. Giuliano Gemma and the rest of the cast are superb. This is a more cerebral
than usual spaghetti western that relies more on story than action, and it succeeds
because the story is excellent. This is not to say that there is no action in the
movie. There is plenty, and it is very well crafted. This movie pulls you in right
away, and keeps you absorbed til the end. You'll always be wondering what's in
those documents everyone's after. It also has some biting commentary on American
politics. This movie shows why Valerii, in my opinion, is in a three way
tie with Sollima and Corbucci for second place in the rankings of spaghetti western
directors.
In post civil war America the President, (Van Johnson), travels to Dallas and is
assassinated by corrupt officials and businessman interested in installing the vice
President whom they can blackmail due to incriminating documents. A gunman
(Guiliano Gemma) convinced that his black friend is wrongly accused of the
assassination aims to uncover the truth. Tonino Valeri directed this fascinating,
if flawed film which obviously is an allegory for the Kennedy assassination. The
film may wrongly present blacks as slaves working on plantations in Texas but the
film is nonetheless enjoyable and presents an interesting interpretation - that
Kennedy's death was the result of a coup de tat- which many Americans could not
accept at the time. Oswald's murder is replayed here as the black accused of the
assassination is murdered by the men responsible, on route to Fort Worth prison.
This moment in the film is more melodramatic than Oswald's death with his various
escorts shot down before his over the top death scene. Nonetheless this is
definitely one of the more interesting and worthwhile spaghetti westerns. Worth a
look!
Out of the 600 or so Spaghetti Westerns made this has got to be in the top twenty
somewhere. Can not believe this hasn't received any reviews! Gemma is excellent in
this. Van Johnson is good too though his dubbed voice is a little off killter but
that's the charm of the Italian style. Beautiful photography and some excellently
staged action. All the supporting characters are well played. The severity of the
racist streak in the bad guys is pretty tough even by todays standards which
creates an emotional depth to Gemmas character in some of the situations that take
place. Absolutely FANTASTIC score by Luis Bacalov. See this is in the wonderful
Wide screen DVD from Japan. A spaghetti must have.
I first saw this film on hbo around 1983 and I loved it! I scoured all of the
auction web sites to buy the vhs copy. This is a very good suspense movie with a
few twists that make it more interesting. I don't want to say too much else because
if you ever get a chance to see it, you'll be glad I didn't say too much!
I must admit, when I first began watching this film I had no clue what was going
on. So the beginning was a bit confusing for me. However, that did not diminish my
enjoyment of the movie. The characters reveal themselves to be more complex than
they may first appear, and that is what makes this a memorable film. At first I
heard this was a real "Hollywood" movie. Although it obviously lacks the
stereotypical "guns and fists" element, the convincing performances of talented
actors such as Martin Sheen and Sam Neill more than make up for it. I'd rather see
a film with more substance than shooting any day.
This was the film that first indicated to me what a great actor Martin Sheen really
is. He modestly claims that Charlie is a better actor, Charlie can't hold a candle
to him. I found it suspenseful and thoroughly enjoyed the intertwining
of the love story with the main plot (and I usually HATE love stories). There's a
great plot twist at the end that struck me as being fully credible, particularly in
the early 80's time period, and probably now also. The final scene had
me on the edge of my seat. This film roundly illustrates that treachery is often
doled out by those we trust, while declared enemies have more in common than they
suspect, and finally, that human compassion can be found where we least expect
it. irenerose
Enigma is a computer part which scrambles Russian messages, so that America can't
understand them. They can only be read by the intended recipient. The Americans
know that the Russians are going to transmit a message revealing the plans of five
political assassinations they want to carry out. So they send in former
defector Holbeck (Martin Sheen) to grab the scrambler and substitute a false part,
so they'll be able to decode the message, and block the assassination
attempts. However, as we listen in on the Americans heads of the spy
organisation, we find that they already have the scrambler, and they want Holbeck
to try to steal Enigma, only to convince the Russians that they don't already have
it. They don't expect Holbeck to succeed. That way the Russians, who had stopped
transmitting with Enigma, just in case, will begin transmitting again. Enigma is in the computer in the office of Dimitri Vasilikov. Somehow Holbeck
must gain access, and in order to do that, he must find out when Vasilikov will be
out. He sends in his former girlfriend Karen (Brigitte Fossey) to seduce Vasilikov,
so that she can look through his papers and find out his scheduled movements. Karen
is glad to do it, as they tortured her father, a university professor, to death. Because we know that it's better for the Americans if Holbeck fails, the
movie becomes even more intense as a spy thriller. We find ourselves hoping he can
survive against the odds, especially as he uses ingenious methods to beat the
Russians at every turn. But what's this? Are Karen and Vasilikov falling
in love? Will Holbeck win Karen back, or will she actually end up with Vasilikov?
The romantic twist lifts this spy thriller, already worthy of a ten, even higher,
for its originality. The writing, the direction, and the acting all combine to make
this new and fascinating twist a compellingly realistic one. You find
yourself at the edge of your seat, gripping your armchair, not only for the
excitement of the spy story but for the intensely beautiful romantic love story as
well. The two themes are interwoven perfectly, right up to the end. You really want
both sides to win. So who does win, in the end? You'll have to see the movie and
find out, won't you!
I thought this to be a pretty good example of a better soft core erotica film. It
has a reasonable plot about the madame of a bordello caught up in a police scheme
to nab a wealthy crook. Hardcore porn star Chloe Nichole again shows her
genuine acting ability. She will occasionally appear in soft core such as "Body of
Love" and "Lady Chatterly's Stories. Nicole Hilbig, on the other hand, leaves
something to be desired in her role as the female cop.
I saw this movie awhile back and can't seem to track it down. Does anyone know
where I can get a hold of it? I feel it is worth seeing again. I'm sorry
to say I had never heard of Chloe Nicholle until this film. Yes she can act. When I
first began to track this movie down I mistook it for another one of her movies,
Sex Spa. The plot seems similar to me but the roles are reversed. This
is the first film I've seen Dru Berrymore. I looked up some of her other films and
I feel she looks better as a blonde. I agree this is a good
introductory movie. Not too soft. Not too hard. You got to start somewhere.
There's not much anyone can say about this flick....the plot is quite simple: Two
police officers (who also happen to be lovers) are using a brothel as a stakeout in
order to catch a criminal, with the help of the "lady of the house", played by
hardcore pornstar Chloe. As anyone can guess, there's a few plot twists and some
blurred alliances, but the writing was just horrible, even for a softcore movie. I've read some previous posts about Nicole Hilbig's accent (she plays the
female cop). Yes, it's hard to understand what she's saying at times, but I think
I've placed it. I did some sniffing around....I think she's from Germany, hence her
odd-sounding accent. She makes an impression even without speaking, however...she's
got a great looking body. There were a couple of "from behind" sex
scenes in this movie that were quite graphic for a softcore film....excellent work
there. The three-way scene toward the end wasn't bad either. *SPOILER
ALERT* I kinda knew the female cop was gonna turn into a part-time call
girl at the end. She enjoyed her three-way WAY too much. *END
SPOILER* I'm not gonna nitpick about the story TOO much, seeing as this
is a low-budget, direct-to-video softcore flick. However, it just seems like I've
seen way too many movies in this genre with a similar type of storyline. Women: B (Chloe and Hilbig were okay as the eye-candy) Sex: B+ (scenes were
kinda short, but good) Story: C (a recycled plot, but whatever works, eh?) Overall:
B-
Add this little gem to your list of holiday regulars. It is sweet,
funny, and endearing
 Her Excellency Madam Shabana Azmi has worked in countless movies over
life time. I think best is yet to come. Fire is ok. But still
good days are yet to come. Hopefully, in Water I will be able see her
better. Thanks and Regards. PS: India doesn't have a director
to make best use of her.
Thank you The FilmZone for showing this sleazy soft core sex flick at 1 a.m. I
truly enjoyed it. To be honest, I expected a lot more from a sexy cast with
McKayla, Dru Berrymore, and of course, the talented Chloe Nicholle (as Rebecca
Carter). The production values are truly bad mainly because of the low
budget but a little more effort wouldn't harm. For example, the cinematography
makes it look like a hard core porno movie. There's absolutely no effort in
lightning. But let's ignore that fact because let's be honest, we watched
"Pleasures of Sin" because of the high amounts of sex. The sex factor is
pretty good and offers steamy, explicit scenes. Chole Nicholle delivers the best
performance of the female cast. So my advice is , watch this movie if
you are in the mood for good explicit sex or just watch it if you are a fan of Mrs.
Nicholle. Recommended only for the sex scenes; don't expect anything
else.
I've taken another look at this film and still consider it pretty good. Chloe is
one of the few hardcore stars who really can act. She appears occasionally in soft
core such as "Body of Love" and "Lady Chatterly's Stories" on Showtime. I thought
Nicole Hilbig did OK too with her nice body and charming accent. Too bad she's not
in more films.
Progeny is about a husband and wife who experience time loss while making love.
Completely unaware of what this bizarre experience means they try to go on with
their lives. The hubby begins questioning the bizarre event and gets help through a
very annoying psychiatrist. He comes to believe that aliens are responsible for
this lapse in time and that the unborn baby he once thought was his and his wife's
actually belongs to the aliens. If ya ask me, this is a great
scifi/horror story. Taking a highly questionable real-life scenario involving alien
abduction and hybrid breeding is definite thumbs up from this guy. I love all
things related to aliens and this story definitely delivered some good ideas. So if
you also share an interest in things extraterrestrial, you should be pretty happy
with Progeny. At least story-wise anyways. Unfortunately the movie
overall is pretty average. With average acting by all actors. Yep, even by the
consistently awesome Mr. Dourif, who still does deliver the best performance.
Though the black head doctor, delivers his lines really well. There are a few
points in the flick where some of the delivery is cringe or laugh worthy, which is
fine in my book. I like them cheesy and this had a little bit of some nice stinky
cheese, and I mean that in a good way. Anyways, with a less than stellar
script you can't really blame all the actors. I especially didn't care for the
Mother Hysteria the film went for. She wanted a baby so badly that she'd neglect
and dismiss everything her loving husband (who's a doctor!!) said to her. It almost
reached a point where you actually didn't care what happened to her. The
Progeny is another flick by Brian Yuzna from the icky-sticky film, Society. Again
he delivers some slimy effects, and again he delivers a pretty unique tale of
horror. If you're into scifi/horror or are a fan of Dourif and or Yuzna films,
there's no real reason not to check out this flick if you get the chance. A
generous 7 outta 10.
First, let me review the movie. This movie creeps me out, and I don't even believe
in aliens! However, the movie has its flaws. There are three acts to
this movie. Act One is perfect. It sets up the movie, and really builds up the
creep factor. I must say the score is great! Everything is set up and it's set up
perfectly. Act Two begins when Jillian, playing Sherry Burton, goes to
the shrink. They hypnotize her, and she recalls the abduction. Act Two ruins the
film when the aliens show up. "Screaming Mad George" did the effects for the
aliens. I must say they did a good job, except with their depiction of the "Gray"
aliens. No offense, but the Grays looked like inflatable door prizes. On
a side note, I liked how they treated hypnosis in Acts One and Two. If you paid
attention, you would notice that the husband and wife had two different memories.
In the husband's version of events, the blue light zaps them and his wife says,
"Somebody's here," or something like it. It makes sense. The husband is concerned
for his wife. "Someone" may hurt her. That's his issue. However in her version of
events, she says, "Help me!" She does not say "Somebody's here." This also makes
sense. The aliens are after her. Wanting her husband to help and save her is her
issue. Now back to the film. Act Three turns the film into a gore fest.
It begins with a "strange" ultrasound procedure. It's a typical gore fest, but it
does have a surprise ending. I won't ruin it because it's actually an interesting
development. The DVD and commentaries takes itself too seriously, but
if you think Wilford Brimley saying "Horsesh**" is funny, you might want to check
it out in the cast interviews section. Now on to my praise of Jillian McWhirter. I could only hope Jillian will read this. I had never seen her before, but
wow, what a performance! Let me tell the rest of you this. First of all, this is
supposed to be a serious film. The details I will now describe may sound campy and
fun, like "Humanoids From The Deep" (1980), but it really isn't. Got that? Okay. Jillian is hot, naturally good-looking. She is naked for a lot of the film,
a good thing. Unfortunately, she is usually being assaulted, terrorized, and raped,
a very bad thing. However, she must act in a lot of this film naked. She gets
points for overcoming that. She has to act happy, sad, horny, afraid, and
physically hurt all in the span of a few moments. The turnaround of emotion is
astounding! She has to cheer for joy when she learns she's pregnant. She has to
scream in terror when the aliens take out her guts. She has to act very angry when
her husband suggests that the baby isn't his. She has to act like she's in denial,
saying nothing is wrong with her baby, when her husband says otherwise. A denial, I
should note, that is really forced upon her by the aliens controlling her. I am
talking Oscar-caliber performance here! Then there is the rape scene.
It's disturbing, but since it's just some rubber alien, it's not too bad. In this
scene, the alien is not a "Gray" alien, so I will describe it. The alien has
tentacles, and it's kind of like a table. Jillian is on the table-like part,
restrained by the tentacles. By her head is the alien's head. The alien's head is
long, and it flips down so that its head is now above Jillian's legs. Then, the
alien's hey-nanu-nanu comes out of his forehead. It's forehead! Sounds pretty
campy, right? Well, Jillian plays it straight, and she pulls it off! She has to act
like an alien with its hey-nanu-nanu coming from its forehead is raping her, and
she pulls it off! It's a very intense scene, but that's not what makes it. You see,
this scene is done in a flashback. What makes the scene is Jillian's performance
recalling these events. She is just lying in a hospital bed under hypnosis
recalling the alien abduction, but her acting here is more intense than the actual
rape scene! How many actors can pull off a performance in a scene that describes a
rape that is more intense than the scene with the rape? Not many! However, Jillian
does it. I could go on and on. Jillian, if you ever read this, I want
you to know that I, (name withheld) alias of MegamanX-1, believe you are the best
actress ever. You are the best actress ever! I could only hope you read this and
take it with you always. As for everyone else, "Progeny" (1999) is an
Okay to Good film. I would recommend it.
<-----Minor Spoilers!-----> A woman gets pregnant, but not by her
husband. She develops 'something' inside her, or at least thats what her husband
thinks. They go through a lot of hard times, while she is on the brink of a nervous
breakdown. The husband contacts an UFO professor, and with his help they try to
find out what is wrong with her. <-----Minor Spoilers!----> The story could have been a bit better, or at least be made less predictable, but
the movie is catchy and it got me and my sister hooked through the entire movie
without a problem. The acting is very good, and the filming is much better than
normal, if you compare this to your normal b-alien movie. The effects are good, and
something is happening every second of the movie. The characters are really
likable, and apart from a stupid nurse in oné scene, they are all very convincing
in their roles. I thought it was a good movie, and can recommend it, if
you like alien/monster-abduction movies! 7/10 - The story could have
been a bit less predictable.
An odd beam of light penetrates the bedroom of Dr. Craig Burton(Arnold Vosloo)and
his wife Sherry(Jillian McWhirter)as they are making love. About two hours are
unaccounted for as they embrace seemingly unharmed. Under hypnosis during a session
with psychiatrist Dr. Susan Lamarche(Lindsay Crouse), Craig discovers that his wife
was impregnated by aliens. Sherry resists this notion as absurd and is quite happy
to relay news to her husband that she is indeed pregnant. Ecstatic after their
trying for ages to get pregnant, Sherry is frightened at Craig's persistence of the
fetus not being his..this stems from a check on his low sperm count with odds
especially high that he could in no way have impregnated his wife. Awkward,
troubling experiences with the fetus inside her leads Sherry to some scary
discoveries..her doctor, David Wetherly(Wilford Brimley)finds that the ultra-sound
gives some unusual results of the developing infant's appearance, but it's Craig
who notices that it resembles an alien! Sparks ignite cutting out the electrical
equipment, even shutting off Wetherly's pacemaker! Through hypnosis, Sherry reveals
the experience of her abduction, but Lamarche believes her problem is psychological
not physiological. With no one believing his wife's alien impregnation theory,
Craig turns to sociologist Dr. Bert Clavell(Brad Dourif), whose work is in the
studies of alien life and abduction. But, Bert is reluctant to help Craig who will
go to the ends of the earth to save his wife's life from possible harm. Tragic
results occur as Lamarche and others try to keep Craig from his goals of "cutting
the thing out" believing he is mad. Craig will still pursue his task trying to drag
Bert down this path with him. Grim, absorbing horror tale about one
man's struggle to save his wife from the harm of beings no one else believes exist.
Thankfully, Dourif's character isn't some quack nutjob but an intelligent doctor
who wishes to learn more, but his pursuit of the truth of aliens isn't hostile..he
does hope to learn from Sherry, but isn't incredibly demanding in this goal. The
story is told realistically..it's easy to understand why others might deem Craig
off-his-rocker. Vosloo doesn't take the character too far, but expresses the
distress of his current situation. How can he save his wife from this hostiles and
prove to others that he's not nuts? McWhirter deserves credit for the demands of
the difficult abduction scenes where her unfortunate character is naked on this
table being probed and molested by these things. Crouse is fine in her limited, but
important role as the voice of reason in a situation where her clients seem out of
control psychologically. The monster effects are icky and effective. I think the
film works quite well and director Yuzna deserves credit for restraining himself
for this film at least. The final twenty minutes as Craig tries to perform his
"removal surgery" with a scared Bert watching the crazy situation escalate is nail-
biting. You know, fans of "Fire in the Sky" might dig this flick.
This movie will undoubtably not go over well with some, because most of the horror
is mental. But it does have a little something for almost everyone, including a
couple of really cool abduction scenes with aliens. The film makes extensive use of
alien abduction mythology, while also showing a bit more intelligence about some
facets of abduction myths than you would expect out of a movie. Jillian McWhirter
is excellent in what had to have been a grueling performance.
I put in the DVD expecting camp perversion from the creators of Society and Re-
Animator, and was quite surprised to become involved in an authentically
suspenseful tale. Acting was top-notch (nice to see Vosloo in a protagonist role
after a long string of villains), the storyline involving, and the few twists
fairly surprising. I figured I would fast forward through much of it to get to the
abduction scenes, but instead watched it through, only being let down at the very
end. Maybe I'm being too lenient, but as I stated before, I wasn't
expecting much more than alien sex. Of course, if you ARE looking for some hot
alien sex, you will be let down. It was mostly quick-cut exam table nonsense with a
blink-and-you'll-miss-it glimpse of an interesting 'impregnator' alien.
It would be so easy to dismiss an alien abduction movie before even seeing it - as
I did - but this is well worth a look. If you think about it, its not an easy
subject matter to handle but this film manages to suspend disbelief which in itself
is a feat for such a way out subject. Casting the main character as a doctor was a
sensible move which lends credence to his willingness to believe in the possibility
of alien abduction. Vosloo plays it very sensitively involving us in his pain and
confusion at the weird events that befall himself and his wife. Special Effects are
used sparingly but to shocking effect and at times the movie is totally gripping
but sadly there are a couple of points where the plot wanders and leaves some
confusion. Also, after building to a tense climax the ending is something of a let
down. The supporting characters were unnecessarily weak (the alien hunter) or
menacing (the psychiatrist) which also served to detract. But all in all
it raised some interesting issues amongst which was a telling line "How do think
animals feel when we experiment on them". The concept of "lost time" was
also thought provoking.
I don't see why everyone is bombing this so much. I thought it was a great fun time
that sadly wasn't popular enough to be that famous. Believe me I have seen much
much worse than this. If you want a bad movie see blood shack or the alien dead or
something. So what this is normal slasher fare but better than most. And it is
watchable. This movie also has one of the best soundtracks I've heard. Some of the
music is very suspenseful. And the death scenes are cool too. We see a very bloody
body in a bathtub with the words SOLD written in blood on the mirror, and we also
get a cool double beating by a toilet plunger! with razors attached to it! This was
a good fun 80s slasher that's definitely worth your time despite what others say
about it.
This is a delightful, they-don't-make-em-like-this-anymore kind of film. Well
performed by everyone and peopled with interesting character actors. An
intelligent, witty script acted with the right blend of broad comedy and
understated humor. Holds up for repeated (annual?) viewings. **WARNING**
the re-make of this film with the same name, directed by Arnold Whatwashethinking,
is an unbearable mess - painful to watch - without a scintilla of the charm and wit
of the original.
Now, I've seen many many B-grade films in my 15 years of living, and I must say
that this was one of the better ones. I personally enjoyed the real estate and the
storyline, but it did suffer from amateur acting (although Adrienne Barbeau did
give a decent performance as Lisa Grant). Joseph Bottoms couldn't hold his part
well enough to be considered good. The other performance which really fit the film
was that of Barry Hope (Barney Resnick). It begins with an eager real estate agent
taking an Asian couple through a house, only to find there's a dead girl in the
shower of the showhome. It progresses with detective speculating, and introduces
the key characters with reasonable grace. I think that for any person who's in for
a giggle at the over-the-top drama the victim realtors provide during the over-the-
top gory scenes, this truly is a gem... XD Who am I kidding? It's not that great,
but worth a watch if you're insanely bored.
This is a wonderful movie. I've only seen it twice, and I've been looking for it
again for ever. I'd buy it if I could find it. While it's sad, it shows three
things -- how much a man can love a woman, how hard some people want something and
how hard people work to overcome their limitations.
This one gets better with each new look. Certainly one of Paul Sorvino's best
roles. Outstanding music score which was also outstanding on sound track LP (so why
no CD?). One the very early dolby stereo sound film releases. By the way, the
original 35mm theatrical trailer for this is really GREAT!
When you read about this film you wanna cringe. I have seen it countless times and
yet I cringe myself! So what is the attraction here? I think that for me, it's the
offbeatness of the romance. I find it super refreshing to have an oddball coupling
between this NYC Jimmy-Breslin-like columnist and a down-on-her-luck (health-wise)
ballerina. You feel embarrassed for Paul Sorvino at his unsubtle approach to wooing
this woman. Like the guy in the bar who can't take a hint. He's a bit overweight
(at least as a would-be suitor for a ballerina. Hope that doesn't sound unkind) and
possibly a tad too old for her. Nice change of pace from Greek God wooing Super-
model. The Bill Conti score has stuck in my head all these years later, which is a
pretty good sign. However some of the acting is just dreadful. A subplot involving
a young Puerto-Rican boy befriended by Sorvino's character is just hilariously bad.
But the opening scene where Ditchburn is warming up to Carole King draws you right
into this story. Good luck finding it. You'd think that Lifetime would be re-airing
this or even WE, but I haven't seen it on in quite a few years.
I was never all that impressed by Night Gallery, but this one episode stands
out. A TV network executive auditions an odd act - a young, nerdy boy
who proceeds to make prognostications. The exec dismisses the whole thing as a
flaky waste of time until both predictions come true the next morning. What first seemed a parlor act becomes a hit show as the kid's predictions prove
consistently accurate. Then, one day, he refuses to do the show. Facing
imminent showtime, everyone's at wit's end, even threatening him with legal action
if he doesn't fulfill his contract and make his daily predictions. The
young boy relents, and foretells a seemingly utopian tomorrow. After the
show, the befuddled executive asks for an explanation, only to learn why the
complete truth is too terrifying to reveal.
I adore the Ln Chaney version of "Phantom" and I appreciate Webber's version if
only for the growing interest in the book, wish I find more of a mystery slash
horror with the romantic aspects downplayed. I don't approve of the fact that
Andrew Lloyd Webber made the relationship between Raoul and Christine less
restrained. Luckily since this is a comedic short with only Erik and
Christine this version doesn't even have to bother with any other characters. I thought I would still be waiting for another version to match up Lon's
performance. I was dead wrong. Leslie Nielson is fabulous as Erik though, of course
this is a spoof. It's still brilliant. I especially appreciated the fact
that Erik looked more like a living corpse than an accident victim. I still have as
of yet to see a Phantom like that, other than Lon's. However, I do not
recommend this short if you don't like spoofs. Because this is in no way supposed
to be taken seriously.
Bridget Fonda has disappointed me several times over the years, but she had my
attention in BREAK UP. It's true the story is missing critical details in several
places, but I just kept scrutinizing Fonda for clues about what was meaningful in
the story and she didn't let me down. The look in her eyes in the last scene, as
she musters up courage to, literally, put one foot in front of the other toward her
uncertain future is one of the most dramatic and significant examples of face
acting ever. I believed her completely, possibly because I've known and admired
several "tough broads" who survived similar abusive situations. And they did this
without becoming man-haters, but that's my own hopeful projection of Fonda's
character at the BREAK UP.
excellent drama. very dark. i have never seen california photographed in such a
way. bridget fonda as the deaf wife beaten by her husband is superb. the film
gripped me from start to finish. very understated performance by sutherland. the
direction was very european. amazing to get such a performance from fonda.
Nothing great here but a nicely acted story about an abused deaf wife (Fonda) of a
small time crook (Bochner)who gets involved with one of her husband's plans and his
mistress. Sutherland and Weber are cops drawn into what turns out to be a
unmysterious murder investigation and the story just flows along.
I've tried to remember the name of this movie for years and years. Finally, read
something today, 03/09/2005, that mentioned Stacy Keach's name, and it reminded me
that I had seen a movie that he was in in 1974 at the Atlanta Film Festival, so, I
did a Google search for Keach's movies and found The Gravy Train. We were supposed
to see Duddy Kravitz at the film festival, but for some reason they were unable to
show it, and instead substituted The Gravy Train. We were terribly disappointed
that we weren't going to be able to see the much hyped Duddy Kravitz, and had heard
nothing of The Gravy Train, and have heard nothing of it since. However,
I recall we were pleasantly surprised at how good the movie was, and as I recall,
it was quite humorous. Would love to find it on tape.
"Christmas In Connecticut" is a gem of a Christmas movie classic. While lesser
known than some others -- it is nonetheless a delightful way to spend an evening at
holiday time. I watch it every year. Barbara Stanwyck is perfectly cast
as, Elizabeth Lane, the single, career girl. Way before it was popular, Stanwyck
embodies the single girl on the rise. Her NYC apartment, and her friendly "uncle"
restaurateur around the corner typify the single girl in the city existence. She
can't cook yet she writes a homemaking column for a magazine! Dennis
Morgan is also perfectly cast as our wartime hero, Jefferson Jones, who wants to
meet the amazing Elizabeth Lane. After being lost at sea, all he wants is to spend
Christmas in a "real" home. Which sets up the delightful, madcap story that
evolves. It is fun from beginning to end. We should all have an Uncle Felix too!
These immortal lines begin The Jack Starret directed masterpiece,'The Dion
Brothers'. The plot centers around two blue collar West Virginian brothers (Stacy
Keach and Frederic Forrest) who commit robberies in hopes of using the money to
open a seafood restaurant!!? What follows is quite an adventure, and many comedic
events ensue. The action scenes are all top notch and consist of some nicely
realized shootouts. The latter of which is absolutely amazing and occurs in an
abandoned building being demolished by a wrecking ball! The film was written by now
famous director Terrence Malick and features an early appearance by Margot Kidder.
All in all, an excellent hidden gem of the 70s and easily one of the finest
action/comedy hybrids every made. Hopefully it gets a decent widescreen DVD release
soon.
Another one that slipped by the radar of most anyone. This little B produced gem is
so full of new ideas in an old genre and so absolutely refreshing and inventive,
that a dreadful feeling about the lack of cojones in today's cinema slowly
overtakes your body. The final set piece is so innovative in its setting and style
that it prefigures everyone from Tarantino to John Woo. Oh, and if you think "dying
lines" are all cliche, wait for the dying line of FF. A piece of dialogue that
could have torn you with laughter will take your heart. A true pleasure. Seek it
and see it. You won't be sorry.
I managed to record THE DION BROTHERS, off broadcast TV, (with the commercials),
back in the early 80s. I've loaned it to many friends, all of whom agree it's one
of the best B "bandit" movies ever made. One day, while walking to my NYC
apartment, I saw Stacy Keach shooting a scene for his TV series, Mickey Spilane. We
had a moment to chat, and I told him how much I enjoyed THE DION BROS, and
considered it a pure classic. He thanked me, and said it was one of the best, and
most memorable film experiences of his career. He was very friendly, and sincere,
and I was grateful for the few moments he took to chat with a fan. This is one
classic that needs to be on DVD.
I happened to catch about the last 45 minutes of the movie,late night about 8 years
ago. What a wild and funny 45 minutes.I was absolutely knocked out by chase-shoot-
out at the end that takes place at night ,inside an old hotel that's being torn
down with a wrecking ball....Incredible. I vaguely remember Stacy Keach ,stealing a
cop car, faking being a cop and strong arming some winos....Wino to Keach"Hey,why
Ya hasslin us?...Keach"It's my job".You're correct. They don't make them like that
anymore.Great movie. The golden70's...Hopefully it will see the light of day as a
DVD along with other lost treasures...Hickey and Boggs being one such.
Considering this film was released 8 years before I was born, I don't feel too bad
for over-looking it for such a long time. Back in January of 98 though, I attended
the Second Annual Quentin Tarantino film fest held in Austin,Texas. The particular
theme of films this night was "Neglected 70's Crime Films" and boy was her right.
"The Gravy Train(or The Dion Brothers, as it appeared this print)" was an absolute
gem. Wonderful performances, quirky characters, smart plot, hilarious comedy, and
just an all around great time. Rarely do you see a Crime film that is so
entertaining and fresh. Margot Kidder in one of her earliest film appearances is
extremely sexy as well. I hope some cable network gets a hold of this film and
allows many more to see it. In the meantime, go to an indie video store and hope
they have it.
This interesting lost film (written by Terence Malick) stars Stacy Keach and
Frederic Forrest as two wacky, Southern brothers on a quest to open a seafood
restaurant. Margot Kidder was never prettier and Forrest should have been
nominated. Originally titled The Dion Brothers, this light-hearted flick with a
violent ending is a pure joy! Where is this film? I've been searching
for it for 30 years. Keach was still great back then and I'm surprised it doesn't
have more of a cult following (maybe it does). These guys are a crack-up with more
ambition than brains, but totally lovable dudes!. A 7 out of 10. If you can dig it
up somewhere, you'll have fun.
Unfortunately this original mix of action and laughs is kept from cinema fans as it
sits rotting in the Columbia vaults for all eternity. A shame since this may be
Jack Starrett's strongest film and features a witty script by a young Terrence
Malick and fully realized performances by its two leads Stacey Keach and Frederic
Forrest who turn to a life of crime so they can get the money to open a seafood
restaurant. Many standout scenes include interrogation by bathtub and electric
razor, and an intense shootout in an abandoned building as it's being torn down by
a wrecking ball!
Great adaptation of the Christie novel. Surprising attention to authentic period
details for the time (Many films of the mid-1970s-early 80s that try to do 1920s-
early 30s look far too mid-70s-early 80s for my liking, so expected the worst here,
and was gladly proved wrong)The costumes and sets are very well done. I liked this
production very much largely due to the adorable Francesca Annis' portrayal of a
carefree bright young Lady "Frankie" and James Warwick's charming Bobbie. The pair
would go on to portray Christie's Tommy & Tuppence, which is funny as some
contemporary book critics compared Frankie and Bobby to her earlier characters of
Tommy & Tuppence. The supporting characters were equally well done the over the
top Mrs. Rivington (acted by Miss Marple-to-be Joan H.) and "Badger" is played
perfectly as the post WWI, "Bertie Wooster type."
I saw this television version of a Christie mystery story when it was shown back on
Channel 5 in New York City in 1980. At the time I was surprised it was not shown on
Channel 13, the Public Television Station that showed most of the Masterpiece
Theater programs, but (aside from some Dorothy Sayers "Lord Peter Wimsey" stores,
and THE MOONSTONE) the BBC productions rarely dealt with British detective stories.
Another series, THE RIVALS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES had dealt with stories set in the
Victorian and Edwardian period, so a period charm was involved in getting those
stories onto Channel 13. The plot of WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS? dealt
with a young couple stumbling upon a dying man who's only last words are the
question of the title of the story (the novel was originally called WHY DIDN'T THEY
ASK EVANS?, but subsequently was retitled THE BOOMERANG CLUE). The young couple
start investigating the murder, and trace the crime to a set of people who surround
a questionable doctor (Eric Porter). Despite the warnings of the father of the hero
(John Gielgud), the hero (James Warwick) and the heroine (Francesca Annis) pursue
their investigation - even as it gets murkier and more dangerous. The death of
another suspect by suicide increases the apparent dangers as the killer starts
looking into silencing the two amateur detectives. It's not a bad film,
although I agree it was a bit too long for a single night's entertainment (if it
had been done like later Miss Marple episodes with Joan Hickson, or the Hercule
Poirot episodes, in two parts it would have been better). But it has it's
strengths. One is the proper use of Porter as chief suspect, and a clever scene
later in the film where he appears to be spying on the young couple who are
investigating the mystery. If you stick to the film, you will be in for a fair
surprise later on. But it has one failing. When dealing with a Christie
novel the figures in the story have to be in a rigid schedule of movements so that
the reader might be able to figure out what the secret of the plot is. I will only
add that if you hear the dialog at one point, and how a little boy was almost
killed (but wasn't), then you will find all the parts of the story coming together,
and what the villain's motivations were. Except for that and the lengthy
time the telefilm takes to tell it's story, it is quite a good film, and worthy as
one of the best programs based on a Christie story in the period when their was a
sudden renaissance in films based on her novels.
This BBC version of an Agatha Christie book shows the pitfalls of following a book
too closely. Christie's books tend to move at a gentle, sometimes even sedate pace,
and "Evans" is one that certainly does. It also has a solid school of red herrings
to confuse the plot. This version is extremely faithful to the book, which results
in a very slow, involved story. As a Christie fan, I gave it 7 stars, but it takes
3 hours to make its way through a relatively action-free story. I appreciate some
of the tightening of plots that the BBC did for its later Christie productions much
more. In the end, this movie is a leisurely pleasure, highlighted by the
breathy waif Francesca Annis who brings considerable charisma to her role and plays
off James Warwick very well.
"Christmas in Connecticut" is an absolute gem, and a must-see for Christmas!
Elizabeth Lane, a precursor to Martha Stewart, is a magazine columnist and the ne
plus ultra of homemakers--the perfect wife, mother, and domestic goddess. Only
thing is, she is none of these things--a total phony. Unfortunately for her, she is
about to be found out. Her publisher, Mr. Alexander Yardley (a brilliant comic turn
by Sydney Greenstreet) gets the bright idea of inviting a famous war hero to
Elizabeth's "perfect farm" for the Christmas holiday. Only thing, there is no farm,
"perfect" or otherwise. The comedy involves how Elizabeth is to keep her real
identity under wraps so she will not lose her job. Elizabeth's colleague, John,
happens to have a farm in Connecticut, so that solves that problem. However, he
wants to marry Liz, but she does not want to marry him. He offers her marriage,
though he knows she doesn't feel the same way about him that he does about her. He
makes the offer anyway, and assures her that he is willing to wait. And here
Barbara Stanwyck, as Liz, delivers one of the most devastating put-downs I have
ever heard. With perfect innocence, she replies: "Could you wait that long?" OUCH!
In addition, the scenes between Una O'Conner and S.Z. Sakall are hilarious. They
don't seem to like one another (though one suspects they really do). They are
rivals in the household, and S.Z. Sakall's mangled English is equaled by Nora's
strangled pronunciation of his name ("Mr. Basternook"). "My name is FELIX!" It is
amazing how Christmas-y these black and white films are. Great character work by
all involved. Don't miss this one!
Brilliant work. Marvelous actors dissolve as brave and courageous characters .All
unforgettable parts in a more than intriguing and capturing action thriller. The
casting is perfect. Both from the side of the stars like :Armand Asante, Bernhardt,
Kier ,Denier. But as well for new faces .I was very impressed by the young actor
who plays the boy gang member- Mustafa. You trust each one from the Turkish gang.
Very convincing is Michael Barral and all white power followers. I admire the music
beat of the main theme of "Children of Wax".This sound track is a charming mixture
of Turkish, hard rock and Udo Kier's humming And in the same time Children of Wax
"a tale focusing on racial conflicts .The intolerance and brutality between the
skinheads and the Turks.
This film is a very descent remake of the famous Fritz Lang's masterpiece "M-
Murder".It is well made and with a entertaining key to speak about pretty serious
events and contemporary problems in Eurobe but not only the whole world.The ethnic
intolerance is such a huge evil and very contagions nowadays. So "Children of Wax"
or as it is known in US distribution reveals the question of German and Turk hatred
in an amusing way.No doubt it is well appreciated to be taken for distribution by
the great Weinsten brothers.And there is another fact I liked most is the
participation in this movie of the favorite actor of Lars von Trier the great Udo
Kier who shows to play with such a pleasure for the Bulgarian film director Ivan
Nichev.
"Children of wax" also shown as "Killing grounds" is an interesting mixture of
genres. Some might think the purity of the genre can be only for good but to me the
eclectic symbioses is very entertaining. It is also in it's story the mixture of
thriller and the popular action as well as the combination of the historic
masterpiece and the ethnic plea for tolerance. This film is built with the starry
presence of my favorite actor the perfect Armand Assante but it is also marked by
the acting of a shooting star Hal Ozan .We have recently seen him in the TV
series on HBO called "Sex" . "Children of wax" is entertainment for the audience
but the same time it has an everlasting moral for the ethnic tolerance. This is a
wise way to seminate welfare. Discussion on the contemporary troubles of our days
can be made with attractive means in this is very positive side of the film
"Children of wax".
I had such high hopes for Teletoon Retro to air this but instead of having shows
such as this, ones that don't get the treatment that they deserve, they air things
that I may have seen dozens of times before. The Centurions was the
highlight of my pre-teen years. I know that may seem a little bit clichéd but it's
true. After Duke from G.I. Joe, Jake Rockewell is another one of those cartoon
characters that I really had a crush on. It's too bad that Teletoon
Retro doesn't see it the same way people of my generation do. Otherwise Teletoon
Retro would be a lot better than it is.
The centurions is one of the best cartoons ever and it needs to be put on TV and
DVD so people can have younger generations enjoy such a good show that is far
better than the garbage they have made in the last 14 years. I have a petition
online that is at the website address
Http://www.petitiononline.com/6600F/petition.html that originally was trying to get
this show on five days a week but is now trying to get this show onto DVD since the
TV station it was focused on has bad public relations. We all need to convince the
people who own this show to put it on DVD so it can be seen by future generations.
Also since now Hasbro Toys owns the toy line of this show we might want to try to
convince them to make a live action movie of it just like they have done with
Transformers and sometime this year G.I.Joe. We need good cartoons like this one to
come back and be enjoyed by the younger generations. Please do sign this petition
so we can one day have DVDs of the guys who are famous for yelling "Power Extreme!"
This is absolutely the best 80s cartoon ever, maybe the best cartoon of all time.
It had everything action, adventure, thrill, and much more... I can't
imagine how hard it was for Ruby-Spears company to make this great cartoon, there
has been spent a lot of money for this masterpiece of work and it was worth it, for
example just the beaming down scenes were hard because I wouldn't call the 1980s
for a great technology year with computers like now in the world we live in so the
beaming down scenes were excellent! The cartoons will never be the same
as they were before, that is why I hope that they all will be released on DVD
specially The Centurions as it's my favorite. I have the whole complete set of 65
episodes on DVD-r but it's not the same because if they were released on DVD the
people in the world would be able to buy it and see the DVD's in almost every store
which means a lot to the fans. My good friend Ted made this petition to either get
the show back on TV or better on DVD, that is if we get many requests to get them
back on DVD. So please help us by signing the petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/6600F/petition.html
I saw this film at the Galway Film Fleadh the year it won best short film. I have
to say that i thought the direction was fantastic and the performances from the key
cast members were very memorable. Both of the main cast are definitely names to
watch out for. The final shot over the cliff was mesmerizing and i for
one would like to find myself there if i was waiting for the end of the world to
happen. The kiss was definitely a great payoff, done with great enthusiasm's!!
 I can only assume that the film was shot on film, and i have heard that
the DOP won an award at the Tribeca Film Festival for his work on this film and i
must say.... well deserved. I would recommend this film to anyone who
was a teenager in the 1980s. It brought back some great memories and some scary
ones.
I saw this at The Tribeca Film Festival, in the family section. I'm not sure either
of my kids really got the movie, but I have to say that it was a wonderful short
film. 'Nostradamus and Me' is an interesting short film about the hopes
and fears that we all felt growing up in the 1980's, which in turn, extends to how
my kids feel today. Then, we had Regan, today, we got Bush. Instead of Nuclear War,
we have Terrorism. I really identified with the main character, and I
myself dated a 'Curehead' in high school. We all felt like 'nothing mattered' when
we were 16, but it's great to see a film where they discover that everything
matters!!! Again, I probably wouldn't have put this in the family
section...there were a few too many curse words for younger children, but it was a
wonderful and enjoyable film to watch.
The comments of the previous user are harsh indeed. One wonders if they have even
seen this beautiful sweet film. As for being so nasty about it in front of the
writer/director..well thats just plain rude! For those who grew up in the eighties,
it is an artful piece of nostalgia and a sweet story well acted and produced. Irish
film-making sure has a lot of bitter angry people involved with it and the spleen
venting comment made about this is evidence of it.. As people we have a choice;
give out and moan about the people who actually go out there and make stuff or make
something yourself.. I know which one is easier... Do yourself a favour and watch
this film and see how a short film is made... you won't be disappointed
What the heck do people expect in Horror films these days anyway. Does is HAVE to
be something grisly like 'SAW' or it's just crap...??? Now, I don't claim to be an
all knowing expert, but I'm about 47, I've seen and own literally thousands of
films and I honestly think this director really gave this film a good, sincere
effort. Believe me, I was getting ready to cringe as soon as the dialog started,
ASSUMING it was gonna be awful and I was pleasantly surprised. It's no Mamet
script, that's for sure; but COME ON!!! with all the HORRIBLE garbage out there,
ESPECIALLY in Horror, I thought this one was WAY closer to the top of the pile than
most. The director used a lot of neat, clever camera angles; the
soundtrack was excellent and moody, perfect for the atmosphere needed for this kind
of film. The editing and timing were very good. And it DIDN'T resort to the tired,
worn cliché of excessive 'slasher' violence; for example ***** MINOR SPOILER *****
During an absolutely delightful and fully gratuitous (but tasty..., uh, I mean
tasteful) nude shower scene I FULLY expect her to get sliced and diced; but,
AMAZINGLY we just get to enjoy her heavenly loveliness and that's it ***** END
MINOR SPOILER ***** Also, the tension was built very well, leading up to a nicely
ambiguous ending where you are not quite sure what's what. ***** SPOILER *****
Especially where in the scene where the psychiatrist leaves the girl and Pinnochio
alone in the office; WE see the doll actually talking to her, but in the video
recording we do not. Also, the Mom sees Pinnochio moving about and being quite
nasty; so, are BOTH the Mom AND daughter mentally ill...??? Also there is the
original 'killer' and what the Mom had surmised about a possible Evil influence.
But even with all that, we are STILL not quite sure WHO was doing the killing *****
END SPOILER ***** So, all in all, I believe that it was a good, strong, sincere
effort to create some good ol' Early Full Moon type style and with a LOT of
restraint on the violence. And with no typical SLEAZE thrown in for no reason (just
the lovely, innocent, beautiful shower scene, which I will remember to the end of
my days... : ) Compared to the absolute MINDLESS drivel out there, a DEFINITE,
strong 8/10!!!
Stanwyck and Morgan are perfectly cast in what is, in many ways, a modern
equivalent of Dickens' Christmas Carol in its sensibility. The success of the film
depends on the casting of Sydney Greenstreet as the Alexander Yardley character.
Yardley is the modern equivalent of Dickens' Scrooge in the way he exercizes
control over his employees -- until the Christmas spirit overtakes him. The role is
a 'walk in the park' for Greenstreet who had been one of the stage's great
Falstaffs when he was part of the Lunts' company. Greenstreet had only entered
films five years earlier when, at age 61, he was featured in what was to become a
film classic, the first and best film John Huston ever directed: 'The Maltese
Falcon'. 'Cuddles' Sakall was probably never better in his traditional role as the
embodiment of middle European gemutlicheit. The attractive set used throughout most
of the film is an eye-pleasing gem.
(This review contains a huge spoiler, but I don't know how to explain how cool it
is without giving it away) I saw "pinoccio's Revenge" a while ago. Now,
you might think it's just a rip-off of Child's play. Indeed there are
similarities. However, Chucky was a possessed doll who works
independently of the kid. It is POSSIBLE that Pinoccio is possessed with a demon or
cursed or something. however, the puppet itself is actually completely inanimate.
The KID is insane, and THE KID is the one killing people! Everyone, including the
audience, the survivors and the Kid herself thinks it's the doll. But it's the
KID. The nudity is almost a pity, because otherwise I could tell
everyone to see it, because it really is an interesting horror movie.
I know what you're saying, "Oh man, Pinochio is not scary!" but this movie goes
beyond alot more than a maniacal pinochio. Behind it tells the story of a mother
and her daughter who is oddly attached to her doll Pinnochio who seems to talk to
her. The only weird thing is that noone else can hear the doll except her. In the
end is shocking revelation that, as did I, will shock you. Watch it. Give it a try.
this movie is the best horror movie i have ever seen. the acting is terrible and
the plot leaves a lot to be desired but the puppet gave me nightmares for weeks.
seriously, if you have little kids don't let them see this. of course i am a little
biased because of an irrational fear of puppets and midgets. also a body double
cameo by the guy who does mini me verne troyer. and some gratuitous nudity, a must
in any low budget horror movie. all other horror movies will forever be judged
against this in my book.
Perhaps the best movie ever made by director Kevin Tenney (well, his Witchboard is
not on the top of my all-time horror list), this one is a strange, fascinating
mixture between Pin and Child's Play, both better than this one, but not so better.
Sure, the plot is contrived and perhaps too predictable, but the actors are good,
Rosalind Allen is very pleasant to the eye (and so is Candance McKenzie - God bless
her for the shower scene!), the child actress is very good in interpreting the
disturbed daughter and the Pinocchio puppet is scary enough to give you a few
thrills down the spine. For a B-movie not bad at all.
At first it seems the topical romance movie where a girl meets a boy and fall in
love, but the point is that this movie has a feeling others don't have.The first
time i saw it i couldn't see it complete because i had to leave.But while i was
walking along i thought i must see it again but i didn't have any opportunity by
then.One year went by until i saw this movie in a not-free channel and i saw it and
i recorded it too.I saw it once,twice...until 200 times and not kidding.I did know
all the dialogues by hart and i don't know why but i saw it everyday and never got
bored.And i have to say that I'm not used to see a movie more than twice.The act is
very good.Gerard Depardieu is a talented actor and katherine heigl too.I would like
her to be in a good movie because i think she can do it.On balance,it's a movie i
can't take out of my mind.
I can honestly tell you that this movie is the most awesome movie ever!!! If you
are in the mood for a comedy, I totally recommend this movie! So, here's the
summary. There is this girl(Nikki) who is fourteen and a half and she goes on a
vacation with her father(Andre) whom she hasn't seen for about two years. She
expects the vacation to be totally boring, until she meets this boy(Ben), who is
much older than she is. So, to try to impress him she says that she isn't on
vacation with her father, but her lover. This is a hysterical movie from beginning
to end, and I highly suggest it. So rent it and enjoy!!!
It's one of my favorite movies as much because of the location and music as the
story line. Don't matter how many times I watch it, it doesn't seem to ever get
old. I can almost say all the lines along with the characters now. The movie is
supper funny and really sweet.
I love this film, it is excellent and so funny, Ben is FIT and i wouldn't mind
meeting him on holiday!! I rate this film a 10 because its gr8 and i hope they
never re make it because it would never be the same. Funny bit is wen Andre is
looking at the moon,and he shouts at Nicole to 'come outside and look at the moon'
that bit always makes me laugh and never gets old. Another thing is Nicole looks a
lot older then 14... but shes a gr8 actress. But i need help with something Does n
e 1 no the name of the song played at the end wen Nicole and Andre are dancing???
Its really bugging me because i want 2 no what it is because its a nice song!!
this is one of my all time favourite films. its one of those films where i know
every line but can still watch it repeatedly without losing interest. i always
throw on this film if I'm going on holiday, or if i don't want to go to the gym,
just seeing Nikki's gorgeous body will give me the motivation i need. Its an easy
to watch film which always keeps me smiling but i know it wont be everyones cup of
tea, but if like me you love films that are shot beautifully and have comedy,
romance and an interesting plot you will love it. It is filled with great
characters and Ben and Nikki are both gorgeous so anyone can stare at something
appealing. BOTTOM LINE......YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT A TRY! I watched it on TV one day
by fluke and loved it that i had to go out and track it down which took some time
and i could watch it everyday. MY FATHER THE HERO I LOVE YOU!!!
This is one of the best romantic movies I have ever seen. Especially girls who can
identify with Nicole will love it(not only because of the handsome Dalton James) I
also liked the music very much. A highlight was land of the sea and sun from baha-
man. So watch the movie and enjoy it
I just got this movie for Christmas and have already added it to my favorites list.
A cute and simple story which makes a beautiful movie. Who could not love Uncle
Felix or not have their mouth water at the sound of all that food. Definite points
go to Sydney Greenstreet for his performance of Alexander Yardley and also to
Reginald Gardiner who played John Sloane, the impossibly boring fiancee. Truly a
gem to be watched every Christmas.
This is a funny movie, there's not a lot of those. OK, the plot is a bit
disturbing, but very original. A teen trying to get even with dad, because he
hasn't been around and almost sending him to jail because she lie to impress an
older boy, how could that not be funny? Plus it not the typical movie featuring
teens. First remake i've seen, that is better than the original, the only problem
with both: Gerard Depardieu. With another actor this would be a perfect 10, because
he plays all rolls the same way, sucks. Another problem it's all the women melting
over him, that's not remotely believable, he is not attractive!, y had a rubber
troll that was better looking than him, come on!
This is one of my favourite movies EVER... I have seen it about a million times and
would never turn down the opportunity to watch it again. In fact, I love it so much
that I REALLY wanted to check out the resort where it was filmed on my upcoming
vacation... does anyone know the name of it? If so, please email me!!! I watched
this movie for the first time when it was first released and I was about Nikki's
age and for the longest time I bugged my dad to take me to away somewhere because
of course I expected the same thing to happen to me! It's just such an amazing
setting and such a cute puppy-love story. This is a definite DVD collector's must!
This is another case of Hollywood Arrogance presuming to eclipse French Style. The
original, Mon Pere ce heros, was one of the most charming films of 1991 so
naturally the accountants in Hollywood thought they could hire Depardieu and phone
the rest in. They did, however, take the precaution of hiring Francis Veber to
write an English version albeit one utilising virtually every word of the original.
Depardieu brings his Gallic charm and Katherine Heigl shows all the promise that is
now paying off. The thing is that when the French make a sort of Lolita-lite they
get away with it because the 'dirty French postcard' thinking works in their
favour; here the Hollywood idea of lightweight subtlety is to have Depardieu
(totally unaware that his daughter has let it be known he is actually her lover),
prevailed upon to play and song 'something French', launch into a spirited version
of Thank Heaven For Little Girls. See the original.
I have a problem with the movie snobs who consider Americans to be uncouth semi -
literates unable to appreciate the subtlety of the more sophisticated Europeans,les
Francais,les Italiens...just about anybody from le continong to whom English is a
foreign language.If the humour in "My Father the Hero" is different from that in
"Mon Pere ce heros" it is because the French sense of humour is different from that
of the American.Not better,not "more clever",just different. If you think it is
crass for Hollywood to "borrow" from the French cinema just consider how much the
French cinema has borrowed from Hollywood in the first place.Where would Belmondo
and Delon have been without Bogart?Truffaut without Hitchcock?Jerry Lewis - not
known for his subtle and cerebral style is idolised in France.Go figure........
Monsieur Depardieu is exceptionally good as the hapless divorced father of a
precocious 14 year old daughter on holiday in the Bahamas together. Unbeknowst to
him,she presents him to the other people at the hotel as her lover so as to make
herself more interesting to a boy she has her eye on .Not
surprisingly,complications ensue. There are "hommages" to "Green Card" and "Cyrano
de Bergerac" amusingly inserted and M.Depardieu goes along with it all very good -
naturedly. He does a good Maurice Chevaler impression with "Thank Heaven for little
girls" which is in fact funny and rather poignant as his audience,all of whom
believe him to be the lover of a 14 year old girl,get up and leave two - by - two
as he warbles away,blissfully unaware of what is happening.When he turns round at
the end of the song to acknowledge the expected applause the expression on his face
is priceless. Without him the movie would be very average indeed.With his huge
shambling figure dominating the screen it is a lot of fun.No pecs,no six pack -
just a real proper human - type being.Formidable!
MY Father the hero is sweet, funny and cute. Gerard Depardiu is awesome as Andre, a
divorced father who takes his fourteen year old daughter Nicole(Kathrine Heigl) to
the Caribbean for vacation.While there, his daughter meets a guy named Ben(Dalton
James. To impress him, she tells him that Andre is her lover and that her father is
in jail for armed robbery and her mother is a prostitute and that she ran off with
her pimp. Everyone on the island is soon under the impression that Andre's a child
molester. Andre is between two relationships. One with Isabelle(Emma Thompson, who
makes a cameo in the end of the film) and Diana(Faith Prince from Spin City). My
father the Hero has many funny moments. Like when he's at a talent show and
everyone tells him to play something french. So he plays "Thank Heaven for Little
Girls" from Gigi. Everyone gets disgusted and leaves. My Father the Hero doesn't
deserve a 5.1. I think it deserves a 9.0.
I think is a great and a VERY funny movie. The story is so funny. The daughter
Nicole brings her father Andre, in some very embarrassing situations In an effort
to impress the boy of her dreams, the daughter pretends that her father is her
lover.You just have to see!! Heigl is lovely as Nicole, perhaps too lovely; I'm not
sure why she'd need to lie to hook anyone? Gerard Depardieu Acts very great in this
comedy film, he is so fun to watch. If you like comedy and romantic film you just
have to see this!!! I think you can see this film many time, and you will still
have a good laugh. In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the
girl pretends that her father is her lover.
What a great movie this is. I found it full of the delightfully unexpected pain of
being a single father of a teenage girl. And it is set in a tropical island
'paradise'as well. Gerard Depardeiux brings his special European flair
to this story about a divorced father of a teenage girl. They are on holiday
together and she begins to add to the excitement on the island in many unexpected
ways. But you will need to see the film for yourself to see all the hilarious
situations they find for themselves. There are a few cult classics which
all teens should see. This movie should be added to the list. In addition to Dirty
Dancing, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Rocky Horror
Picture Show and Animal House, My Father the Hero should be required film study.
Watch it as if you had a teenage daughter and you'll be rolling with laughter.
Watch it with your teenage daughter and prepare to be laughed at for months.
My Father The Hero used to be my favorite movie when I was Younger. It's about
Andre, a divorced french man who wants to take his beautiful daughter (katharine
heigl} on a vacation, hoping to get a little closer to her. But of course, Nicole
isn't that easy to get along with, she just started puberty, i'm guessing. She is
angry and hurt that her father was never there for her and decides to give him a
hard time. One day at the beach, Nicole meets handsome Ben, and she makes up a wild
story about her and her dad. The whole island gets involved and the movie turns
into a hilarious wild entertaining movie. I would give My Father The Hero 8/10
This is a funny, intelligent and, in a sense, realistic comedy about a 14-year-old
trying to live her first love while on vacation, and also about the complex,
sometimes amusing, sometimes touching, relation between a divorced father and her
growing daughter... and about how far a women (not only Nicole, the teen-ager) can
go to get the man she loves! I laughed a lot with this lively scenario that never
drags.
I watched this series after Tipping the Velvet, for which I gave 10/10 grade. I had
read user comments on this and I expected an equally good series, or if possible,
even better. At this point I must emphasize that this series is good, and it
definitely captured me throughout it and thus worth watching. However, I didn't
enjoy it as much as Tipping the Velvet, for the following reasons: 1.
Less passion, love, and related sexual content. There were surprisingly little
emphasis in these elements, which I held integral for a love story. Fingersmith
felt like a watered down version of Tipping the Velvet. 2. Similarly, as
in Tipping the Velvet, the story had three parts: the beginning, a shocking second
part, and the ending. The second part should have been the climax of the story (as
in Tipping the Velvet), but instead it was almost totally skipped, perhaps due to
inability to make shocking but believable asylum content. The series should have
been in three parts, featuring two cliffhangers, with a lot more focus on the
second part. 3. Almost no weight was given to what Fingersmiths were and
how it affected their personalities. I found it rather annoying that the series did
not properly address such central topic. 4. The ending was much more
hasty than in Tipping the Velvet. Fingersmith left several interesting plot lines
open. Despite these shortcomings, Fingersmith is a good series, and well
worth 7/10. However, it is not a classic like Tipping the Velvet.
I came across this movie back in the mid eighties as a teenager and it immediately
became one of my favorite holiday and non-holiday films. As you can tell from the
other reviews this movie has a very good story line and great actors signed on for
it. Stanwyck is great as bride to be that is having second thoughts.
Dennis Morgan's acting is strong also. He goes unnoticed in most films but was a
very capable actor, check out KITTY FOYLE. In this film he plays the visiting
sailor that woos Stanwyck away from her husband to be. This is a
Christmas classic. The settings and the story make for a great Christmas romance
I have never read Sarah Water's book. Although I have not read the book, the 3 hour
movie is very interesting. It begins with an interesting storyline with a twisted
ending. I have to say these 2 actresses are amazing. Sally Hawkins is stunning
successfully portrayed the character in love with her mistress and betrayed by her
love. Their romance slowly blossoms as they spend more and more time together. The
love making scene is very tender and emotional, well acted. The end is quite
intriguing and these 2 ended up together after all they have been thru, which is a
bless. Overall, it is a great movie to see, a very interesting plot with excellent
performances.
After watching Tipping the Velvet by Sarah waters i decided to watch Fingersmith,
the characters were just as good in both performances, though missing Rachael
Stirling in the adaptation of Fingersmith. The story line overall was of
a good choice, the twisting and the unravelling of the characters were amazing!
Excellent watch only missing Rachael Stirling! If you do enjoy the
romance of two girls this isn't one of the best films to watch. It
takes on a different spin from Tipping The Velvet but just as good. Would recommend it to everyone!
London 1862, a young orphan named Susan Trinder (Sally Hawkins) grows up amongst
the petty thieves known as Fingersmiths, under the guidance of Mrs. Suckerby
(Imelda Staunton). One evening, Richard "The Gentleman" Rivers (Rupert
Evans) pays them a visit. Rivers has an elaborate plan to defraud the
wealthy heiress, Maud Lilly (Elaine Cassidy). Susan agrees to help for a
cut of the money, and is quickly installed as Muad's maid. Upon
arriving, she discovers that Maud is virtually a prisoner in her own house, as
Uncle Chritopher (Charles Dance) controls every detail of her life. As
the plan begins to unfold, Susan finds herself developing an intimate relationship
with the lady of the house. Adapted from the novel by Sarah Waters.
The story was well plotted and interesting by itself. However, it is difficult for
me to write the review of this film without spoiling you. To avoid that, I am not
going to talking the story here. I regard this film as a good adaption
of Sarah Water's book, as compared with the previous one "Tipping the velvet". I
read the book first and then watched the DVD later. The film did retain most of
spirits of the main characters in the book. Of course, due to the time limitation,
the film in the last 30 min seemed to be in a rush to cover the part III of the
book. Therefore, it couldn't illustrate well the scene when they all met in the the
kitchen of Mr. Ibbs's place and those after that (even the book seemed to me to be
a rush on that kitchen scene). Despite that, the film actually did a good job in
representing the story. It really worth watching. It's still unclear when BBC-
America can broadcast this film. That's pity. PS: noticed that the ages
of Maud and Sue were set to be 20-21 instead of 17-18 in the book; the latter is
more reasonable while the former is more close to the ages of actresses.
I'm not exactly sure why I ordered "Fingersmith" from Netflix -- probably, because
I enjoy BBC dramas, it was on a list of recommendations. I had no idea what I was
about to see. The plot, which I will only describe in general so as not to spoil it
for anyone who will see it after reading my review, has more twists and turns than
a mountain road in the Rockies, of the sort that customarily appear in "caper"
movies. They are very unusual in a period drama. Not having read the novel (and I
do not intend to do so), I was totally unprepared for the surprise that ends the
first segment on the DVD and equally surprised by the subsequent twists and turns.
Nonetheless, it is extremely well acted by the two young principals (by Sally
Hawkins,in particular, as Sue and by Elaine Cassidy as Maud) and, in key supporting
roles, by Imelda Staunton as the mother figure in a house of thieves and by Charles
Dance as the rich uncle who collects pornographic materials and who rescues young
Maud from the mad house where her mother lived to be his secretary. The lesbian
affair between Maud and Sue is the "big news" in the movie, but really not its
centerpiece. The centerpiece is a plot to steal the fortune that Maud is due on her
21st birthday. The turns and twists in the plot add tension, though not much
credibility, to the movie. However, no viewer is likely to doubt that Maud and Sue
will somehow end up together -- improbably -- as the credits roll. Although one has
been raised as a ady, and serves a collector of pornography, and the other is a
pickpocket posing as a lady's maid, the author obviously means for them to live
together in the end. It's a bit difficult to swallow, since each has conspired to
cheat the other. Despite these reservations, I liked movie well enough. It does not
quite deserve the praise that others have lavished on it. The most fearsome and
interesting scenes take place inside the madhouse where one of the two young women
has been confined until she is able to escape and return to London to bring the
story to its unexpected conclusion. Sally Hawkins (Sue) is a very impressive young
actress, able to convey her character's cascading and changing emotions with her
facial expressions and her eyes. No doubt we'll see more of her. I certainly hope
so.
Wow! Where to start? This adaptation of Sarah Waters' third novel is one
of my all-time favorite movies!!!!! I'm not to big on fiction novels
(seriously I NEVER read fiction), but the book is just as FABULOUS as the film! Or
should I say the film is just as FABULOUS as the book?! I JUST LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!
 Anyway, I put off watching this three hour long film (2 part series on
DVD, 3 part series on TV/book) for about a year and half. It simply did not look
that interesting...BOY WAS I SO WRONG! I became immediately immersed
into the rich and suspenseful plot...utterly enthralled! Just like the book, you
cannot stop watching/reading. It grasps your attention for the entire 3 hours...and
when it does end...you wish it hadn't. The story just flows so
beautifully and you'll be wondering where the time went. The lesbian
subplot was just icing on the cake! The parts I love most are the subtle facial
expressions and glances/eye contact between the two characters. You really feel
their desire for one another and yet they cannot act upon it.....until they must.
 May I point out that the "lesbian theme" is an important part of the
film, obviously, at the heart of the film is a genuine unexpected love story, but
it is most certainly not what the whole movie is about. For me that's what makes
this story so unique and intriguing. I've never read or heard of anything like it.
Sarah Waters is pure genius! The twists and turns it takes leaves you
hanging on the edge of your seat. Seriously! My hands were clasped on to my couch
with every surprising plot twist and I even yelled out several times ("OH MY GOD!
NO WAY! THAT DID NOT JUST HAPPEN! DID IT?")...I NEVER do that! The only
negative thing I have to say about this film is that I wish they'd added more from
the book. But obviously having the adaptation be restricted by time they couldn't
add everything that I would've liked. How awful it is though...I think I'm just
being brutally selfish now...forgive me. The last 20 minutes does seem
a little rushed. However, they put all the important bits in where even if you only
watch the film and choose not to read the book you will be most satisfied with the
outcome. The actors are just SUPERB! BRILLIANT even! Sally Hawkins
(Sue) and Elaine Cassidy (Maud) have such great on screen chemistry they steam up
your television set. Simply electric! The emotions...the desperation...the struggle
each of them feel is expressed seemingly effortless by these wonderfully talented
actresses. Rupert Evans plays such a good bad guy as Gentleman. I found myself
seething every time he came on screen, but loving it because he's just so damn cute
and somehow still charming even though you want to wring his neck. Imelda Staunton
gives yet another fantastic performance as Mrs. Sucksby. She's such a warmhearted
actress you cannot help but love her...even when the character she's playing isn't
as delightful. Everyone else in the cast were perfect! They really represented the
characters well and were just as I imagined them to be after reading the
book. This is a must see for any film buff! Actually, ANYONE and
EVERYONE should see this movie AND read the book! Chances are you won't be
disappointed! 10/10 stars from me! There are only four other films I
have given that same rating too. Its very rare for me to actually enjoy a film so
much that I give it 10/10. This is one of those films. Fingersmith is truly a
masterpiece!
BBC's 3 hour adaptation of the novel by Sarah Waters..."Fingersmith". Life is tough
without money, especially in Dickensian London. Dark deeds lead to despicable
dilemmas.Is love really just a luxury for the rich and free ?? Elaine Cassidy as
"Maud Lilly" and Sally Hawkins as "Sue Trinder" both give fantastic performances as
the leading ladies asking this question ... OF EACH OTHER ...whilst Rupert Evans
shines as the delightfully bad "Gentleman".. with great support from Imelda
Staunton's "Mrs Sucksby", David Troughton's "Mr Ibbs" and Charles Dance's "Uncle".
The plot twists and turns and I wasn't sure I could be led to care about characters
able to hurt and use each other in this way... but somehow.. i do care... and thats
because of the quality of the performances... love feels like love .. hate feels
like hate... betrayal .. confusion.. well hopefully you get the idea and hopefully
you will get the DVD and enjoy.( Elaine Cassidy is just great in this.. gorgeous in
fact.... i have to declare i am in her fan club... Hi Elaine : )
This movie is definitely one of the finest of its kind,. A Victrion age story of
love, and, grit. The depth of its story line is one that will stir the inner most
emotions of love, and hate, with some very interesting twists, this is a must have
movie for not only the lesbian audiences, but, for all viewers. I can't say much
more or I will spoil the experience for a new, young audience who might just be
coming out. Another fine work for Sarah Waters. It also is a great way for Sally
Hawkins to win over audiences who only get a brief glimpse of her talent in another
Sarah Waters work, in "Tipping the Velvet".. It is also a must see..
The chemistry between Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy was incredible. They were
thoroughly convincing and genuinely likable in their roles. Imelda Staunton played
the conniving Mrs. Sucksby brilliantly. Despite the fact that she was a dastardly
opportunist, she somehow managed to have you sympathizing with her in the end.
Rupert Evans played the slime-ball gentleman with sheer charm and snark. He was a
scene stealer. The story itself was very unique, as was the manner in which it was
told. The Victorian England setting featuring two lesbian lead characters was
intriguing and delightful. There were some fantastic and unexpected twists and
turns that really kept the audience engaged in the story. A wonderful cast and
excellent story made this film superb.
Historical drama is one of the areas where the British just can't be beat. So while
i'm not a huge fan of the genre, i can usually be persuaded to watch something lite
this if it's British and with decent actors. I have never read anything
by Sarah Waters, which is of course something i should do. Hence i didn't really
know what to expect from this. I had heard that there would be a lesbian love
story, but not much more. While watching it i found it to be a lot more interesting
than i had anticipated. Without saying too much the twists and turns of the plot
are unexpected as well as well-crafted. Although there were almost a twist too many
somewhere, it took me a minute to get everything straight. Production
values are good, the actors are very solid and the pace is decent, although i found
it to be a bit slow in the last half-hour. That might just be me though, i usually
have a problem with movies dragging on after the plot is more or less finished. All
in all though, this is a fairly enjoyable three hours. I recommend it to anyone
interested in historical dramas.
Though it's a Christmas movie, "Christmas in Connecticut" could have been done any
time of year, as it's the story of a soldier who spends what is to be an idyllic
time with a Martha Stewart type. That's what he thinks. In reality, the lady in
question, portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck, has a popular magazine column about life
on a farm with her husband and baby. She has no farm, no husband, and no baby, nor
are the many recipes she publishes hers. They belong to the restaurant owner
nearby. When her no-nonsense editor, Sydney Greenstreet, insists that she entertain
soldier Dennis Morgan, she enlists the aid of her boyfriend to use his farm, and
she transports herself and the restaurateur there. There's even a baby...well,
actually, there's more than one. Chaos ensues, and the charade becomes increasingly
difficult to play out, especially when Stanwyck falls in love with Morgan. This is such a wonderful movie, and even if you're gravely depressed, "Christmas
in Connecticut" can lift you right out of it. Barbara Stanwyck is wonderful as the
career woman turned homemaker. Despite not being as flashy as Crawford or Davis,
she was nevertheless able to do what any role called for - she could be cheap,
elegant, warm, nasty, cold, and/or sexy and she makes it look easy. On top of that,
she is always attractive and alluring. Dennis Morgan is a handsome and charming
solider; as an added bonus, he gets to use his Irish tenor. Fiancé Reginald Gardner
is all business, and you can tell he's not quite right for Stanwyck. S.Z. Sakall as
the fake uncle/real chef is hilarious, especially as he prays Stanwyck can flip a
pancake before an audience. I can imagine the impact this delightful
film had at the tail end of World War II. It must have been a real beacon for the
better times to come.
This TV adaptation of Sarah Waters' novel was so lovingly done I can hardly find
the words to appreciate it. Not since "Tipping the Velvet" (also highly
recommended) have I seen such a performance by the lead actresses, this time by
Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy. They acted with their souls, and this is what
gets across to the audience! The supporting actors were well chosen, too, they made
a great ensemble. For those who think the story is just about a lesbian
relationship - no, this is only one part. The other main theme is the betrayal of
the person you love. And the plot has some further surprising twists. So the movie
should be interesting for straight people or guys like me as well.
I never dreamed when I started watching this DVD that I would be totally mesmerized
by it within minutes. The story was completely absorbing and entertaining. The
acting was superb. The biggest surprise of all was how I would be so completely
enchanted by the love these two young women radiated across the screen. Their
initial physical encounter for me was by far the most tender, romantic, delightful,
vicariously enthralling love scenes I have ever witnessed on film. I literally
stopped breathing. I could not believe the chemistry between the two actresses.
With no nudity or graphic sex, they conveyed more passion and titillation than any
American production could ever hope to evince. Bravo to the author, the
screenwriter, the director and the cast.
I watched this movie recently and fell in love with it. I loved the storyline and
the actors. It has a little of everything. I was completely taken by the unfolding
of the story. It has so many surprises along the way. I highly recommend it. In
fact, I loved it so much that I ran out and bought the book. I felt I had to read
it in order to appreciate the art in the writing behind the movie. I also wanted to
make sure I didn't miss anything that was in the book but kept out of the movie. I
recommend people who love the movie to read the book because there is enough
difference in the book, especially in the second episode, to want to read it. It
has become my favorite movie. I am now a Sarah Waters and Elaine Cassidy fan!!
This movie was incredible!!!! I did not know the back story on it so I needed to
let it unfold before me on DVD. It had many twists and turns but still kept the
story fresh and exciting. The acting by Elaine Cassidy was in a word Brilliant as
well as Sally Hawkins. The storyline is rich with plausible occurrences as well as
fresh ideas from the present. There is truly something about Ms.
Cassidy's eyes that leaves "a mark." This movie is a refreshing look on the way in
which we look at the 'victorian times' and how we view that society. A very
worthwhile watch.
It is always difficult to bring a 450 pages book down to a three hours film. I read
the book before, and I found the BBC production dealing with this difficulty in the
best way possible. The qualities of the book haven't been lost: the dense and
lively depiction of a fingersmith patchwork family in London in the 1860s, the cold
and obscene cruelty in which Maud is brought up, the characterization of different
social groups by different ways of speaking, the unexpected and surprising twists
of the story, the way the film makes the spectators look different at the same
scenes when they are told first from Sue's point of view then from Maud's one. The
main actors do very good, and especially the growing love between the two women is
convincingly developed, with a first culmination in a very tender love scene
between the two and finally forgiving all the evil they were ready to do and did to
each other, because they still love each other. For each of her books
the author, Sarah Waters, has thoroughly investigated what life was like in British
19th century. While in Tipping the Velvet it was the world of the vaudeville
theaters and the beginning of social movements, in Affinity the dreadful reality of
women penitentiaries and the fashionable evocation of spirits, in Fingersmith she
depicts the public ceremony of hanging people in London and the inhuman treatment
of persons supposed or declared disturbed in asylums based on the reading of
sources and scientific research. This is very well transferred to the film so that
the corresponding scenes show a high grade of historic truth. I highly recommend
this film production because it offers three hours of colorful Victorian
atmosphere, vivid emotions, and suspense.
This was indeed an amazing adaption. I missed the first episode so I unfortunately
missed out on the bonding between the characters and the smooth flow of the
storyline. But as soon I watched the second and then the third instalment I was
just blown away. I ordered the DVD less than a week later and unable to wait for it
to come I went straight out and brought the book. From the moment I opened it I was
hooked, I just couldn't put it down. I decided to finish the whole book before I
dare watch the DVD at all. I preferred the book because it got inside the
characters minds, you could understand totally where they were coming from and what
there role was within the story. They missed a lot out of the adaption which was
disappointing as the book is a master piece and I think they could have done it
superbly if they had been able to stretch it over a longer period of time. But
considering only being able to be fitted into a 3 hour slot I think it was done
excellent. It followed the main twisted storyline brilliantly. And the actors which
were enrolled as the main characters where amazing! The love making scene was pure
beautiful. It was so tender and loving and just showed how natural homosexual love
can be. I was totally blown away with both the book and the TV adaption! I loved
both of Sarah Waters previous novels and also found the Tipping the Velvet adaption
quite enjoyable. But when I read and watched Fingersmith I knew none of her
previous novels/adaption could beat it. Sarah Waters has indeed exceeded herself
this time! I recommend that you watch this adaption! If Tipping the Velvet wasn't
your thing, then don't let it put you off this one. Fingersmith is a whole new ball
game. It is a beautiful yet dark twisted story about love, greed and betrayal... A MUST SEE!
I'm usually disappointed by what the media dubs "lesbian" movies these days:
murderous bisexuals; psychotic murderous lesbians; women who experiment with other
women, but end up with men at the end; ridiculously good-looking women who only get
w/ each other to turn men on, etc. Thankfully, FINGERSMITH is on a very
high pedestal above this garbage. It is a credible love story acted MARVELOUSLY by
every cast member, down to the least of the supporting actors. Aside from having a
very engaging central conflict, the romance between the heroines is well developed
and believable thanks to Cassidy and Hawkins. I have also seen TIPPING
THE VELVET, but FINGERSMITH is far superior to the former, both in
character/conflict development and the quality of the acting. FINGERSMITH is both satisfying and enjoyable to watch, offering lesbians
everywhere a great follow-up act to BOUND.
I had never read any of Sarah Waters' novels, or watched Tipping the Velvet. I only
heard about Fingersmith when i was flipping through "The L word" websites. The
storyline of Fingersmith interested me, yet i passed it away, thinking "Lesbian in
Victorian period, that never ends well, i have enough of those lesbo series and
movies that go no where" However, during Christmas my local DVD store
gave Fingersmith a discount, i brought the DVD, and my life has never been more
colourful This mini series deserves to be cherished and praised. The
acting is so great that i call it rare. Sally Hawkins, Elaine Cassidy, Rupert
Evans, Imelda Staunton, and many more that i can't name all, brought light and
darkness to their characters. Just by a little gesture, a little look, a little
touch, they made their characters real and as a viewer, i couldn't help it but take
them home, keep them close. Fingersmith, sets in Victorian area, is a
story of Sue-a thief who loves and lives with her "Family" of pick-pockets. Little
did she know that her fate is linked to Maud Lily-a somewhat shy, timid girl grows
up in a Mansion miles and miles away. Maud's mother left her a fortune, but Maud
herself can't touch it, unless she married. Worst of all, Maud's uncle makes sure
she never will by keeping her prisoned in the house. Enter Mr
Gentlement, a charming, good-looking thief with a heart as bad as any. He wants
Maud's fortune for himself, and in order to do so he sets Sue up as Maud Lily's
maid, asking Sue to Persuade Maud to elope with him. as time goes by, Things would
be simple, if Sue didn't fall in love with Maud. And things would be
simple, if the story was what i have just told. I do not wish to spoil, so i would
like to stop there. But i can asure you that everything is twisted and turned
before you can even aware of what has happened. Once it happened, you then question
what would happen next. On top of that, the story is filled with passion unlike any
others. There are no self-searching, sexuality questioning, "Oh my god do i like
girls" moments, because the girls in Fingersmith are buried so deep in their own
darkness that they barely be able to care. the story with such twisted plot moves
as smooth as water, running passionately, but strangely calm. Weeks
have passed since i watched "Fingersmith", yet Maud's eyes still haunt me, and
Sue's words still warm my heart "You pearl, you pearl, you pearl", she said. And
such pearl it is.
Having read the book prior to watching this adaptation you would think that it
would have lost some of its thrill. However, the story is so clever I could never
tire of it. Sally and Elaine really put their hearts into their roles
and brought out so much of the characters. I fell in love with the story and the
women all over again. Beautiful to watch thanks to direction, settings
and costumery. Despite the plot speed of television, I don't feel that anything
important was lost in transit. It had me on the edge of my seat throughout with
lots of wonderful stomach-trembling moments. Enjoyed it thoroughly. This is the
kind of television I have been waiting for.
I love Sarah Waters's Fingersmith, and was worried about the TV adaptation as I'd
been disappointed by the BBC's version of Tipping the Velvet (which although
beautiful to look at was let down by Keeley Hawes not being able to sing, and
Rachael Stirling not being able to act). Fingersmith is a very tightly plotted
novel with breath taking twists and turns and I wondered if this could be done
justice to in just 3 hours. I needn't have worried. The adaptation was
excellent, very little cut out, and went along at a cracking pace (although I did
wonder whether if you hadn't read the book, would you miss things?). It had the
look and feel of a BBC classic costume drama and i kept having to remind myself
that this is a contemporary book. The acting was stellar. Sally Hawkins
acting her heart out as Sue Trinder, and Elaine Cassidy, a slow burner, who by the
end of the story was incandescent as Maud Lilley. The love, the passion, the
realisation of the acts of betrayal both would have to perform, were written on
their faces. It was a joy to watch. I hope Rachael Stirling was
watching: that's how you play a Sarah Waters character!
This is a wonderful old fashioned Christmas favorite, which I try to catch on TV
every year if I can. It revolves around a Martha Stewart like journalist named
Elizabeth Lane, charmingly portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck. However, in contrast to
Martha, this lady is a phony with no domestic skills whatsoever. The other cast
members effectively complete the story, and include Dennis Morgan (Jefferson
Jones), Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), and Sydney Greenstreet (Alexander
Yardley). Elizabeth Lane is a journalist who writes food articles,
portraying herself as a happily married country homemaker with children. In
reality, she is a single woman living in a New York City apartment and cannot boil
an egg. Her recipes are borrowed from her Hungarian chef friend, Felix. Elizabeth
gets away with her deception until the publisher of her magazine, Alexander
Yardley, decides he wants a nice old fashioned country Christmas, and invites
himself to visit her, bringing with him a returning war hero, Jefferson Jones, a
sailor who had been shipwrecked. Yardley demands total honesty of his employees. To
get out of her predicament and save her deception based career, Elizabeth borrows
the Connecticut country home of her longtime architect suitor, John Sloan, a dull,
fussy chap who has long sought marriage. She also borrows a neighbour's baby
(actually, several) to pass off as her own and her 'husband' Sloan's. Of
course this scenario makes for much merriment. It's a screwball comedy and a
charming romance, with the added attraction of a Christmas atmosphere. Whenever I
think of this movie, I picture the snowflakes falling, the tree beautifully
decorated, the fire roaring in the hearth, the turkey roasting, and Christmas
cookies baking. Why did Hollywood feel compelled to do a remake? I
understand there is a 1992 version, directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger and starring
Dyan Cannon, Kris Kristofferson, and Tony Curtis. I have not seen this modern
adaptation nor do I wish to. This old favorite is perfect just the way it is and a
holiday 'must see' along with It's a Wonderful Life, White Christmas, Miracle on
34th Street, and of course all the versions of A Christmas Carol.
Having read all of Sarah Waters books i was eagerly looking forward to a BBC
adaptation of Fingersmith. Especially since Tipping the Velvet had been done so
well by old familiar Andrew Davies. I was not disappointed with the
results, in fact i think this might be on a par with TTV; both romantic and
entertaining. And not as so many ignorant people would have you believe, a
pointless lesbian romp. Having been a fan of Elaine Cassidy's since seeing her
guileless turn in Felicia's Journey i thought she embodied both hard deception and
a growing fragility as Maud. Her transformation was believable and impressive to
watch. I recognised Sally Hawkins as Zena Blake from Tipping the Velvet, a small
role primarily so i didn't have as many expectations but she was astounding in the
role of Sue Trinder. Her eyes were mesmerising conveying everything from rage to
absolute despair. The two of them acting together, combining these talents made
this drama unmissable. Of course Imelda Staunton was amazing as usual, she is
unmistakably a national treasure and the supporting cast were all of a high
standard. Even the direction from the fairly unknown Aisling Walsh used contrasting
yet beautiful shades of blue for Briar and brown for London. However as
much praise must be given to Ransley the script writer. To turn a 600 page book
where every line is of the highest quality into a three hour extravaganza is a huge
feat. He illuminated the main revelations at a steady pace whilst giving us plenty
of back-story and character development at the same time. He has my full
admiration. In conclusion, a brilliant adaptation where all involved
gave 100% and making this one of the best BBC dramas i've seen.
Haggard: The Movie is the real life story of Ryan Dunn, and his girlfriend who
cheated on him, also with the help from his two friend, 1. A skate boarder who
lives for nothing, and, 2. A trying-to-be funny scientist (which doesn't really
work) played by Bam Margera and Brandom Dicamillo. The film Haggard The
Movie also has a lot of the characters from Jackass, etc, but to say it was written
by Bam Margera and Co. this is a very weak attempt, seems to me like it was written
when he was bored, or as a project with they did not pay a lot of attention
to. The films also stars Bam's girlfriend Jennifer Rivell, who plays
Glauren, Ryan's girlfriend who basically cheated on him, again very bad acting by
Jennifer, another actor that some people may be interested in is Steve a.k.a
Hellboy, played by RakeYohn, which his character does not seem to be with the
story, again bad acting, also this character does not really have a lot of lines in
this film which basically makes it very boring. but worst of all, is Raab's
character, the voice sound like a smoker who basically has throat cancer, also i
think he could have been improved! Overall i think the characters in this film
aren't with the story, like in one scene, it would be on one certain character, a
minute later, a different scene, different character. To say that this
is supposed to be a film, sort of a documentary, its not played by the characters
as a documentary, the acting makes you think that its a cheap attempt at making a
film with your spare time. Towards the middle of the film we start to
lose focus on the main character Ryan Dunn, although a lot of the attention is on
Bam and Brandon. In conclusion this film is OK, if you laugh at things
that aren't very funny, stupid stunts, terrible acting and the occasional nude
scene!, Also i think there there are too many scenes of just no talking and just
music! 7/10
Alright, let me break it down for ya... Haggard is probably one of the funniest
pointless movies you'll ever see. It's got a mixture of a unique storyline about a
guy having girl troubles and everything going backwards for him mixed in with
countless humorous scenes that will keep you laughing throughout the whole movie,
basically, if you've seen jackass or the CKY series, you'd know what to expect for
humor, considering it has most of the people from those movies. Overall... i just
had to give it a 10/10 because its one of my favorite movies of all time. ~F0rs4k3n (P.S.) Haggard rules!
I just bought this movie yesterday night, and I LOVE it. Everyone did great acting
in it, especially Ryan Dunn and Bam Margera. The whole plot was great, and as Dunn
said in the extras on the DVD, they made it seem like he was reliving the whole
thing all over again. This movie has made my number one spot in my favorite movies!
I can't stop replaying scenes over and over again, just to see it again. I've never
done that with any other movie. I would definitely recommend this to other people
to watch, because it is such a great movie, and if you like Bam Margera, it's a
perfect movie for you!! The little montages that they show in between every scene
are just great. I think that those have to be my favorite parts of the movie. They
are very sad, with mostly music from the band 'HIM,' which of course is my favorite
band.
I bought this movie just to see Bam because i was really loving him, but after
seeing this i don't like him much. I mean, his acting was good and everything i
guess, but whenever it showed the totally unnecessary skate scenes i was just
saying to myself, "Alright, we know you're a professional skateboarder, now can we
get back to Ryan Dunn?" Dunn, Rake, and Brandon really made the movie in my
perspective. I noticed that Jenn Rivell, (obviously), and Missy
Rothstein were both in Haggard, but who Bam was dating at the time? Anyways, i
actually enjoyed Haggard and i think it's really like no other movie i've ever
seen. It's sort of in it's own category.
While some of the things in Haggard are dumb and unnecessary, the overall package
is good. Haggard follows Ryan Dunn and his friends Valo (Bam Margera)
and Falcone (Brandon Dicamillo) trying to win back Glauren (Jenn Rivell), Ryan's
ex. The story is followed and developed surprisingly well, it doesn't
wonder off and become an episode of Jackass or Viva La Bam, although it does have a
side story which doesn't hurt the main story. And, for all the Bam fan
boys (And girls) there are multiple sequences of Bam skateboarding, perhaps the
weakest aspect of the film. Phil makes 2 surprisingly small appearances, even Don
Vito got a bigger (but pointless) roll. If you are hoping to see a
comedy and escape Bam's craziness, then stay away from this movie, otherwise, enjoy
the time you spend with it, if you can find it. There are some truly funny scenes
in this film.
Set in Bam Margera's hometown of Westchester PA, 'Haggard' is a semi-true story
about the life of Ryan Dunn and his buddies Falcone and Vallo. Dunn has
been dumped by his girlfriend of 2 years, Glauren, who is now seeing a beer
swilling, long haired metal head named 'Hellboy' and this is driving Dunn insane
with jealousy. In a desperate attempt to find out the truth about what
is going on between Glauren and Hellboy, Dunn pays his friends Vallo and Falcone to
break into her house and produce evidence of the affair, with somewhat disastrous
results for all concerned! I found this movie very funny, maybe partly because I am
a total Jackass and CKY fan, and it has to be said that a lot of the humour will
probably be lost on those that do not have prior knowledge of Margera insane brand
of 'comedy'. The movie contains much that will be of interest to
skaters, not least the cameo appearance of skateboarding legend, Tony Hawk as a
police officer. There are also cameo's from Bucky Lasek, Brandon Novak, Jason
Ellis, and Bam's long suffering parents, April and Phil. The DVD extra's
include music video's from CKY (featuring Bam's Brother Jess on drums), and Bam's
favourite band, HIM (Bam's character in the movie takes his name from HIM frontman
Ville Vallo) There is also a documentary and a "too hot for jackass" skit. In summary, as I said before, this movie will mainly be of interest to skaters
and Jackass/CKY fans, but I do feel that Margera and co have made a great effort
with 'Haggard' and I for one, thoroughly enjoyed it.
I had been waiting to see this movie for so long and finally got to yesterday. In
summary I'm glad I finally did. The humor is off the wall hilarious. The plot is so
unbelievably believable that it has to have at least some truth for it . If
anything stood out in this movie it is most definitely the coffee shop scene. I
have been there every guy has . You get dumped. You find out that your ex has
fooled around with some guy who you are sure is an asshole. Now every time you see
anything for the next few days you just get horrible thoughts of this placed in all
the wrong areas . She is screwing everyone and everyone knows it. I could probably
watch that man lick and finger his wallet all day long and look back at myself and
laugh for having been there too .
The movie was fantastic. If your a fan of Bams' cky videos, jackass, or his show
Viva la Bam, you cant help but like it. I have a few friends who aren't fans that
enjoyed it, and others who thought it wasn't that great. Those who didn't like it
were mostly female friends, they really didn't appreciate some of the crude humor,
that personally i think made the movie so funny. I'm pretty sure the entire movie
was filmed in Bams home town, which includes a lot of his regularly visited
locations. The cast of is made up of all his friends and cky buddies, and also
includes some big name pro skateboarders too. The soundtrack is phenomenal, with
music by HIM. In my opinion, Haggard has it all. A great plot, characters you'll
never see anywhere else. Plenty of humor great music and a cast that was dedicated
to the project.
This movie kicks ass, bar none. Bam and his crue have out done themselves with this
film. Since I got the DVD (4 days ago) I have watched it three times and it gets
better every time I watch it. I can't wait for Grind to come out in theaters. If
its anything like Haggard it will be worth the wait. Thanks, JTcellphone
I have always loved old movies but this is one of my top ten favorites...it has all
the charm, 1940's quaintness, and good old fashioned romance and it's hilarious, to
boot! Barbara Stanwick plays an independent single woman who writes cooking\home
life articles for a famous magazine...under the premise that she is a married
homemaker. Even the president of the magazine is under this delusion. Enter a
handsome GI, (played by the talented Dennis Morgan)just rescued off of a raft along
with his buddy. His simple wish is to stay at the homey Inn the she writes so
eloquently about and relax with her famous home-cooked meals. She now has to
frantically find a way to save her job and reputation...add to this that her fiancé
is in a hurry to tie the knot doesn't help. The humor is superb and the chemistry
between the leading characters a lot of fun. Throw in the character-actor nicknamed
"Cuddles" (who fits this name completely) it becomes even more adorable. This has
become my must-see movie that I snuggle in with a cup of cocoa each Christmas
season. A wonderful, enjoyable movie to enjoy at Christmastime or anytime!
If your expecting Jackass look somewhere else this an actual movie and for the
budget well done the acting isnt top noth neither is the writing but the directing
was there and so was the story definetly worth the rent and possibly the buy if you
really enjoy it like i did. But for the person who just likes jackass rent it
first.
This movie is simply awesome. It is so hilarious. Although the skating and other
montages are played out, the comedy is awesome. Raab Himself and Brandon Dicamillo
are hilarious. There will be moments when you can't breath you're laughing so hard.
Plus, there are scenes that you can watch hundreds of times and still laugh. This
is one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen.
I personally found the film to be great. I had it on pre-order for a month and
watched it twice the day I got it in the mail, and several time since.. Yes, the
time lapses may be a bit much, but the rest of the movie clearly compensates for
it. All amature cast, yet the acting was right on for each part. The plot itself is
just... haggard! There's no other way to describe it. Who makes a movie about
someone getting f**gered!??? BAM, thats who. Genius. Simply genius. Two thumbs up.
I would be honored to work with him any day, any time, on any thing.
I don't know what it is about the crew from CKY, but everything they produce seems
to be genius in its simplicity and stupidity. Haggard is so incredibly dumb and
funny that it's almost comedic excellence. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense,
but who cares? It made me laugh my ass off. A must-have for the
CKY/Jackass aficionado!
I have never before seen a movie quite like this, nor as funny. I laughed my
goddamned ass off and have watched it repetitively. Infact I am watching it now.
Chad from CKY is hot too. Anyway if you never liked it, blow it out your ass, you
have no taste. The movie involves Ry (Ryan Dunn) having just broke up with his
girlfriend turning to Valo (Bam Margera) and Falcone (Brandon DiCamillo) for help
in finding out exactly what she done with "Hellboy" (Rake Yohn), and with the help
of Raab (Chris Raab/Raab Himself) they do just that. The fender bender
scene and the scene with Cactus at Record Bin were hilarious.
totally genius film from the CKY crew......(not the jackass boys.....johnny
knoxville, chris pontius, steve-o etc are not in this film). OK so maybe
they'r not the best actors but its not what you call a serious film......but hey
there havin fun and its totally funny to watch. who doesn't want to see don vito
dressed as a roman emperor! a total must if you like viva la bam or
CKY............ an amazing soundtrack provided by the almighty HIM, CKY and
others...... check out the extra features on the DVD especially Bran's freestyle Chinese rap number two......seriously hilarious........... check this film
out........you wont regret it......... 10/10
This film had everything i need in a film: - Women, skateboarding, violence, music
by H.I.M and Tony Hawk!!! the artwork and camera effects in this film is amazing.
The music in this film is the best I've heard in any other film. Each track goes so
well with its scene. I thought the acting was really good considering none of Bams
crew have been in scripted films before. Although the whole concept of the film is
the story of Ryan Dunn and his girlfriend (Glauren) who is sleeping with Hellboy
behind his back is a predictable and age old story. They way its acted out is very
unpredictable, for example: Falcone and the gas tank, Raab Himself, Dunn breaking
bottles behind the wawa and all the Don Vito scenes. This films is a must see!
haggard doesn't even need to be graded, since it was never designed to be graded
like Oscar-winning movies are and it was never intended to have won an Oscar
(obviously). if you just look at some of the stuff that Bam and Bran tried, like
the fast-motion shots, it comes across as a film thats something more than just cky
or jackass (even though those are cool too). For pure enjoyability i definitely
give this film a 10; almost every scene made me laugh until my sides hurt, like
falcone's trail movie. If you haven't seen this, see it and then buy it. Personally
my favorite character is brandon (falcone), he's just so smooth and natural and
random that its hilarious, he freestyles great (with the action figures) and makes
up the funniest stuff- lol a diamond mountain bike? haggard is definitely a movie
that in overall humor is only rivaled by anchorman and napoleon dynamite.
"Haggard: The Movie" is well written, well directed, and well acted. There are many
laugh out loud moments and some terrific skateboarding scenes featuring Margera.
The scenes of West Chester, PA are filmed beautifully and the script is just
downright funny. What I like about the movie is that instead of being another sappy
love story or another version of "Jackass", it takes a darkly funny look at break-
ups from a different perspective. Most break-up films feature a naive woman jilted
by a cheating man. She then goes on to find Mr. Right and gets to tell her cheating
ex to get lost. This movie takes a look at the emotional roller-coaster of a jilted
man... without taking itself too seriously. Ryan Dunn does an excellent job as the
jilted man and with Bam Margera and Brandon Dicamillo as your best friends trying
to help you through this rough time, how can you take anything too seriously? It is
obvious that Margera and Co. are incredibly talented both behind and in front of
the camera. I look forward to their future films and endeavors.
I saw this movie with hopes of a good laugh but when I watched it I didn't stop
laughing for weeks, they are such bad actors and it made this movie so much funnier
to watch. ( BTW Ryan Dunn didn't eat the toy car, he shoved it up his ass) The
random appearances from the skaters and Vitos parts were great. Gimme some grapes
Vito.! No Valo, your grapes are at the store. I wouldn't recommend any one under 13
to watch it, frankly they wouldn't understand half of the jokes in or what they are
talking about. I love VLB and after watching this movie I couldn't help but go buy
it or the Viva La Bam series. What is the deal with this stupid comment thing? It
has to be 10 lines what kind of Bull-sh1t is that? I should be able to write one as
long or in this case as short as I want. I'm just going to keep typing until it
tells me I can actually send it. Its just a waste of time, I expected to just say
what I wanted, it wasn't too much but then I'm told I have to keep putting more in
and then it corrects my spelling, so what if I didn't spell something right, you
get what I mean still. This is ridiculously long. ~Those who live by the
Sword get shot by those who don't~
Barbara Stanwyck is a sheer delight in this wartime comedy, about a sailor invited
to spend Christmas with a popular magazine writer's family, at her farm in
Connecticut. The problem is she has no husband, baby, or farm, as she writes about
in her column, and she can't even cook; her wonderful recipes being provided for
her by her good friend " Uncle" Felix, owner of a Hungarian restaurant in New York
City. Things get even more complicated when her strict publisher boss
invites himself along for Christmas. A scheme is hastily planned, with her stuffy
fiancé providing an actual Connecticut farm, neighbors providing a borrowed baby,
and a quick wedding planned when the publisher isn't looking. But when the handsome
young sailor arrives on Christmas Eve, romantic complications ensue, as the
supposedly married author falls like a ton of bricks for the nice guy Navy man and
vice versa. This is a charming, warm film that deftly balances humor
with sentiment and is a wonderful showcase for Barbara Stanwyck to display her
considerable comedic talent, aided by such marvelous character actors as Sydney
Greenstreet, Una O'Connor, S.Z.Sakall, and many others. A Christmas night dance at
the town hall is a toe tapping delight to see, and the unexpectedly sweet and
feminine side of Stanwyck is a wonderful surprise, for viewers who have seen her
mainly as tough, bitchy women in femme fatale roles. Truly a wonderful film that
has stood the test of time.
For a moment, let's put aside the cultural aspects of this movie, even if it is a
very important side of it, and let's look at the simple fact that this is a very
nice love story. Two individuals find themselves in a difficult situation, caused
by two selfish husbands. They have to live through their sad days without any ray
of hope. If each one of these two women had been alone, imagine what kind of life
each one would have had to accept. They found each other and they fell in love.
That this love was against all the social, religious and cultural laws of their
environment is almost irrelevant. They loved each other, found relief in each
other, that was sufficient. The reaction of the individuals around them is but a
small fact that they have to accept, suffer even, and then they can go on with
their lives, their life. Very nice.
One word for it. Hilarious. I haven't watched at movie like this in a long time. At
points in the movie, I totally forgot it was a movie, I just felt like I was back
watching Viva La Bam, or even watching say, my own friend going through something
like this. It was realistic and I liked how Bam, Ryan, Raab, Rake, and Brandon and
the rest of the guys didn't try to hard too actually act. They, to me, were just
acting like their famous idiot selves. There were a few scenes that I adored more
than others, like Raab in the shower, holy, I laughed so hard. He honestly was
probably my favourite character besides Bam's. He really, in my opinion, made the
movie just a bit more hilarious. It's basically a must see for any fans of the CKY
crew:]
I loved this movie and I watch it everyday. I think that although the acting isn't
all that great, it's really just a bunch of guys having fun with a script. I had
been looking all over for this movie, for almost a year, and when I found it for
thirty dollars, I just had to get it. It is now, by far my favorite movie of all
time. It deals with relationship failure, and at the same time making a joke of it.
I loved all the parts with Don Vito, especially the one where Valo asks him for a
grape when they're sitting on the porch, and He tells him to eat the one rolling
down the porch. IT really portrays him as he really is. The part in the "Making Of"
really touched me, when they adressed Brandon Novak's addiction to heroin, and how
much his friends and family were trying to help him. A new movie that's in the
making, called "Dreamseller," is in production, which is about the story of Novak's
dreams, shattered by his addiction.
When I first heard of this movie, I was mildly interested. The plot seemed like an
opportunity for hilarity and Bam Margera as an actor and director seemed like
something that might be good. When I found out the movie starred Ryan Dunn, I was
even further interested (I was a fan of Homewrecker when it was on... Yeah, I'm
that lame). However, I didn't have much faith in it being to good. When I sat down
to watch it, I was afraid I was wasting my time. But even just five
minutes it it became apparent that I'd been wrong. I thought that the
comedy of this film was delightfully idiotic, and definitely not suited for all
kinds of people. The acting was rather good, much better than my expectations. I
thought that it was rather easy to relate to Ryan's character, which gave the movie
a center that was believable. This is key in a movie as outrageous as this (and is
probably why I was not a fan of Borat). The movie is not suitable at all
for younger people, DUH, and will definitely create more than it's fair share of
awkward turtles if watched with parents. But it's a good one for you and your
buddies on a movie night.
I didn't know what to expect from this. I always considered Bam Margera and the CKY
crew a team of knuckle heads devoted to to doing stupid things for entertainment. I
didn't know that they could act. But everyone who acted in this movie pulled off
good performances. The hilarity of the 'aaaaagh!' scene mixes in with Ryan Dunn's
depression and his revenge against his ex-girlfriend perfectly. At times the movie
some scenes seem pointless but at the same time they're funny. I recommend this to
anyone who likes a good laugh but this film may not appeal to those that prefer
detailed story lines and a series of twists and turns.
I first saw this movie at a video store and, being the Bam Margera fan I am, had to
rent it to see what it was all about. Since I have a huge and stupid (note the word
stupid) sense of humor, I found this movie absolutely hilarious. Some of the parts
are pointless and random, but that's what makes them so amusing. You'll need to
think things like getting slapped in the face and bashed on the head with a
watermelon are funny in order to appreciate this movie. I was really
impressed. I was also surprised at the acting. These people actually did
a good job. Nothing Oscar worthy, but well enough to get past the amateur level.
Teens and young adults would probably find this more entertaining because of the
modern slang and situations used. I wouldn't suggest watching this with your
parents and vice versa. All in all, the acting was great, the script was
hilarious, and the story is really something you can relate to.
The movie Haggard is one of the funniest movies of all time. It features the cast
from CKY (the movies) and also has a GREAT soundtrack. If you have seen any CKY or
Viva La Bam you will notice that everybody (from those two) are in it. Including
Bam's parents and many other people. The story is about Ryan Dunn's
girlfriend Glauren (Jennifer Rivall) cheating on him, and him trying to get back at
her. He does this by having Valo (Bam) and Falcone (Dicamillo) vandalize her house.
There are many different characters with many different stories. There
is great music on the soundtrack. Bands such as Him & Her, CKY, Gnar Kill, Daniel
Lioneye. Iggy and the Stooges Pop, and New Order. If you do not like
Viva La Bam or CKY (the movies) I doubt you will like this. If you DO like that
stuff...this movie is great.
If you are looking for a movie that doesn't take itself seriously... than Haggard
is for you. I must say before i write anything more, that if you have not seen any
of the CKY (Camp Kill Yourself) videos than the movie most likely won't be AS
funny. My advice is to watch a few clips of those videos that Bam and his friends
made. Haggard does not take itself seriously AT all, and that was never the
purpose. Throughout the movie you will have random moments that have nothing to do
with the plot, which may get annoying but its nothing that is out of control. Even
through all that the plot does stay focused and the story of Ryan Dunn's character
does unfold quite nicely. This plot i have been told is based off a true story (for
the most part)of Ryan Dunn's ex-girlfriend. Brandon Dicamillo is by far the best
character in the movie. He has a lot of talent and knows how to make people laugh.
He stole the movie if you ask me. Overall I love this movie for its simplicity and
straight up weirdness. Its a Bam movie people, its not going to be normal. Haggard
is filled with hilarious quotes that my friends and I constantly used since the
first time we saw it. I've seen the movie 6-7 times and still find new things every
time. The soundtrack is just as good. Everything from Gnar Kill to New Order and
some techno. Just don't go into the movie with high expectations, let it all unfold
and then judge it for what it is.
If you have ever seen a Bollywood movie, you know they are longer than most movies
due to the multiple song and dance routines (each one is over five minutes long).
Fortunately, this one has fewer song and dance routines and fits into the
"standard" movie length. Don't get me wrong, I like Bollywood movies, but tend to
fast forward through the song and dance portions. I bought this DVD because I am an
Ian Bohen fan. Although his role wasn't as large as I hoped, he still had a good
amount of screen time. And his character was much different than his other
roles. Overall, this was a good movie. Like most Bollywood movies, there
is at least one element of controversy/conflict of the traditional Indian culture.
But true love triumphs over adversity and a happy ending is had by all.
I just finished watching Marigold today and I'll begin by saying that I found this
DVD on the shelves of Blockbuster. While strolling around looking for something new
and good to watch, the picture of Ali Larter caught my attention. After
drooling over Ali Larter, I picked up the cover and continued to glance around the
cover. From the looks of it, I thought the costumes were a bit over the top. And
then I saw the other Indians on the cover and figured this was some kind of spoof
film or something like that. When I flipped over the the synopsis part
and saw Salman Khan, I did a double take. Salman Khan in an American film with Ali
Larter in a DVD at Blockbuster? Because Salman Khan is to Bollywood films like Mel
Gibson is to Hollywood films, I had very high expectations for this film: it HAD to
be good! I am very pleased to say that Marigold is a phenomenal film! It far
exceeded any and all of my personal expectations! I suppose a film like
this is what happens when you have a decent script, a talented, experienced,
knowledgeable and goal oriented director, two incredible actors playing the lead
roles and just a very hard working supporting cast and crew! Khan and Larter appear
to have really great chemistry together and both shine on the big screen: they look
really good together. The musical numbers weren't bad at all, which was surprising,
considering how cheesy and long Indian films' musicals are these days. And you'll
be happy to know that the Indian costumes are very far from being cheesy as you'll
get. The beginning of the film was kind of slow, the middle was really
good, the scenes leading to the climax were pretty dramatic, but the ending was
just awesome! I have a few gripes and complaints about the DVD, however. While I
loved the widescreen aspect ratio of the DVD, I didn't like the fact that several
other things were left out of the DVD. For starters, there are no subtitles. Now
English being my first language, it's not a problem. However, when some of the
Indian actors and actresses spoke, it was (at times) difficult to understand what
they were saying; captioning would have helped. Another thing that I
would have appreciated on the DVD would be a blooper reel or some kind of
collection of outtakes. And lastly, how about a menu feature that would allow us to
skip right to the musical numbers? Man, some of those songs were really good! On
the flip side, I throughly enjoyed watching the making of Marigold. I
have tons more to say regarding the awesomeness of this film and how much I liked
it, but I don't have the time nor do I want to keep on writing why I enjoyed it so
much. I hope that Salman Khan does more English films in addition to his Hindi
films and I certainly hope this Hindi film will not be Ali Larter's last Bollywood
film. And I encourage the director to continue making Bollywood film hybrids
featuring Salman Khan, Ali Larter and other big name actors - just make sure the
scripts are original and good. 10/10 - this is just a great love story
film that your entire family can enjoy!
I had no expectations (never saw previews for "Marigold") and enjoyed the
characters, contemporary music, and sharp dancing in this light-hearted movie. Even
though 98% of the dialog is English (great thing for me), I wish the DVD had
subtitles to help with some of the quick moments when the character's accent can be
difficult to understand. I wouldn't judge this movie against Bollywood films, but
just on it's own merits as fun entertainment (a musical people movie). I'm hooked on Ali Larter as an actress (and her interviews in the Bonus Material
indicate she is a nice person). I have since watched this movie several times (gets
better each time).
Personally, I don't like a lot of b/w movies, but there's something magical about
this movie. The movie starts with Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck).
"Liz" writes a magazine column about how she's the 'Martha Stewart' of Connecticut.
Of course, she's lying. This becomes a problem when her publisher, Mr Yardley, asks
her to play host to a NAVY sailor over Christmas. In addition, Mr Yardley, who's
going to be alone for Christmas, invites himself up to the farm for the Christmas
party. From there, things just go crazy. Since the movie is set on a New
England farm, the movie has a warm holiday feeling. Plus, the characters are
hilarious. Mr. Yardley is always shouting orders, and Liz's friend Felix is always
yelling 'Catastroph!' when things go wrong. Finally, the movie ends the way a
Christmas movie should end; a jolly fat man laughs and shouts "What a Christmas!"
 In short, no matter what age you are, you will love this movie.
Mention Bollywood to anyone with a slight familiarity with the genre and the images
usually conjured up are of tacky, over the top musical numbers peopled with
costuming that makes Vegas seem a bastion of conservatism. This perception is not
helped by the whiff of condescension that permeates most movies that have
approached Bollywood from an outsider's perspective. Willard Carroll's romantic
comedy Marigold, however takes a different tack. It is not a nudge-nudge wink-wink
look at those silly people and their clueless antics but a sincere appreciation of
Bollywood for its vitality, its lack of irony and self-consciousness. It
is obvious that the director has a tremendous affection and respect for Bollywood
while at the same time is bemused by its kitschier aspects. And if you have a
familiarity with Bollywood, you can appreciate what he does here in making a true
hybrid of Bollywood and Hollywood movie conventions. From one of the opening shots,
a flashback of the Salman character as a child by the sea, talking with his
grandmother (played by Helen! - how many Salman movies start with this same
premise?) to the flashback sequence that is incorporated into the movie that
Marigold and Prem has been filming, anyone who has seen enough Bollywood movies
will recognize these references. The story itself incorporates tried and true
conventions from both Hollywood and Bollywood as well the fish out of water meets
duty-to-one's-family-at the expense of personal fulfillment. The structure of the
film follows the typical Bollywood plot line of the more comical set up of the
first half giving way to a more dramatic resolution of the second. Yet ultimately
the sensibility of the film is that of Hollywood, with its understated, wry humor
and its story of a woman learning to believe in herself, to reach self-
affirmation. You couldn't have a movie inspired by Bollywood if there
weren't any musical numbers and this movie does not disappoint with seven of them.
Unlike Bollywood, however, the songs do not pop out of nowhere and transport its
characters to a European locale or Goan beach; they exist as musical numbers that
are part of the film that is being made, reminiscent of how musical numbers were
justified in Busby Berkeley movies as being part of a stage show. Or they come out
of a situation where music already has a reason to be there a sexy nightclub
scene where Prem teaches Marigold to dance or a beach scene where there are
musicians (including a cameo from the playback singer Shaan) performing. All
reflect the emotional state of the protagonists at that point in the movie. Often
the music will take a conventional song from one genre and put a twist on it from
the other. So in one of the highlights of the film where Marigold comes into her
own, the song picturazation is fairly typical of its genre the female star
singing and dancing among a line of women but in this case it's blond Ali Larter
looking like a total natural Bollywood film star, emoting and lip synching to the
Hindi lyrics with no subtitles. Also synonymous with Bollywood are
sumptuous visuals and Marigold fulfills that aspect beautifully thanks to some of
the top talent working in Bollywood today. The cinematographer is Anil Mehta who
was also the cinematographer for Lagaan and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam. The
choreographer is Vaibhavi Merchant and production designer is Nitin Desai, both
from Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Devdas. You can really see the influence of Hum Dil
De Chuke Sanam on this film in fact, the illuminated floor in one of the numbers
was originally from Dholi Taro Dhol, which coincidentally has an embedded Marigold
pattern. As for the cast, Carroll obviously has a penchant for spotting
acting talent as evidenced by Playing by Heart one of the first movies for both
Angelina Jolie and Ryanne Phillippe. And in this film he again hits the mark with
Ali Larter. One of the main reasons the film works is because of Larter. She makes
a bitchy, unappealing character sympathetic and her subsequent transformation
believable and she is smart, funny, and sexy because she is smart and funny. She
and Salman share excellent chemistry and that is one of the film's biggest
strengths. Salman Khan plays the role of Prince Charming here as
filtered through his iconic role as Prem. This is old school Prem, however, so
expect a quiet, subdued Salman - those used to him in his usual stripping avatar
may be disappointed or relieved! It's a sincere and sensitive performance from
him marred only by poor enunciation of his English lines. With a
refreshing lack of cynicism and unabashed embrace of romantic love, the film is a
love letter to Bollywood and Hollywood movies of yore.
I saw Marigold at a preview showing a few days ago, and found it to be a thoroughly
engrossing and enjoyable film. The film is about a not-so-successful American
actress who goes to India to act in a low budget film, only to find herself
stranded there when she finds on arrival that the film's financing has vanished,
along with the producers and investors. A chance encounter with an Indian film
shooting nearby leads her to be hired for a small dancer role in that. Since Indian
films incorporate a significant amount of singing and dancing, this is a problem
for Marigold, who has two left feet, not to mention a personality so tightly wound-
up and thorny that she can hardly hear the music, let alone feel it, as Prem, the
choreographer of the film, advices her to do. But "prem" -- the word,
not the person -- means "love", and Prem -- the person, not the word -- seems to
embody that emotion in the way he deals with all around him, whether it be his
production assistant friends who introduced Marigold to the shoot, the narcissistic
and arrogant leads of the film, or the bitchy and uptight Marigold herself. Soon,
under his expert tutelage and endearing treatment, Marigold finds her feet --
literally and figuratively. I must say a word for those not familiar
with the use of song and dance in Indian films. Unlike American musicals, the story
progresses through these dance numbers, as plot developments unfold, and character
transformations occur in parallel with the dancing. It should also be pointed out
that Indian dance is about a lot more than mere movement. An essential part of it
is the enactment of the dancer's feelings and emotions while telling the story of
the dance. This is the main purpose of the dance and the dancer. That
Marigold reaches this stage of accomplishment is demonstrated in a stunning dance
number about midway through, when Marigold, while performing the dance she is
required to do for the film-within-the-film, also expresses her love for Prem. It
is an amazing performance by Ali Larter, especially when one considers that she is
not used to dancing in her films, or emoting her character's feelings via dance. It
shows her skill as an actress, as well as how much hard work she has put into the
role. Of course no romantic film can work without a credible Prince
Charming. Salman Khan, who plays the role of Prem, fits the role to a T. Even when
it turns out that he is a Prince not so charming, he does not lose the audience's
sympathy. Salman has been ruling Hindi cinema (sometimes called Bollywood) for many
years now, and it is worth remembering that his first leading role was also as
Prem. He is completely charming, sweet, adorable, sexy, and vulnerable. For those
who have never encountered him on screen before, be prepared to be hit with mega
doses of sheer magnetism! He and Ali Larter make a lovely pair, and are as well
matched in their acting as in their appearance. Will they manage to work
out their problems? It doesn't seem possible as we hear the last song of the film,
a lovely blending of fact and fantasy, reality and metaphor. The ending certainly
took some of the audience I saw it with by surprise, but they were left satisfied.
The songs are used very cleverly. They are in Hindi, unsubtitled, for the film-
within-the-film sequences, and in English for other occasions. But their meaning is
always clear from the context and choreography. Marigold is a very
satisfying romantic comedy -- yes, there is quite a bit of humor as well in it. The
Indian locations and costumes give it a fairy tale quality, befitting a story which
can be likened to a modern fairy tale. If you are or have been curious
about Indian cinema, but were hesitant to try it, this is an excellent
introduction. It captures the color and vibrancy of Indian films, not only in the
costumes and jewelry (which are quite impressive), but also in the lively dances
and world sound music. If you are a fan of Ali Larter, you should watch
it for her excellent acting in portraying a selfish, demanding, "high-maintanance"
woman who nevertheless has an inner attraction that inspires the love of two men.
If you are a girl, you will enjoy admiring Ali's lovely costumes and ogling her
hunk of a leading man. If you are a guy, you can not only admire Ali in her sexy
costumes, but learn from Salman Khan what it takes to bring out the loving heart
even from someone as edgy as Marigold.
Marigold is by far the best "outsider's" take on Bollywood I have ever seen. (I
didn't grow up with Bollywood, but I've seen a few hundred of them now.) I'd say it
leaves Gurinder Chadha, Mira Nair, and even Merchant and Ivory (of Bombay Talkie)
almost in the dust. Willard Carroll, the director, really loves Bollywood, and he
has the self-confidence to allow us to know it - there's humor, but no arch, ironic
distancing, no "of course I don't really mean this" stuff. As Jerry Lee Lewis would
say, he "gets it," and so he can let us have it too - the joy of a Bollywood movie
experience, along with touches that are supplied by a westerner's stepping into the
story-teller's role. It's a story about a caustic, bitchy, beautiful
American B movie actress (she's only been in movies with numbers in their titles,
like Fatal Attraction 3) who finds herself in a different Bollywood movie from the
one she went to India to be in (Kama Sutra 3 has folded its tents while she was en
route, apparently because its producers are now in jail). Salman Khan, in real life
a Bollywood mega-mega star, is the dancing master of the delightful written-on-the-
fly movie she has now been pulled into ("is this before or after I go blind?"), and
through the sweetness of his mildly psychically gifted character, she learns more
than how to find her inner ecstatic dancing ability. The strong
beginning gives you both Bollywood - a super-energetic troupe of dancers in front
of the Taj Mahal (both funny an familiar to the western viewer, as well as
providing the high-velocity musical thrill we love in a Hindi movie), and Salman on
screen from the outset - no Bollywood 20 minute wait for the hero. He has on an
Indian costume embellished with Kit Carson-style Western movie fringe (all in
white). Ali Larter's actress character is pleasing to the western viewer
- she's blonde, which is "traditional" for a "white" person in a Bollywood movie,
and visually understandable casting - but she's a robust girl, not the ethereal
kind of blondie we're usually presented with, and she's a more or less three-
dimensional total bitch, carrying on profane and abusive cell-phone conversations
with a boyfriend and agent in the US. We also have scenes of women who
are having problems with each other going out to a bar to deal with them - the
capacity for people not getting along to relate and have emotional conversations is
traditional in Hindi movies, but we seldom see much of any such thing going on
between women (other than the discussion between mother and daughter about the
daughter's choice of groom), let alone "strangers" - unrelated people - let alone
bar-going. So the spirit is the same, the details are fresh, and I was completely
delighted by this. I only saw it once, at a preview showing, attended by
the director, a fine speaker and question-answerer - he and Salman got to be
"brother-like" good friends over the making of it, he loves India, he has plans to
make a Wizard of Oz movie in India. I can't get too detailed about songs when I've
seen them just once, except to say I liked them all. They range from a happy parody
of the Bollywood number in the movie-within-the-movie - the ladies' costumes, with
Leghorn hats and seashell-cased bodices (it's a beach scene) on flowy dresses - are
worth the cost of a ticket alone -- to a lovely reflective many-scened romantic
song in a sadder and more serious part of the movie. Mix of Hindi and
English in the music, and it works. Salman Khan gets a lot of credit
from me for openness to unusual projects - this and Jaan-e-Mann - and good judgment
about which ones to be in. Carroll said he was full of suggestions and ideas all
along the way, and totally fine (i.e. not narcissistic at all) whether Carroll
accepted or rejected them - clearly just a pro who loves being involved and
collaborating.
It's a unique film, as it gives us our only chance to see the young Noel Coward in
all his ironic glory. Because he seems so reserved & detached he's perfect for the
role of an unloved cad who matter-of-factly uses all those around him. However in
the deadly serious (no pun intended) last act, when Coward must make like the
Flying Dutchman, he's much less comfortable. But his way with an epigram
is peerless, and Hecht & Macarthur have given him some gems (Macarthur, really --
he was the wit of the pair). The film is superbly lighted by the great
Lee Garmes, but has little camera movement aside from a storm sequence. Hecht and
Macarthutr cared about one thing -- getting their dialogue on screen. (NOTE: H&M
themselves have blink-and-you'll-miss-'em cameos as bums in the flophouse
scene). The most notable supporting player is the one and only Alexander
Woolcott, notorious Broadway columnist and close friend of both Macarthur and
Coward, who appears as one of the bitchy authors always kept waiting in the
reception room of publisher Coward. Curious that Woolcott would agree to
do a film that clearly lampoons the legendary Algonquin Round Table, of which he
was a founder, and Macarthur something of an auxiliary member. The
Scoundrel actually won an Oscar for best story, though that victory is probably due
more to Coward's imposing presence than any brilliance in the plot. It's Coward,
Woolcott, and the dialogue you remember...
i saw this film over 20 years ago and still remember how much i loved it. it really
touched me, and i thoroughly enjoyed noel coward's work in it. highly recommended:
atmospheric and touching. i think of this film from time to time, and am
disappointed it hasn't enjoyed as much of a revival as many classic films. hadn't
realized til i searched for it today that it won an academy award for best original
story for ben hecht and charles macarthur. basically it involves a nasty
character who destroys another's career and is cursed because of it. he dies, but
is allowed redemption if he can convince someone to shed a tear over him. the bulk
of the movies shows him in pursuit of this goal. well written and lovely. i had
known him for his plays so i was surprised to see him in this role on TV late one
night in new york. a must see if you ever have the opportunity.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** It's easy to see why the script for this film won an
Oscar. At least during the first half. My head was spinning from all of the snappy
lines whizzing by. Noel Coward plays a New York publisher (`Why don't you publish
books that you like?' - `What? And corrupt the public?') who charms and manipulates
his many hangers-on. Then he dies in a plane crash and the story turns into a
bizarre Flying Dutchman take-off in which Coward must find someone who truly mourns
him before his soul can rest in peace. Very enjoyable until it gets bizarre. Viewed
at Cinefest in Syracuse in March 2003.
Noel Coward is perfectly cast as a suave, vain, selfish well educated, upper class
publisher. The literary crowd that congregates at his office is equally lacking in
depth and seems concerned only with their status and success. They constantly meet
at Noel Coward's publishing office in the hope of gaining favor for their next book
and to make sure they are not left out on the latest gossip in the artistic
realm. Cora is a young idealist and poet who believes her love can
change Noel Coward and that they can establish a long lasting relationship. She
ends her relationship with her fiancé to become Noel's lover. However Noel returns
to his playboy ways after 6 months and ends the relationship. This breaks Cora's
heart and she eventually returns to her fiancé who has since lost his job and self
respect after losing Cora. The story picks up when Noel Coward leaves
New York City by plane chasing after a new lover, a concert pianist who is just as
shallow as he is. However a storm is encountered and the plane crashes into the sea
killing Noel. God takes pity on him and grants him one month on Earth to find
someone who will cry for him, otherwise he is condemned to wander the Earth, never
to find rest, for all eternity. The climax takes place on a dim, rainy
night and ends with a prayer and a miracle. A strange redemption occurs. The death
experience teaches Noel the true values of life, although his former associate
artists are incapable of understanding his message. The film has
beautiful music and the scenes are classic film noir. Unfortunately it is not on
DVD or VHS. For those who enjoy this type of movie it is a classic masterpiece.
Noel Coward's dialog is sharp and witty and no one could play the part better.
"The Piano Teacher" is all about Huppert's character; a middle-aged classical piano
instructor with a stoic facade behind which lurks a powerfully compelling aberrant
personality. Unsatisfying as a story but intriguing as a character study, the film
follows the Huppert character through the term of her anguished relationship with a
pupil delivering superb performances in the process. Not for everyone, "The Piano
Teacher" will play best with those into foreign films and character-driven dramas
dealing with dark issues. (A-)
This film is utterly amazing. From the performances of Huppert, Girardot, and
Magimel, to Haneke's screenplay and direction there is not a single misstep. The
film may put some people off with it's hard sexual subject matter and with it's
slower pace, but it really is a masterful piece of cinema... so do not let it's
challenging ways keep you away! Powerful, and deserving every award it
won in Cannes!
Be prepared for the Trip to Haneke's "La pianiste"...The psychological sickness of
the main character, wonderfully played by Huppert, goes beyond any limit you could
expect. The most stunning part of it is that you start feeling compassion for the
character Erika. Trash-Sexuality (no nudes scenes though), perversion, masochism,
incestuous relations...Haneke gives us a crude meal, heavy to digest; sometimes,
the only way you can escape the extremism of some scenes is to start laughing at
it. The "mise en scène" is maybe not the most appealing part of the movie, it has
obvious austro-germanic, sometimes scandinavian notes : static, long scenes, but
never boring. The vienna settings, the french language used, make the whole look
like a european blend. The permanent germanic music Background (Schubert) is
beautifully chosen. Above all, both of the Cannes awards for best actors are well
deserved: one of the greatest performance of the year by one of the greatest french
actress ever.
This film is one of my favorite Christmas classics. Sure, it's fluff, it's not
"relevant", but when did movies being simply entertaining and fun become a bad
thing? No, this movie is definitely "A Good Thing" as Martha
Stewart(appropriately)would say! Barbara Stanwyck is so appealing in this film and
Dennis Morgan perfectly compliments her. Both of them have charm and warmth to
spare. They are assisted by a crew of those incredible character actors who seem to
have disappeared since the 40's and 50's--Sydney Greenstreet, S.Z.(Cuddles)Sakall,
Reginald Gardiner and Una O'Connor among them. Where are characters like this
today? Not one role could have been better cast. Bette Davis thankfully refused
this role as beneath her and she was right to refuse it. She would have attempted
to steam roll over everyone and everything around her and completely destroyed the
film. Stanwyck was a strong actress, but had the wisdom to play this lightly. She
has seldom been more appealing and is pitch perfect. Morgan is the essence of the
nice guy. Because his part is the least splashy there is a tendency to overlook his
skill. Just the fact that he could hold his own surrounded by such distinct
character actors is an accomplishment in itself, but he too is absolutely perfect
as Jefferson Jones. Skip the ill advised(and pointless)1992 remake and watch this
bright, sparkling holiday gift!
I have seen this movie, just once, and I'm looking forward to see it again and
again. Dear David (from Beligium), why did you bother to write a comment on this
movie? I only think we can think about you (after reading you comment), is that
you're provably a non-sexual person (like Erika in the movie), and you are not
ready for the new cinema that is coming up. I guess you are a bit old, and sexual
expression is not part of your "visage". The Cannes Film Festival is by far the
best movie festival, and I'm is my pleasure to say, that this film was awarded
with: Best Actress, Best Actor and Grand Prix. Isabelle Huppert is magnificent, as
always, who would do this movie like her? One of her best performances ever. The
music is fantastic, and once more Michael Haneke puts reality in the big screen.
It's like a Dogma95 kind of movie, because of the topic. Try to see it. 
Yes, I felt like I had been gutted after first seeing it. But not until the next
day did I begin to see the true brilliance of this creation. I won't repeat much of
what has already been said by those who appreciate the film, but there is one new
area I want to touch on... **SPOILERS** Why exactly did the teacher put the broken
glass in the student's pocket? Most reviewers have noted that it only reflected her
cruelty and reaction to an unsatisfactory performance. I must disagree. Watch the
scene again. Huppert is moved to tears as she watches her student playing on stage.
The student is quite an expressive girl (crying & vocalizing her fears)- just the
opposite of Huppert's character. There is a scene later in the film, after the girl
is injured, when Huppert discusses the accident with the girl's mother. The mother,
visibly upset, states "We gave up everything so she could study piano" and Huppert
immediately snaps "You mean SHE gave up everything, don't you." So it
was my thought that Huppert was simply saving this young expressive student from
her own destiny. She didn't want the girl to end up like HER, repressed & hardened,
condemned to a life of recitals...gradually killing the soul in the pursuit of
perfection. Maybe she saw herself on the stage years ago, before things grew bad.
Maybe she wished she had escaped when she was that age. Is she ruining the
student's life, or simply freeing her? For me, that realization made all
the difference in what I experienced through this film. Brilliant.
This movies made me suffer and I LOVED IT! LOVED IT! It haunted me for days. I
think Erika is the kind of character you simultaneously loathe and lament. The most
terrifying sex scene ever caught on film. This is the best of Haneke's work so far.
He is the only living director to redefine pace since Kubrick. The violence in this
film is gorgeous. In a word, the film is about self-hatred. In a sentence, the film
is about trying to find love in order to stop hating yourself and finding that that
is a hopeless hope.
Reading through the comments, there seems to be a lot of nonsense about the
emotional banality of La Pianiste. I find this hard to comprehend given the
outstanding performance by Isabelle Huppert. Huppert is gripping - she manages to
convey perfectly the woman on the edge, full of self-hate and delusion. The film is wonderfully paced and judged. It would be so easy to portray the lead
as a ridiculous figure - consider the scene in the porn store for instance.
Somehow, Huppert is able to carry it off, partly because of her brilliant
performance but also because the director makes her surreal life real and
identifiable. Don't ignore this film. It is one of the most startling
and engaging films (and performances) I have seen. Trust Boris!
If it is true that sadomasochism is a two-sided coin which contains the whole in
the diverse expression of its opposites, then the cinematic portrait of Erika Kohut
has its reality. Professor Kohut treats her piano students with a kind of fascist
sadism while longing for the same for herself. Her outward expression projects her
desire. That is why she can hurt without guilt or remorse. Along comes
talented, charming, handsome young Walter Klemmer (Benoit Magimel) who is attracted
to her because of her passion and her intensity. He wants to become her student so
as to be close to her. She rejects him out of hand, but because of his talent the
Vienna conservatory votes him in. He falls in love with her. Again she pushes him
away, but he will not take no for an answer, and thereby begins his own descent
into depravity and loss of self-respect. The question the viewer might
ask at this point is, who is in control? The sadist or the masochist? Indeed who is
the sadist and who the masochist? It is hard to tell. Is it the person who has just
been greatly abused both psychologically and physically, who is actually lying
wounded on the floor in grotesque triumphant and fulfillment, or is it the person
who is rushing out the door, sated, giving the order that no one is to know what
happened. But Erika is not just a sadomasochistic freak. She is a sex
extreme freak. She wants to experience the extremes of human sexuality while
maintaining the facade of respectability. Actually that isn't even true. She says
she doesn't care what others think. She doesn't care if they walk in and find her
bleeding on the floor because she is in love. Love, she calls it. For her sex and
love are one and the same. At one point Walter tells her that love isn't
everything. How ironic such a superfluity is to her. How gratuitous the comment. The movie is beautifully cut and masterfully directed by Michael Haneke who
spins the tale with expert camera work and carefully constructed sets in which the
essence of the action is not just clear but exemplified (as in the bathroom when
Walter propels himself high above the top of the stall to find Erika within). He
also employs a fine positioning of the players so that they are always where they
should be with well timed cuts from one angle to another. This is particularly
important in the scene in which Erika, like a blood-drained corpse caught in stark
white and black light, lies under her lover, rigid as stone. Here for the most part
we only see her face and the stark outline of her neck with its pulsating artery.
We don't need to see any more. The part of Erika Kohut is perfect for
Isabelle Huppert who is not afraid of extremes; indeed she excels in them. I have
seen her in a number of movies and what she does better than almost anyone is
become the character body and soul. Like the woman she plays in this movie she is
unafraid of what others may think and cares little about her appearance in a
decorative sense. What matters to her is the performance and the challenge. No part
is too demanding. No character too depraved. It's as if Huppert wants to experience
all of humanity, and wants us to watch her as she does. She is always fascinating
and nearly flawless. She is not merely a leading light of the French cinema; she is
one of the great actresses of our time who has put together an amazingly diverse
body of work. I think it is highly instructive and affords us a
wonderful and striking contrast to compare her performance here with her
performance in The Lacemaker (La Dentellière) from 1977 when she was 22 years old.
There she was apple sweet in her red hair and freckles and her pretty face and her
cute little figure playing Pomme, a Parisian apprentice hairdresser. Her character
was shy about sex and modest--just an ordinary French girl who hoped one day to be
a beautician. Here she is a self-destructive witch, bitter with hateful knowledge
of herself, shameless and entirely depraved. Huppert is fortunate in
being an actress in France where there are parts like this for women past the age
of starlets. (Hollywood could never make a movie like this.) In the American
cinema, only a handful of the very best and hardest working actresses can hope to
have a career after the age of about thirty. Huppert greatly increases her exposure
because of her ability and range, but also because she is willing to play
unsympathetic roles, here and also in La Cérémonie (1995) in which she plays a
vile, spiteful murderess. Do see this for Isabelle Huppert. You won't
forget her or the character she brings to life.
Overall I found this film good: exceptional acting with disturbing scenes (some
essential, some useless) and weak second half. CONTAINS SPOILERS The film is
divided in 2 parts. I thought the first half of the Pianist was terrific. We meet
Erika Kohut (wonderful Isabelle Huppert), a piano teacher, and get introduced to
her world. She is single, struggling to find her space against an over-protective
and borderline tyrannic mother. We understand that she has lost or has seldom
experienced love as a physical+emotional chemistry: she protects herself by being
sharp and offensive to people, releases her sexual tensions in sex-shops, as a
voyeur, or in sadistic self-mutilations ... This first half is very clinical and
builds an incredible tension in the film, almost unbearable. Then comes
Walter, a young, handsome and outgoing man (played superbly by Benoit Magimel).
Though he gets to feel Erika's coldness in the beginning, he seduces her and slowly
wreaks Erika's fortress. He loves her deeply but she needs him to fulfil her
sadistic desires. Then when she is about to fall for him, he is disgusted by her
world and in the end we discover that Erika is unable to love or feel at all
(especially since Walter is portrayed as someone impossible not to love). This is
the second half of the film, very touching as we see Erika's inability/inexperience
to love lead her to self-destruction. This second half seemed less mastered by
Haneke, and sometimes had non-credible (ie. too shocking) scenes which
paradoxically lessened the drama. Of course, this is a crude film at
least in the French version: you see porn sequences from the sex shop, daring
mutilation and sex scenes. The much talked-about fellatio scene between Magimel and
Huppert was quite good I thought, and is central to understand Erika's sick
relation to love. As to the actors, Huppert is marvelous all through the film,
Magimel gets better and better up to perfection, and Girardot (the mother) is
excellent. 
First of all, I must say that I love this film. It was the first film
that I saw from director Micheal Haneke and I was impressed that how good the
direction was good ! Haneke surely knows how to direct actors. What I
found intresting is also Haneke's scenario. At first, you saw a woman who is very
straight and seems to be a good piano teacher and very well loved and respected
from everybody in her entourage. Then you realise that she has a mother who is a
controle freak and is too much present in her life. Now you know that she is
deranged, that she has emotional problems, but you don't know exactly what. And
then you fall into her dark side, but her dark side is only reveal when a student
sendenly fall in love with her. She can't controled herself anymore. The
roles are very complexed and difficult to play, but Isabelle Huppert is marvellous
in her role and she deserves the recognition she had at Cannes Festival. Benoit
Maginel is very solid too, but a little bit eclipse by Huppert's performance. There is one thing that I found strange in the scenario is how the
character played by Magimel is not very credible. He is too talented! It is rare
that a person is a piano virtuoso, but pass the most of the his time to play hockey
and study... It think that it is a weak point, but only a minor flaw. I
just saw the movie once, so I can't do a very complete critic, because I didn't
analysed the movie. I like what I saw ! so I give the film a 8.5/10 Oh
yeah... as for the end, Haneke showed that he really wanted to shock his audience.
A motivation that don't think is necessary to make movies, but Haneke does it with
style and precision, that is why his film is better than Baise-Moi for
example. Vince
I totally disagree with the comments of one of the critics before me who bashed the
film. Having read the book, being impressed by it although this is a kind of
literature that you cannot really LIKE (similar to Hubert Selby's writing) I
expected being shocked but the effect was more subtle than this. Isabelle Hubert is
a brilliant actress who manages to convey a multi-layered character. There are many
scenes that totally focus on her and her subtle changes and I can imagine few
actresses who would do so well, with so much disregard for their own reputation or
image. There is this coldness, distance, cruelty and at the same time there's this
helplessness, hurt and pain. There's a person who's in control and controlled at
the same time. Maybe this is not realistic - although when you read the newspaper
you'll read about much worse than this - but there's a truth to it that is very
difficult to bear. I think it's an excellent film but I did not enjoy watching
it.It's not boring but there are times when I wished it would end. BTW, her male
counterpart is very well acted as well (and I think well chosen, too).
Isabelle Huppert portrays a talented female piano teacher who is staid, unfriendly
and distant in public, and bitter towards her students. Privately, she seethes with
violence and frustration, and her sexual life is solitary and perverse. She lives
with her overbearing mother, who obsessively drives her to become noticed (and so
advance in life) as a talented pianist. The key to the characters of both mother
and daughter is 'obsession.' These characters cannot change their impulses anymore
than a rabbit caught in headlights can avoid death. The piano teacher
meets a young, attractive, talented pianist who from the beginning is attracted to
her. They start a relationship in the most unconventional way, but from the outset
she makes perverse and violent terms that he must perform on her, which sickens him
enough to want to terminate the relationship before it has really begun. The film ties itself to the female lead. Isabelle Huppert amazes with a
brutal, completely convincing performance as the piano teacher. She cleverly shows
a woman who is drawn to beauty and perversion, but her violence is fed by her
perverted impulses. As a film that is so character driven, you know it would not
work half as well, had she acted poorly. This is powerful, intelligently
acted, and intelligently and sensitively adapted from the novel. The camera work
also suits the film. There are what I can only think to call, framing shots where
the director holds a scene and forces the eye to dart about. This is done extremely
effectively against a blank bathroom wall, and is a further testament to the
director's mastery. Expect to be disturbed and sickened by this film.
But, be brave - have the guts to go and see it. This is a very private look into
essentially one person's life, but do not expect to be entertained in the Hollywood
sense....there are no car chases in this film!
At the end of my review of Cache, I wrote that I was intrigued with Haneke as a
film maker. This is what led me to get the DVD for La Pianiste, which I just
finished watching about a half hour ago. It's all been expressed, here
at IMDb and in many of the external reviews - the gruesomely twisted pathology that
would 'create' an individual like Huppert's Erika, who is still trying, after years
and years, to please her mother, at the expense of everyone and everything else in
her life, beginning with her self. She's repressed everything that would free her
from her self-imposed bondage, including, of course, her sexuality, which has
literally imploded, to the point of madness, to where she can no longer even begin
to comprehend what a genuine loving impulse would feel like. This is a
graphic portrait of a severe emotional cripple, one who never found the strength to
get out of her childhood situation and become a functioning adult. I think this
subject relates to all of us - we're all striving for autonomy, but there are
needs, so many conflicting needs, most of which are not even on the conscious
level. It also deals brilliantly with the contrast between what one fantasizes
about, sexually, and the reality of those fantasies, as well as the consequences of
choosing to share one's sexual fantasies with another human being. Huppert's
character gets what she asks for in the course of the film, and it is hardly the
emancipating experience she had imagined it to be. Regarding the much-
discussed scene in the bathroom: I really appreciated how this sequence had all the
possible erotic charge (for the viewer, I mean) sucked out of it because of the
prior scene, where she put the glass in the girl's pocket. By the time she's acting
out her let's-see-if-this-guy-is-worthy scenario in the bathroom, we've already
found out that she's dangerously disturbed and so it's not a turn on, her little
domination session with our poor unsuspecting dupe. I think another
incredible achievement of this movie is how, about halfway through it, I completely
forgot that it was not in English and that I was reading sub-titles. That has never
happened before, in any foreign movie, and I've seen quite a few. In
this film, like Cache, the ending is not all wrapped up in a nice little tidy bow,
but unlike Cache, we do at least get some sense of finality, despite the fact that
we do not even know for sure whether Huppert's character is alive or dead. After
experiencing La Pianiste, when it comes to Michael Haneke, I am, needless to say,
more than a trifle intrigued.
Given the acting roles he played in the 1940s (Casper Gutman, Signior Ferrari, Mr.
Peters, Jerome K. Arbutny, Ex-Superintendent Grodman, Count Fosco, Titus Semple) it
surprises many of his fans to learn that originally Sidney Greenstreet made a name
for himself in comedies in the West End and Broadway. He was usually such a total
villain, or serious actor to the public that his comic talents were ignored. In
fact he actually did make four comedy appearances (one a spoof of his villainous
portrayals with his villainy partner Peter Lorre in a cameo appearance). His best
total film appearance in a comedy was probably that of magazine publisher Alexander
Yardley in "Christmas In Connecticut" (although his autocratic, half-mad soap
tycoon in "The Hucksters" is a close second). Despite some problems with the
screenplay, it is a good film, and usually revived in the Christmas season. Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) writes a column in "American
Housekeeping" magazine for Yardley, where she gives household tips and cooking
recipes. She is the 1945 version of Martha Steward, except that Ms Steward is a
cook and house-owner, and can vouch for trying out and testing what she advocates.
Stanwyck can't. Her cooking recipes are those of her friend Felix (S.Z. Sakall), a
gourmet chef and restaurateur. The house she describes as her home (a model
farmhouse in Connecticut) belongs to her unofficial boyfriend, architect John Sloan
(Reginald Gardiner). Gardiner really would not mind marrying Stanwyck, but she is
not fully ready to consider a final commitment to him. As the film
begins, an American is shipwrecked by the Nazis. This is Jefferson Jones (Dennis
Morgan), a sailor. He spends two weeks in a raft before being rescued. Sensing
publicity value, Greenstreet decides to grant Morgan's wish to have a genuine old
fashioned Christmas in Connecticut. He basically tells Stanwyck that she will
entertain Morgan and himself at her farm for the holidays. Stanwyck is unable to
explain that the columns image of herself (complete with her ability to flip flap-
jacks, and raise a baby she supposedly had with her husband) is a lie - if she does
she will be fired, as will her immediate boss Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne). In a
moment of depression she accepts Gardiner's proposal of marriage, and then Gardiner
finds his Connecticut home is dragooned into becoming the "actual" home of Stanwyck
and himself and "their baby". Of course, aside from putting off
Greenstreet's meddling curiosity, Stanwyck and Morgan find that they are falling in
love (much to the annoyance of Gardiner - he does actually expect that Stanwyck
will still marry him). Complication following complication occurs, as lies piles on
lies, and as neighbor's babies succeeds neighbor's babies, before Greenstreet
begins to wonder if he is missing something. But it is a comedy, so everything
works out well. Even Greenstreet, at the conclusion, is amused by the entire
madness - his celebrated hearty chortle mirroring that of Santa Clause for a
change. This is not a classic comedy, certainly not a great one, but amusing enough
for the season to be worth watching in December.
First of all, those who are faint at heart should definitely avoid this film. Even
those, like me, who are desensitized to most graphically violent and sexual acts in
movies should beware. I'm not telling you to steer away from the film, but be aware
that what you're about to see is some disturbing material. Definitely not a
pleasing film to watch, but nothing is put on screen strictly for shock value. But
I must admit, when I watched the film for a second time, I had to skip to the next
chapter when the "razor blade scene" came up. The main character is one
of the most unsympathetic sympathetic characters I can think of, but we start to
better realize the humanity of her character later in the film's second act. In one
scene, she stuffs broken glass in one of her student's jacket pocket after being
dissatisfied with her apparently unsatisfactory performance and getting nervous
when in front of a live audience. The student goes into her pocket and cries out
with pain as she stares at her blood-stained hand. Next to the razor blade scene,
that disturbed me most. The student's mother is not much more sympathetic than she.
When she gets word that her daughter won't be able to play, she talks about it like
she also got also her hand injured, being one of those spoiled mothers who tries to
torture her daughter into becoming an overachiever. Though the film
intrigued me and caught my interest for the most part, I felt more needed to be
explained about Isabelle Huppert's character. When a woman is fascinated by
sadomasochistic porno movies and engaging in that behavior herself, you want to
understand the root of the problem. The movie establishes that she wants
desperately to be loved. Then why the hateful attitude towards everyone? Why does
she receive sexual pleasure from pain? The acting is terrific and I
liked the glossy, stylized lighting. Altogether, it's not a film I'd recommend if
you're in the mood to be entertained, but as I said it's very intriguing. And I'm
sure if I watched it a few more times, I'd be able to spot certain subtleties
that'll shed more light on aspects of the film I didn't realize initially. My score: 7 (out of 10)
As with all Haneke films, make your own decision--don't be swayed by what you read
and if you are interested in someone using the medium of film for their own unique
ends, see it yourself. Isabelle Huppert is stunning in this film--combined with
Haneke, these two never pull their punches. Haneke reels us in with the lure of
golden boy, Benoit Magimel, but this is an anti-romance as much as Funny Games was
an anti-thriller. You'll have to force yourself to watch much of it and the
catharsis is much more in the range of sustained anxiety than any kind of emotional
release but it's incredibly nervy and thought provoking; Haneke continues to hold
up a mirror to how desensitised Western civilization is or has become. People may
turn their noses up at this but it's only taking what Solondz did in Happiness a
few steps further. While grounded in reality, much of what Erika (Huppert) does can
be viewed as emotional metaphor. I'm not recommending it but I wouldn't dissuade
you either...it definitely divides people but given it's largely about repression--
that's no surprise.
After I saw "La Pianiste" several years ago, I said to myself that I would never
see it again, so powerful and disturbing it was. Time went on but I could not get
the movie and its main character, Erika Kahut out of my mind. The story of a
respected Piano teacher in Vienna Conservatory, cool and collected on the surface,
an expert in classical music, with the inner world so dark and disturbing with the
demons of fear, self-loathing and self destruction strong enough to ruin her
demanded more than one viewing. I read the book "The Piano Teacher" by Elfriede
Jelinek, the controversial Nobel Prize winner in literature that the film is based
on and after reading it I saw the film again. Second time, all pieces of puzzle
came to the right places. Not very often an outstanding harrowing book is
transferred to the screen with such brilliancy as "Le Pianiste". Three actors gave
outstanding performances. Franz Schubert's Piano music, "soaked in the morbid
humanity", is another bright star of the movie. I only have one problem
with Haneke's vision. There is a scene in the film where Haneke made some changes
to Erika's character comparing to the novel. In the book, the furthest she went to
reveal herself to Walter, the young student in the conservatory who became
attracted to her, was in a letter. As soon as he realized what he was dealing with
and showed to her how much he was repulsed by that, she had stopped communicating
with him. Erika of the book would never chase Walter to throw herself to him. She
kept everything inside - she did not like to act, she was not a chaser - she loved
to watch. The big scene during the hockey game was not necessary. It tried to make
Erika sympathetic (and of course, Huppert was heartbreaking) but it took the
mystery that surrounded her - Jelinek did not write that scene, it sounded and
looked false in otherwise excellent film.
Erika Kohut is a woman with deep sexual problems. At the start of the film, we see
her arriving home late. When her older mother protests, Erika goes into a frenzy,
attacking the older woman without pity. Erika, as it turns out, is a musical
teacher of a certain renown in the conservatory where she teaches. When we next see
her, she is the model of composure, but she shows a cruel side in the way she
attacks a young male student because she feels he is wasting his time, and hers.
The same goes for the insecure Anna, a talented girl who Erika hates, maybe because
she sees in the young woman a promise that she is not willing to promote. At the end of the day, we watch Erika as she goes into an amusement area
and proceeds to one of the cabins where pornographic material is shown. Erika is
transfixed as she watches the things that are being performed on the screen. On
another occasion, Erika comes to a drive-in where a movie is in progress. Her
attention goes toward a parked car in which, two lovers are performing a sex act.
The camera lingers on Erika as she is lost in reverie watching what the two lovers
are doing, until she is surprised by the young man inside the car. Erika flees
horrified she's been discovered. When a wealthy couple invites Erika to
perform in a recital in their opulent home, she meets an eager young man, Walter,
who is related to the hosts. Walter is immediately taken with Erika's playing; the
young man is a talented pianist himself. His eagerness to compliment Erika is met
with skepticism on her part. Walter decides to audition for Erika's master class,
and is accepted. Thus begins Walter pursuit of Erika, who is taken aback
when she realizes what the young man's motives really are. In turn, Erika, begins
to fantasize about Walter in ways that only her mind could, imagining what she
would like him do when, and if, they get together. Walter gets turned off by the
letter Erika has written to him, detailing sexual acts that are repugnant to the
young man. The film's ending, reminded us of the last sequence of Mr.
Haneke's current "Cache". We are taken to a concert hall where Erika is going to
perform. She is seen stalking the lobby looking for the arrival of Walter, who goes
on into the hall without noticing her. Erika's expression to the camera reveals a
lot more of her state of mind in that last minutes of the film. As she flees the
lobby area after inflicting a wound on herself, the camera abandons her and
concentrates on the building's facade that seems to stay on the screen for a long
time. "La Pianiste" is a personal triumph for Isabelle Huppert. This
magnificent actress does one of her best appearances on the screen, guided by the
sure hand of Michael Haneke, one of the most interesting directors working today.
Ms. Huppert's works with economic gestures, yet, she projects so much of her soul
as she burns the screen with her Erika. The supporting cast does wonders
under the director's guidance. Annie Girardot, always excellent, is perfect as
Erika's mother. She seems to be the key of whatever went wrong with her daughter.
There is a hint of incest that is played with subtleness in the context of the
film. Benoit Magimel is perfectly cast as Walter. This young actor does a wonderful
job in the film as the young man, so in love with a woman that is possessed by
demons, that he'll never be able to chase away or get her to love him in a normal
manner. Michael Haneke films are always disturbing to watch, yet they
offer so many rewards because he dares to go where other men don't. The magnificent
music heard in the film are mainly by Schubert and Schumann, two composers that are
Erika's own favorites. The movie is helped tremendously by Christian Berger's
cinematography.
In the first twenty minutes we are swept away by several powerfully portrayed
emotions: a suffocating and overbearing mother has a violent argument with her
live-in 40yr old daughter; a piano teacher (and professor of music)'s love for her
pupils expressed in unswerving critical appraisal; the joy that music can inspire
both in the listener and the performer. Within this short space of time our senses
have been assaulted convincingly with very real characters. We are also swept away
by powerfully performed music and shown the difference between great and mediocre
performance with a lot of attention to nuance. Such material alone would have been
the basis for an outstanding film of widespread appeal. But the trend in French
cinema being what it is, it goes deeper, exploring the repressed sexuality of the
teacher, the expression of sexual freedom and subsequent breakdown within a context
of passionate attraction, and the inevitable cycle of real abuse. We are drawn to
her suffering and, at least initially, wonder how much suffering may be related to
the accomplishment of genius, particularly in the composers she admires. The Piano
Teacher contains graphic dialogue and depictions of sex and brutality in scenes
that some people might rather not watch. The scenes are essential to the dilemmas
which the film seeks to raise and so can hardly be called gratuitous. A great film
it may be, but mainstream viewing it is not.
Michael Haneke is known for his disturbing movies like "Funny Games". This time he
adopted Elfriede Jelineks "Die Klavierspielerin", which is probably her best work
so far. Jelinek always writes about abusive behaviour in families, and especially
of the suppression of women in a patriarchal society. Erika Kohut
(Isabelle Huppert) works as a piano teacher at the Viennese Consevatory. She still
lives with her mother (Annie Giradot), they even sleep in the same bed (already a
hint of something strange). Erika bullies her students the same way she's bullied
by her mother and secretly watches porn movies and plays sadomasochistic games with
herself. A student, Walter (Benoit Magimel), falls in love with her, but she
refuses to simply sleep with him. She wants to play her games with him, but he's
disgusted. He reluctantly follows her rules, which means disaster for both of
them. Haneke has a very clear picture language, everything is filmed in
a almost spartanic way, so the complex characters and story are enhanced. People who don't know Austria very well may be don't realize how essential
the setting is for the story. Jelinek (as well as other great Austrian writers like
Thomas Bernhard) suffers from the coldness and casualness in Austrian families and
society. Austrians (at least Viennese people) are often unable to articulate their
pains, wishes, they suppress their emotions, so there often enough is no real love,
affection and nearness in their families. In a society, where it's more important
to show a perfect facade to society (even if this means to protect crimes within
families as Erika and her mother protect Walters rape of Erika to avoid a scandal)
than to deal with your emotional problems it's probably no wonder that Sigmund
Freud founded the psychoanalysis in Vienna. Erika has a cold and distant
relationship with her mother, they only time they share some emotions is very
violent and not at all loving. Erika replaces her hidden emotions with wishes for
violence, so that she can finally release some feelings. But she has nobody who
really wants to speak about her emotions so in the end she has to stab herself to
ease her inner pain. Isabelle Huppert shows her best performance of her
career (as well of most other actresses). With a unsmiling face you often see only
a hint of emotion in her face, a quick smile, a glance with her eyes. And in the
end her pain is masterly displayed without a single tear. Benoit
Magimel and Annie Giradot also turn in powerful performances, but the movie belongs
to Huppert.
Isabelle Huppert must be one of the greatest actresses of her or any other
generation. "La Pianiste" truly confirms it. As if that wasn't enough, Annie
Girardot plays her mother and Annie Girardot is one of the greatest actresses of
her or any other generation. So, as you may well imagine, those pieces of casting
are worth the horror we're put through. Isabelle and Annie play characters we've
never seen before on the screen. A mother and daughter yes but with such virulent
fearlessness that sometimes I was unable even to blink or to breath. Personally, I
don't believe in the director's intentions, I don't believe they (the intentions
that is) go beyond the shocking anecdote and the ending made me scream with
frustration but I was riveted by the story written in the face of the sensational
Huppert and the fierceness of Girardot's strength. I highly recommend it to cinema
lovers anywhere and to the collectors of great performances like me, you can't
afford to miss "La Pianiste"
I saw this film at the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival. La Pianiste
reinforces the "Austrians=grim" thesis I'm formulating. Isabelle Huppert won a
well-deserved Best Actress award at Cannes for her portrayal of a woman who, in her
efforts to attain the artistic ideal, loses her humanity. Trapped by her talent,
she suppresses her emotions and her sexuality until they can only be expressed in
twisted and terrifying ways. When a younger student falls in love with her, our
hopes rise, but are soon dashed by the realization that she cannot experience love
the way others can. It is too late for her, and the film's final 30 harrowing
minutes are, tellingly, devoid of the beautiful music that carried the first 90
minutes. The message seems to be that the music itself is not enough without the
life and beauty it's describing.
If you think piano teacher Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) in Michael Haneke's film
"LA PIANISTE" is the ultimate degree in the personification of derangement,
perversion and darkness, I've got news for you: the piano teacher in Elfriede
Jellinek's novel "LA PIANISTE" (on which the film was based) is twice as
"repulsive", "disgusting", "deranged" and even more fascinating -- though there
can't be words enough to translate the level of artistic proficiency that Isabelle
Huppert has reached here, above all other mortal actresses in activity today. And
who else could have played this character with such emotional power, complete with
the best piano playing/dubbing an actor could deliver? In the novel as
in the film, there are two big antagonists to the "heroine" Kohut: her own mother
(wonderful, wreck-voiced Annie Girardot, in a part originally intended for Jeanne
Moreau) and Austria itself. The mother personifies Jellinek's perception of her
native Austria as a country that deceptively and perversely encourages
racist/fascist (or at least authoritarian) behavior, sexual and emotional
repression, and, let's say, übermensch ideals which are impossible to keep today
without the danger of a mental breakdown. "La Pianiste" also deals with
a very powerful and delicate issue: how dangerous it is to reveal your innermost
fantasies to the one (you think) you love. We tend to think our own sexual
fantasies must be as exciting to others as they are to ourselves, which may turn
out to be a huge, embarrassing and sometimes tragic mistake. Here, Kohut learns (?)
the lesson in the most painful and humiliating of ways. It must be
mentioned that Elfriede Jellinek is one of the best-known and praised authors in
Austria and Europe (well, now she's got a Nobel Prize!) and that autobiographical
passages can be inferred in her novel, as she herself was a pianist and had a
reportedly difficult relationship with her mother. The novel also includes long
passages about Kohut's childhood and adolescence so you kind of understand how she
turned into who she is now. Haneke chose to hide this information in the film,
forcing us to wonder how she got to be that way (don't we all know a Erika Kohut
out there?). But he very much preserves the fabric of the book in his film:
unbearable honesty, to the point where most secretive, "horrendous" feelings
painfully emerge -- envy, cruelty, violence, jealousy, hate, misery, sadism,
masochism, selfishness, perversion etc. All of them unmistakably human. I thought "La Pianiste" was a deeply moving film, very disturbing and thought-
provoking, with a handful of unforgettable scenes, and that's just all I ask of
movies. It also made me buy and be thrilled by the book, discover a fantastic
author I hadn't read before, and listen again and again to Schubert - so, my thanks
to Haneke, Jellinek and Isabelle!!! On the other hand, if you're looking for light
entertainment, please stay away. My vote: 9 out of 10
Some users are confused about the identity of the armed men walking down the steps
in the "Odessa staircase" sequence. These men are not Cossacks but regular army
troops. The Cossacks arrive at the scene a little later and they are the
men on horses slashing at the crowd with their sabers. To experts on
Russian history: Correct me on this if I'm wrong. But there are a couple
of lines in the movie that apparently no one has commented on. After the takeover
of the Potemkin, someone in the crowd on shore says, "Kill the Jews!" This is on
screen for only a couple of seconds but it is there. How cruelly typical
of history, not just in Russia but in so many other countries, to immediately,
unthinkingly and instinctively blame Jews for any domestic trouble! Perhaps other parts of the movie are not historically factual but the outcry
against the Jews is all too real. Comments, anyone? Also, why can't
speakers of English learn to pronounce the name as "Potyomkin" instead of as
"Potemkin"? There's a need in Russian to distinguish the two possible
pronunciations of "e": as either "ye" or as "yo." Sometimes two dots are used to
distinguish these two pronunciations but usually the difference simply has to be
memorized.
It's fun and fast paced, as one falsehood leads to another and another toward an
inevitable, surprising conclusion. The suspense separates this Holiday flick from
all others. One wonders how the pieces are going to fit, both during the movie and
in the future. The character actors laid the foundation and entertained
us in the process. Sinkewicz (Frank Jenks) shows us what manipulation can get...and
ultimately what manipulation can cost! Uncle Felix (S.Z. Sakall) sizes up each
person for us while trying to protect "Lishka" (Barbara Stanwyck), and this helps
us decide who we are going to root for in the end. If we could ever
achieve a perfect world, imperfect people would likely have to undergo a series of
events such as these. A glaring weakness is that fake baby cry after it
allegedly swallowed Uncle Felix's watch. I've heard more authentic crying from a
doll in a toy store. Watch it, and you'll really feel like you've been
somewhere!
I just finished watching this film. For me, the most outstanding work in this film
was the music score. While many silent film scores work very well with their
scenes, I feel that this is the best score I've come across. The mutiny scenes in
particular worked extremely well.
This is one of the best films I've seen from the silent era (sad to say, I've yet
to see too many with the exception of Chaplin/Keaton stuff). Very visually
brilliant, with insanely influential style in editing and composition. Really
unique (especially for its time) camera angles and extremely hectic editing.
Definitely a must see for the film nerd. The downside is that it is a
bit too in your face about its politics (I have no problem with politics in film,
as long as they are subtle or at least somewhat ignorable as a backseat to the
story). Also, it's not an "entertainment" film, which is fine, but it's not
something I'm going to watch a billion times. This is art, plain and simple, like
it or not. Worth an A+ for influence alone, but based on personal
enjoyment, I give it an A-.
I had before a feeling of mislike for all Russian films. But, after seeing this
film I haven´t. This is a unique masterpiece made by the best director ever lived
in the USSR. He knows the art of film making, and can use it very well. If you find
this movie: buy or copy it!
After reading a biography on the last Russian Tzar (Nicholas II), and his failure
to secure the army's support, I decided to give this film a try. I
watched it with a completely open mind, not knowing anything about it (except its
reputation). These are the things that impressed me the most. 1) The shots of battleships, and the soldiers used as extras. More than
once I stopped to think "if this was done in this time and place, 80% of this would
have been computer-generated". 2) The Realism in it. From the maggot-
infested meat to the shot of the sailor with his candle and the legend "Killed for
a bowl of soup", this movie makes no concessions to the PC cause (which,
thankfully, hadn't been invented yet). 3) The slow descent into madness
of the Odessa Steps sequence. From the first shot, when the limbless man appears,
you get the idea something might be wrong; since the overall shots are composed,
though, you end up feeling comfortable in your surroundings. Then an amputee
appears, and people start falling in dramatic poses. Still, the shots are
composed... until the Cossacks appear into scene, and the incredible shot
juxtapositions appear. This scene is easily worth the price of admission. 4) The fact that this movie is 100% unadulterated propaganda. Then again,
when Rambo fought in Afghanistan he also was having something to do with
"propaganda"; only a different kind. Overall: a film marred by a bit of
a slow narrative. Nevertheless, Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and this
movie are perfect examples of inventive, edgy movies that are still remembered for
their merits today. They really make modern movies look boring and repetitive.
Have wanted to see this for a while: I never thought I'd be watching it in a damp
Trafalgar Square, London with 15,000 other people and all to a new score by the Pet
Shop Boys. Quickly, that experience specifically. A new departure from
PSB, it seemed to suffer from the same problem the miniaturist Hugo Wolf had when
he wrote his opera Der Corregidor: the long structure was a chain of short ones,
i.e. songs. PSB produced a more fluid, integrated score although it was quite
static on its own terms. Neither could they resist song: a setting of the subtitled
text worked in this respect a free standing meditation on the action of the Odessa
steps massacre during the action of that sequence itself was, I'd go so far to say,
counterproductive. Overall it was very exciting though, which is surely what
Eisenstein was trying to achieve. It is a very exciting film with
choppier editing taking the place of acceleration of tension or action. In fact the
film, though beautifully shot and passionately acted (it has a silent film
melodrama, but not in the excess of the Hollywood comic style) breathes through its
careful editing pacing specific shots with a sense of the rate at which the
audience will take them in. And there's a huge range of perspective too; either he
had a lot of cameras or the sequences on the harbor and steps took a great deal of
time. Super film, which can be assessed irrespective of sound, as that's
how the finished product would have been conceived. 8/10
The famous closeup of their breakfast meat, crawling with maggots still is recorded
by fire in my neurons or the wind filling the right places of the sails, the fog
better than Carpenter's THE FOG cos is the real terror bursting out from human
history instead of pirates ghosts. But , I tell ya' something: Not even the
magnificent scene in homenage performed by Brian Di Palma with the excellent music
of Ennio Morricone in The Untochables (filmed in slow motion)can equal the effect
of the original masterpiece of the crowd climbing down the ladders. We see not
merely the baby stroller but I remember the hand of a baby stepped by militar boot,
someone with no feet escaping at the last minute, someone wearing glasses (then a
cut edition) and then the same glasses broken by a bullet that passed
through....mini stories in a single scene.
/*may contain SPOILERS, but of course it does not matter :) */ Battleship Potemkin is one stunning spectacle of haunting images. The visual
direction is (well, and has been) inspiring, the sheer scale of the film is
impressive, and the technique is certainly pioneering. What is really amazing is,
to my mind, the depth and effectiveness of a film, devoid of proper literary
script, sound (save the soundtrack), decent image quality, the faux-profound
(self-)referentialism of today, exceptional acting, pretense, etc. What you get is
a purely visual experience to be remembered. BTW, the previous poster
noted: "Eisenstien felt after a lot of suffering to give the heroes what they
wanted. The problem is that you think Eisenstein is building up to a big final
fight and then he tricks you. It's a little cheap. I would've rather seen a huge
final action scene." I must warn you, that the end is not cheap, and
Eisenstein wasn't being generous to the heroes. History, however, was. Potemkin
really did go through the squadron as it was shown in the film. Finally,
I'd strongly recommend seeing Battleship Potemkin to anyone more or less seriously
interested in cinema. See it with a fellow movie buff, it kept me talking for
hours. However, if you tend to consider films, generally accepted as "great" or
"classic", to be "slow" or "boring", this film might not be for you yet. Not much
cheap entertainment here. For me though, it is a full 10/10.
Based on actual events of 1905, silent film THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN concerns an
Imperial Russian ship on which abominable conditions lead to a mutiny. Shocked by
conditions on the ship, citizens of the port city Odessa rally to the mutineers'
support--and in consequence find themselves at the mercy of Imperial forces, who
attack the civilian supporters with savage force. POTEMKIN is a film in
which individual characters are much less important than the groups and crowds of
which they are members, and it achieves its incredible power by showing the clash
of the groups and crowds in a series of extraordinarily visualized and edited
sequences. Amazingly, each of these sequences manage to top the previous one, and
the film actually builds in power as it moves from the mutiny to the citizen's
rally to the massacre on the Odessa steps--the latter of which is among the most
famous sequences in all of film history. Filming largely where the real events
actually occurred, director Eisenstein's vision is extraordinary as he builds--not
only from sequence to sequence but from moment to moment within each sequence--some
of the most memorable images ever committed to film. To describe
POTEMKIN as a great film is something of an understatement. It is an absolute
essential, an absolute necessity to any one seriously interested in cinema as an
art form, purely visual cinema at its most brilliant, often imitated, seldom
equaled, never bested. Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
This film is a benchmark in non-mainstream cinema history. The use of montage
represents a quantum leap from the relatively simple juxtapositions of Strike
(Eisenstein's 1st film). Take the scene on the steps and note the repeated shot of
the soldiers descending, to reiterate the point of the horrors that actually did
happen! A highly intelligent monumental film, a must see for all Film students!
Eisenstien's "Potempkin", (Bronenosets Potyomkin), is among the finest films ever
made and possibly the best of the silent era. Eisenstien was a pioneer of film form
and his use of montage editing has influenced films to this day. The Odessa Steps
massacre footage is as powerful today as it was when first seen over 70 years ago.
DO NOT pass up the chance to see this film!
Make sure you make this delightful comedy part of your holiday season! If you
admire Dennis Morgan or Barbara Stanwyck, this film is a fun one to watch. They
really work well together as you would see in this movie. The whole cast was very
entertaining. Since I'm a Dennis Morgan fan, this film was a real treat!
But...everyone can enjoy it! Recommended!
This 1925 film narrates the story of the mutiny on board battleship Potemkin at the
port of Odessa. The movie celebrated the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905,
which was seen as a direct precursor to the October Revolution of 1917. Following
his montage theory, Eisenstein plays with scenes, their duration and the way they
combine to emphasize his message, besides he uses different camera shot angles and
revolutionary illumination techniques. The "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin is
one of the most famous in the history of cinema. The baby carriage coming loose
down the steps after its mother has been shot was later recreated in Brian d'
Palma's The Untouchables. It is clear that the film is one of the best ever made
considering its time and how innovative it was though you need a little bit of
patience and to be a real movie enthusiast to go through its 70 minutes.
SPOILERS Every major regime uses the country's media to it's own ends. Whether the
Nazi banning of certain leaflets, or the televised Chinese alternative of Tianamen
Square, Governments have tried to influence the people through different mediums
since the beginning of time. In 1925 though, celebrating the failed mutiny of 1905,
the Russian Communist Government supported the creation of this film, Battleship
Potempkin. A major piece of cinematic history, it remains powerful and beautiful to
this very day. Set aboard the Battleship Potempkin, the crew are
unhappy. In miserable living conditions and with maggot infested food, they are
angry at their upper class suppressors. Now though, after the rotten food, enough
is enough. Led by Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), the crew turn upon their
masters and fight for their freedom. As far as propaganda goes,
"Battleship Potempkin" is perfect. Presenting a positive light on the first,
unsuccessful, communist mutiny, the film was a useful Soviet tool. Eighty years
after the films release though, and the USSR has disappeared completely off the
map. The amazing thing about this film though is that whilst the country it's
message was intended for has disappeared, the film remains a powerful and worthy
piece of cinema. Written and directed by Sergei Eisenstein, the film is
surprisingly a joy to watch. It is true, that it is far from what we would nowadays
consider 'entertainment', but the film is a beautiful piece of art. Whether it be the scenes aboard the boat or the often talked about scene on the
steps of Odessa, everything about this film is perfectly made. The music is
powerful and dramatic, the lighting is flawless, even the acting, whilst slightly
overdone, is perfect for the piece. Basically, there is no way to fault this film's
end product. It's impossible to know how the Russian people received
this film upon it's release. Praising a country which has not existed for fifteen
years, it's difficult for us to know the full spirits that the film inspires. As a
piece of art though, it is magnificent. Beautiful from start to finish, it is far
from an easy watch, but it is well worth the effort.
The photography and editing of the movie is exceptional for the time period.
Eisenstein builds upon each scene of the movie leading to the the sailor's revolt
and the massacre at the town. As much as the movie is a high point in the cinema,
it is also an example of SZocialist Realism. by 1925 the Soviet government actively
used the arts, including film, as a means to spread the message of the revolution.
Eisensteins portrayal of the revolt on the Battleship Potempkin offers the viewer
insight into the message of the Soviet elite. Marxist theory and perspectives of
class struggle are demonstrated as the sailors who represent the oppressed workers
and the officers who represent the elite of society. Much of the film demonstrates
the communist party message and how film was used as a tool of propaganda.
the movie touches the soul of the audience very much,some scene in the movie is
ultimate and tears comes out automatically,i'm surprised by seeing this movie that
any director can direct this type of movie in the year 1925.as a student of cinema
i can say this movie helps a lot to understand use of montage.first time when our
teacher told us about this movie means genre of this movie we thought nothing could
be there in this movie to understand but finally when sir explained it then we came
to know how great this movie is.lastly i can say it helps a lot understanding
films.and being a cinema student i can the viewers that they can see this movie.
It was surprising that a silent film could be so easy to watch. The economy with
which it has been edited and the films structure itself are the main elements that
contribute to this. The film really captures the spirit of the
revolution that it is dealing with - you really sympathise with the sailors and
citizens. Of course, this film has it's own agenda, but as it is a practically
redundant cause, it can be viewed as a piece of entertainment in a much clearer
sense. The tension created on the screen is excellent - starting with
the battleship itself, and then moving onto the mainland. Things escalate
believably and for a film of it's era, it really is quite unflinching in revealing
the sacrifices made by the characters in the film. This really is worth
sitting through, (that is if you can adjust your modern viewing habits for 90mins).
I did something a little daring tonight when I watched this movie. I attempted to
wean myself from silent movie scores. Sure, when this film originally was
distributed, a piano score was probably played with it. Oftentimes, the director
would choose the score himself (Charlie Chaplin often composed the scores of his
later silent films). But most of the music you hear on VHS tapes over silent films
is in no way the same music that was supposed to be played when the film was first
released. And, then again, there were plenty of silent films that were played
without a score. I do not know the history of Potemkin's score, so I decided to
watch it for the medium this piece of art was produced within - film. Soon after I turned the music off, unaided (or should I say unimpeded) by the
musical interpretation of the emotions on screen, I became utterly attached to the
film. Visually, it is easily one of the most stunning of all films. Eisenstein was
a master of composition. The editing, possibly the cinematic technique Eisenstein
is most famous for (montage), is extraordinary. The mood of this film is anger, and
it stirred my passions violently. It takes a lot of effort to enjoy a
silent film, especially a drama, but films like Battleship Potemkin prove that this
effort is entirely worth it. Come on! You owe it to yourself to watch this film!
Your education is incomplete without it.
There are only a handful of movies that were made on such a grand scale and made
such a difference in the art of movie making. "Bronenosets Potyomkin" is
one of these movies, and it should be on anyone's list looking to learn more about
the history of cinema. Grigori Aleksandrov & Sergei M. Eisenstein
directed this groundbreaking film that documents the horrors taking place on a
Russian battleship. When the sailors finally retaliate against their superiors, the
locals embrace the them, and support them. Things get ugly when a group of soldiers
are sent to the small town to take care of business. What follows is one of the
most imitated scenes in the history of cinema. Anyone who has seen "The
Untouchables", and "Bronenosets Potyomkin" knows exactly what I mean. Overall I think this movie raised the bar for film making just as "Intolerance"
did a few years earlier. If you do not mind silent films, do yourself a favor, and
see "Bronenosets Potyomkin". If you don't like silent films..... watch
"Bronenosets Potyomkin" anyway. 
The Battleship Potemkin is now the oldest film I've seen and it is also the first
silent film I've seen. I heard a lot of good things about this movie so I got the
tape out at home and I watched it. When it ended I just thought that this was a
classic masterpiece. The story is based on the real-life Russian Battleship
Potemkin. You wouldn't think it but some of it was sad and disgusting. Sad being
that the mother dies and the pram rolls down the stairway and disgusting being they
have to eat rotten meat with maggots in it. Today it is still considered
to be one of the best silent and Russian films ever made. I think that everyone
should see it (if they can find it.) You will be presently surprised at how good it
is. It's a must see classic. 5/5.
On June 14 1905, during the Russian Revolution of that year, sailors aboard the
Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their oppressive officers. Frustrated
with the second-rate treatment they receive, and most particularly the maggot-
infested meat that they are forced to eat, the ship's crew, led by the
inspirational Bolshevik sailor Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), decide that
the time is ripe for a revolution. And so begins Sergei M. Eisenstein's rousing
classic of Russian propaganda, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin / The Battleship
Potemkin.' The film itself is brimming with shining examples of stunning
visual imagery: the spectacles of an overthrown ship captain dangle delicately from
the side rope over which he had been tossed; the body of a deceased mutineer lies
peaceful upon the shore, the sign on his chest reading "KILLED FOR A BOWL OF SOUP;"
close-up shots of the clenching fists of the hundreds of spectators who are finally
fed up with the Tsarist regime; a wayward baby carriage careers down the Odessa
Steps as desperate onlookers watch on with bated breath (this scene was memorably
"borrowed" by Brian De Palma for a particularly suspenseful scene in his 'The
Untouchables'); the barrels of numerous canons are ominously leveled towards the
vastly-outnumbered battleship Potemkin. However, the film itself is best
analysed not as a fragmented selection of memorable scenes but as a single
film, and, indeed, every scene is hugely memorable. Though divided into five
fairly-distinct chapters, the entire film flows forwards wonderfully; at no point
do we find ourselves losing interest, and we are absolutely never in doubt of whose
side we should be sympathetic towards. The film is often referred to as
"propaganda," and that is exactly what it is, but this need not carry a negative
connotation. 'The Battleship Potemkin' was produced by Eisenstein with a specific
purpose in mind, and it accomplishes this perfectly in every way. Planned by the
Soviet Central Committee to coincide with the 20th century celebrations of the
unsuccessful 1905 Revolution, 'Potemkin' was predicted to be a popular film in its
home country, symbolising the revitalization of Russian arts after the Revolution.
It is somewhat unfortunate, then, that Eisenstein's film failed to perform well at
the Russian box-office, reportedly beaten by Allan Dwan's 1922 'Robin Hood' film in
its opening week and running for just four short weeks. Luckily, despite being
banned on various occasions in various countries, 'The Battleship Potemkin' fared
more admirably overseas. The film also proved a successful vehicle for
Eisenstein to test his theories of "montage." Through quick-cut editing, and
distant shots of the multitudes of extras, the audience is not allowed to
sympathise with any individual characters, but with the revolutionary population in
general. Eisenstein does briefly break this mould, however, in a scene where
Vakulinchuk flees the ship officer who is trying to kill him, and, of course,
during the renowned Odessa Steps sequence, as our hearts beat in horror for the
life of the unfortunate child in the tumbling baby carriage. The accompanying
soundtrack to the version I watched, largely featuring the orchestral works of
Dmitri Shostakovich, served wonderfully to heighten the emotional impact of such
scenes. One of the greatest films of the silent era, 'The Battleship
Potemkin' is a triumph of phenomenal film-making, and is a significant slice of
cinematic history. The highly-exaggerated events of the film (among other things,
there was never actually any violent massacre on the Odessa Steps) have so
completely engrained themselves in the memory, that we're often uncertain of the
true history behind the depicted events. This is a grand achievement.
The Battleship Potemkin was said to have been a favourite of Charlie Chaplin. It
presents a dramatised version of the mutiny that occurred in 1905 when the crew of
the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their officers of the Tsarist
regime. The film is a textbook cinema classic, and a masterpiece of
creative editing, especially in the famous Odessa Steps sequence in which innocent
civilians are mown down in the bloodshed; the happenings of a minute are drawn into
five by frenzied cross-cutting. The film contains 1,300 separate shots, and in 1948
and 1958 was judged the best film ever made by a panel of international critics.
The Battleship Potemkin is in the public domain, in some parts of the world.
It finally hit me watching my VHS of Christmas in Connecticut what other film this
one reminded me of. If it weren't for the fact that the other was done 20 years
later, I'd say it was a remake. Just as Rock Hudson was a phony fishing
expert for Abercrombie&Fitch who had to get some on the job training at a fishing
tournament, Barbara Stanwyck plays an forties version of Martha Stewart. Stanwyck's a cooking columnist who's built up this whole image of living on
a small Connecticut farm with husband and baby cooking all these marvelous
delicacies. Trouble is she's unmarried, childless, writes her column from her
apartment in New York and doesn't know how to boil water. But her writing is a hit
with the public. Trouble comes when she's hijacked into cooking a home
Christmas dinner for a war hero sailor played by Dennis Morgan who gets to sing a
couple of songs as well. Got to keep up the image at any cost. And her publisher
Sidney Greenstreet likes the idea so well that he invites himself to the dinner. So with borrowed farm, baby, and Reginald Gardiner who'd like to make it
real with Stanwyck she tries to brazen it through. Christmas in
Connecticut's now a Yuletide classic and deservedly so. The leads are warm and
human and they get great support from the assembled players. S.Z. Sakall as the
Hungarian restaurant owner/friend of Stanwyck from whom she gets her cooking
information and Una O'Connor as the housekeeper have a nice chemistry between them.
Reginald Gardiner and Stanwyck have no chemistry at all, obvious to all but Reggie
and he's funny in his stuffed shirt way. Most people remember this film
as one of Sidney Greenstreet's few ventures into comedy. If he's not an outright
villain, a cynical observer of life or a tyrannical tycoon, Greenstreet is few
other things on screen. Christmas in Connecticut gave him a rare opportunity to
burlesque his own image and he made the most of it. In a biography of
Barbara Stanwyck, she mentions she enjoyed making Christmas in Connecticut as a
welcome change from some villainous parts like Double Indemnity she'd been doing
recently. One of the things that made doing the film so enjoyable was that between
takes, director Peter Godfrey and Greenstreet would do some impromptu entertaining
of cast and crew with English Music Hall numbers. Made for a relaxed and warm set
and the cast responded accordingly. Now if only someone had been filming
those numbers.
The silent film masterpiece Battleship Potemkin (1925) was commissioned by the
Soviet government to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905 and to
establish the event as an heroic foreshadowing of the October Revolution of 1917.
Ironically the film's director, Sergei Eisenstein, was one of the earliest and most
influential advocates of a formalistic approach to film art. Subsequently,
Eisenstein's formalism and suspect politics would cause innumerable conflicts with
government agencies insisting on "socialist realism." Influenced by the Russian
film theoretician, Lev Kuleshov, and through him by D. W. Griffith's Intolerance
(smuggled into Russia in 1919), Eisenstein constructed his films from a "collision"
of rapidly edited images, a montage of shots varied in length, motion, content,
lighting, and camera angle. Without question the most memorable illustration of
Eisenstein's stylistic approach - and probably the single most cited and studied
sequence in world cinema history - is the "Odessa Steps" sequence in
Potemkin. In structure Potemkin is a "five reeler" divided into five
narrative parts, an organization clearly derived from the five-act arrangement of
Western drama. In "Men and Maggots," Eisenstein dramatizes the pre-revolutionary
oppression and discontent of the battleship's working class sailors as the
situation inevitably builds to mutiny. Even before the sailors and their upper
class officers/masters are visually introduced, Eisenstein establishes
revolutionary conditions symbolically by the collision editing of waves breaking
violently and ominously at sea. Onboard ship we witness crowded, unsanitary
conditions. Eisenstein emphasizes the sailors' dehumanization with shots of
arbitrary lashings, harsh labor, and - most memorably - the maggot infested meat
intended for the evening's meal. The ship's nearsighted physician is brought
forward by the other officers to declare the meat perfectly suitable to be served
with the dark soup, boiling like the sailors' rage. In accordance with Marxist
maxims, the church also fails the men, and we see one of them smashing a plate
inscribed with words from The Lord's Prayer from two different camera angles (in
perhaps the first deliberate "jump cut" in cinema history). Identified
by inter-titles as "Drama on the Quarterdeck" and "An Appeal from the Dead,"
Potemkin's second and third parts depict the actual mutiny and the onshore funeral
of its leader and first hero of the revolution, Vakulinchuk. United by
Vakulinchuk's appeals to brotherhood, the initial mutineers are joined by the
entire crew in an attack on the officers. A chaotic scene ensues whose violent
passion is served well by Eisenstein's editing techniques. The officers' quarters
are trampled and symbols of their privilege are destroyed. The ship's doctor is
thrown overboard, accompanied by dramatic crosscuts to the maggot-ridden meat and
his eyeglasses metonymically dangling in the rigging. Tragically, Vakolinchuk's
death is the price paid for the revolt (no omelet without breaking eggs) and he is
laid out with dignity on an Odessa pier. Hundreds of ordinary Odessa citizens
gather with the sailors to honor him and to pledge "Death to the oppressors." Shots
of fists clenching and unclenching signal the birth of revolutionary
consciousness. The complex and unforgettable Odessa Steps sequence
constitutes the film's fourth act. It begins with uplifting music and a series of
close-ups and medium shots on the elated faces of diverse people on the shore and
selected objects (parasol, eyeglasses, baby carriage). Suddenly (as exclaims a
title card in huge letters) the music stops and lines of soldiers with drawn rifles
and fixed bayonets appear at the top of the steps. Here Eisenstein releases the
full force of collision editing as nearly a hundred shots are pieced together to
contrast the panicked mayhem and victimization of the citizenry with the relentless
assault of the soldiers driving the citizens down to the trampling horses and
flying sabers of the waiting Cossacks below. The mise-en-scene is framed by a
statue of Caesar at the top of the stairs and a church at the bottom, symbolic
metonyms for Russia's oppressive institutions: tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox
Christian church. Punctuating the sequence are two scenes involving
mothers and children. In the first, a mother and young boy who had been introduced
among the joyous faces in the crowd are among the slaughter's first victims. The
boy is shot, but the mother continues running until close-ups of her face convey
her horrified gaze at the son's fallen body being trampled by the crowd. With a
much slowed editing pace, the camera follows the mother as she carries the lifeless
body of her child up the stairs to confront the soldiers (shown only in a diagonal
shadow line). They summarily shoot her dead. After this lull, the carnage continues
for another several dozen cuts until a second mother is shot through the stomach
(the womb of Mother Russia?) as she tries to shield her baby in its carriage. In a
scene famously imitated in The Untouchables, the carriage incongruously slips down
the staircase. Horrified faces of huddled citizens watch the slow progress to its
doom. When the carriage reaches the bottom there is a cut to a Cossack wielding a
sword and a classic Kuleshov effect suggests what we do not actually see: the
slaughtering of this pure and symbolic innocent. The final series of shots in the
Odessa sequence is of three stone lions, one in repose, one sitting up, and one
roaring. The editing animates them into a visual metaphor of the people's awakened
rage. Somewhat anticlimactically, the fifth act returns us to the
battleship as the mutinous sailors flee on the high seas and await an encounter
with other ships from the fleet. They and the viewer expect retribution, but when
the meeting occurs no shots are fired and instead all the sailors wave and throw
their hats in the air in a symbol of comradeship. Eisenstein was rewriting history
at this point since the revolution was not successfully launched for another twelve
years. But that quibble aside, Battleship Potemkin stands as one of the seminal
works of the silent film era, and it retains extraordinary cinematic power.
Eisenstein created the Russian Montage Theory, and this film is his finest example.
It took years before someone could utilize his ideas and make them work (The Limey,
1999). Nonetheless, the baby carriage scene really demonstrates the discombobulated
nature of RMT. Granted, like most movies, it gets long in some parts, the beauty of
the film is amazing. One of the best silent films I have ever seen.
Sergei Eisenstein's most famous movie has truly withstood the test of time. The
story of a mutiny aboard a warship in 1905 does have the feeling of Soviet
propaganda, but does a good job showing the conditions that led to the revolt. The
scene on the Odessa steps should remain seared into anyone's mind. Okay,
so "The Battleship Potemkin" wasn't actually the first movie to use montage, but
they did a great job with it here. Certainly any film history class should show
this movie. It's a great historical drama (although I will admit that I don't know
how accurate it is). A 10/10. Oh, and we should have learned by now that
"Potemkin" should be transliterated as "Potyomkin".
Originally supposed to be just a part of a huge epic The Year 1905 depicting the
Revolution of 1905, Potemkin is the story of the mutiny of the crew of the Potemkin
in Odessa harbor. The film opens with the crew protesting maggoty meat and the
captain ordering the execution of the dissidents. An uprising takes place during
which the revolutionary leader is killed. This crewman is taken to the shore to lie
in state. When the townspeople gather on a huge flight of steps overlooking the
harbor, czarist troops appear and march down the steps breaking up the crowd. A
naval squadron is sent to retake the Potemkin but at the moment when the ships come
into range, their crews allow the mutineers to pass through. Eisenstein's non-
historically accurate ending is open-ended thus indicating that this was the seed
of the later Bolshevik revolution that would bloom in Russia. The film is broken
into five parts: Men and Maggots, Drama on the Quarterdeck, An Appeal from the
Dead, The Odessa Steps, and Meeting the Squadron. Eisenstein was a
revolutionary artist, but at the genius level. Not wanting to make a historical
drama, Eisenstein used visual texture to give the film a newsreel-look so that the
viewer feels he is eavesdropping on a thrilling and politically revolutionary
story. This technique is used by Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers. Unlike Pontecorvo, Eisenstein relied on typage, or the casting of non-
professionals who had striking physical appearances. The extraordinary faces of the
cast are what one remembers from Potemkin. This technique is later used by Frank
Capra in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Meet John Doe. But in Potemkin, no one
individual is cast as a hero or heroine. The story is told through a series of
scenes that are combined in a special effect known as montage--the editing and
selection of short segments to produce a desired effect on the viewer. D.W.
Griffith also used the montage, but no one mastered it so well as Eisenstein. The artistic filming of the crew sleeping in their hammocks is complemented
by the graceful swinging of tables suspended from chains in the galley. In contrast
the confrontation between the crew and their officers is charged with electricity
and the clenched fists of the masses demonstrate their rage with injustice. Eisenstein introduced the technique of showing an action and repeating it
again but from a slightly different angle to demonstrate intensity. The breaking of
a plate bearing the words "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread" signifies the
beginning of the end. This technique is used in Last Year at Marienbad. Also, when
the ship's surgeon is tossed over the side, his pince-nez dangles from the rigging.
It was these glasses that the officer used to inspect and pass the maggot-infested
meat. This sequence ties the punishment to the corruption of the czarist-era. The most noted sequence in the film, and perhaps in all of film history, is
The Odessa Steps. The broad expanse of the steps are filled with hundreds of
extras. Rapid and dramatic violence is always suggested and not explicit yet the
visual images of the deaths of a few will last in the minds of the viewer
forever. The angular shots of marching boots and legs descending the
steps are cleverly accentuated with long menacing shadows from a sun at the top of
the steps. The pace of the sequence is deliberately varied between the marching
soldiers and a few civilians who summon up courage to beg them to stop. A close up
of a woman's face frozen in horror after being struck by a soldier's sword is the
direct antecedent of the bank teller in Bonnie in Clyde and gives a lasting
impression of the horror of the czarist regime. The death of a young
mother leads to a baby carriage careening down the steps in a sequence that has
been copied by Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent, by Terry Gilliam in Brazil, and
Brian DePalma in The Untouchables. This sequence is shown repeatedly from various
angles thus drawing out what probably was only a five second event. Potemkin is a film that immortalizes the revolutionary spirit, celebrates it for
those already committed, and propagandizes it for the unconverted. It seethes of
fire and roars with the senseless injustices of the decadent czarist regime. Its
greatest impact has been on film students who have borrowed and only slightly
improved on techniques invented in Russia several generations ago.
A milestone in cinematic history, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin' is one of the handful of
great films out there that richly deserves to be called a classic. It was the
picture that made Sergei M. Eisenstein a figurehead of film-making at the time. And
today, it is still remembered as the wonderful piece of cinema it always has
been. 'Potyomkin' is a film that NEEDS to be seen as one entity, not to
be picked at. Don't just watch those clip shows where they only present the 'Odessa
steps' sequence and then move on to 'Citizen Kane' or 'The Godfather', see it all
in it's glorious 75-minute running time to really understand and enjoy it. Don't
expect every infinitesimal detail to be perfect though, I mean the acting of the
'20s silent era makes 'Scooby Doo' look like a master of understated realism,
certain plot points may seem illogical and some of the battle sequences look dated,
but it is still an immensely enjoyable movie. The most memorable moments
in the film are the mutiny on the battleship, Vakulinchuk's body falling off the
ship, the sailor under the tent at the end of the pier, the mother holding her dead
child, the baby carriage on the Odessa steps and the lion rising up to roar as
further carnage ensues. For each new pair of eyes that look upon it, 'The
Battleship Potemkin' comes alive once again.
Battleship Potemkin is a celluloid masterpiece. The direction of Eisenstein is truly a sight. The film chronicles a ship of disgruntled sailors who are tired of being mistreated by their superior officers. Eventually, the sailors finally have enough of the abuse and send the officers packing. During this time period, there was a shortage of
film stock in the Soviet Union. The goverment wanted to get their
message out to the people so they started a National Film Company and
one of the members was Sergei Eisenstein. The films were shot on
miniscule budgets and the shortage of film stock forced Eisentein to be
careful and selective with the footage that he shot. In the end,
Eisenstein had to reuse footage in order to make a feature length
picture. The most famous of the action set pieces in this film is the
much talked about massacre on the steps. This scene was spoofed in
Bananas and most recently in Brian De Palma's The Untouchables. If you
want to learn film-making, I strongly advise you to watch Battleship
Potemkin. It's one of the essentials. A+
Quite a lot has been said about this film and its landmark importance in forming
the language of film. If you are interested in film history, to truly understand
the innovations Eisenstein brings to the medium you might try viewing Potemkin
along side most any film made before it (those of D.W. Griffith offer a good
contrast). It should be allowed that Eisenstein was not the only montage theorist
and the principles of montage editing would likely have been discovered by another
given time. However, even today, few directors have approached the skill with which
Eisenstein created meaning through the combination of images at such an early point
in the evolution of the medium. If you are not interested in that sort
of thing, Potemkin is still one of the most beautiful and moving films ever made.
You should see it, buy it, and tatoo it to your chest.
If you're a film student, or were one, or are thinking of becoming one, the name
Battleship Potemkin has or will have a resonance. Sergei Eistenstein, like other
silent-film pioneers like Griffith (although Eisenstein's innovations are not as
commonplace as Griffith's) and Murnau, has had such an impact on the history of
cinema it's of course taken for granted. The reason I bring up the film student
part is because at some point, whether you'd like it or not, your film professor 9
times out of 10 will show the "Odessa Stairs" sequence of this film. It's hard to
say if it's even the 'best' part of the film's several sequences dealing with the
(at the time current) times of the Russian revolution. But it does leave the most
impact, and it can be seen in many films showcasing suspense, or just plain montage
(The Untouchables' climax comes to mind). Montage, which was not just
Eistenstein's knack but also his life's blood early in his career, is often misused
in the present cinema, or if not misused then in an improper context for the story.
Sometimes montage is used now as just another device to get from point A to point
B. Montage was something else for Eisenstein; he was trying to communicate in the
most direct way that he could the urgency, the passion(s), and the ultimate
tragedies that were in the Russian people at the time and place. Even if one
doesn't see all of Eisenstein's narrative or traditional 'story' ideas to have much
grounding (Kubrick has said this), one can't deny the power of seeing the ships
arriving at the harbor, the people on the stairs, and the soldiers coming at them
every which way with guns. Some may find it hard to believe this was done in the
20's; it has that power like the Passion of Joan of Arc to over-pass its time and
remain in importance if only in terms of technique and emotion. Of
course, one could go on for books (which have been written hundreds of times over,
not the least of which by Eisenstein himself). On the film in and of itself,
Battleship Potemkin is really more like a dramatized newsreel than a specific story
in a movie. The first segment is also one of the great sequences in film, as a
mutiny is plotted against the Captain and other head-ups of a certain Ship. This is
detailed almost in a manipulative way, but somehow extremely effective; montage is
used here as well, but in spurts of energy that capture the eye. Other times
Eisenstein is more content to just let the images speak for themselves, as the
soldiers grow weary without food and water. He isn't one of those directors who
will try to get all sides to the story; he is, of course, very much early 20th
century Russian, but he is nothing else but honest with how he sees his themes and
style, and that is what wins over in the end. Some may want to check it
outside of film-school, as the 'Stairs' sequence is like one of those landmarks of
severe tragedy on film, displaying the ugly side of revolution. Eisenstein may not
be one of the more 'accessible' silent-film directors, but if montage, detail in
the frame, non-actors, and Bolshevik themes are your cup of tea, it's truly one of
the must sees of a lifetime.
Written by science fiction veterans Gerry and Sylvia Anderson. This space fantasy
is aptly directed by Robert Parrish. Experienced American astronaut Colonel Glenn
Ross(Roy Thinnes)agrees to a manned flight to the far side of the sun. The mission
is to be controlled by Jason Webb(Patrick Wymark)and his Euro Sec Space Agency
scientist John Kane(Ian Hendry)will accompany Ross. The two will explore a newly
discovered planet that is in the same identical orbit as Earth...except it is
always hidden on the other side of the sun. Ross is the only one to make it back to
earth and has a very incredible story to tell. Special effects may be better than
the story line. Nonetheless fun to watch. The cast also includes: Lynn Loring, Loni
von Friedl, George Sewell and Herbert Lom.
This movie is a gem...an undiscovered Gerry Anderson classic. The
origins of both "UFO" and "Space 1999" are obvious from this movie, including the
cast list which includes the late Ed Bishop and George Sewell who both went onto
"UFO". It is unfortunate that Anderson, despite his many TV successes,
did not get a chance to develop his talent on the big screen. Just think what he
could have done with the movie version of "Thunderbirds" (which he quite rightly
disowned himself from!). I'm sure if you give "JTTFSOTS"/"Doppleganger"
a fair chance you'll appreciate it's good qualities.
Forget Jimmy Stewart reliving his life and opt for this smart comedy of errors
instead. I suppose only institutionalized sexism explains why this flick and
Stanwyck's other great Christmas story, "Meet John Doe" aren't revered with the
same level of love as...well, you know it's name. Stanwyck plays a food
writer for a McCall's-type rag who has been lying for years to her pompous
publisher about the folksy setting for her recipes. She's an ace b.s. artist until
the day Morgan's sailor is pulled from the ocean after 18 days afloat & 6 weeks
recuperation in a Navy hospital. Released the last year of WWII, the film is dusted
with subtle patriotic gestures and holiday nostalgia but never sinks to
sentimentality. Stanwyck is sexy and sassy as always and meets her match in the
hunky Morgan with whom it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she has to play
married to Gardiner's prissy architect who actually has been seeking her hand for
years at his farm in CT, just to fool her boss. S.Z. Sakall adds a great
deal of Hungarian malaprop & double-entendre humor in support as Babs' true source
of culinary talent & Una O'Connor is hilarious as Gardiner's obnoxious Irish
housekeeper.
This movie has been a favorite of mine and is entwined with the Christmas Holidays
for me for two reasons: (1) growing up in the 1960s, everything was space-related
from advertising to television programs and even Santa Claus found himself in
spaceships during that era; and (2) I saw this movie during a Christmas shopping
trip when I was ten years old and it brought back fond memories of my favorite TV
shows when I was even younger ("Supercar", Fireball XL5", and "Stingray",).
Therefore, I am a tad biased when it comes to this movie for personal
reasons. That said, as a long-time student of film, this is mainly a
movie for fans of Gerry Anderson (and Barry Gray; oh, that gorgeous score!) whereas
the casual movie-watcher will be put off by the future-vision-from-the-past (dig
those wild cars, commercial aircraft, clothes, etc.) and the so-called "plot twist"
which will cause some to groan. However, if you can look past the post-"2001: A
Space Odyssey" desire to make a science fiction film with a "far out" story line,
and if you enjoy imaginative special effects, then you will enjoy this gem from an
era when man had just walked on the Moon and people were still looking up at the
stars in wonder and hope for the future rather than looking down at the banal
trappings of the actual 21st Century.
I'm a huge space buff, and at nearly 44, I've just discovered this flick for the
first time. I came at it in a roundabout way from Space 1999, then UFO. I went
hunting for other Anderson creations and found this was their first live-action
work. What a home run! I actually heard about this movie many years ago, but never
knew what it was called, so I'm happy to have found it by accident. These Andersons were nothing short of amazing in their writing, the execution of
the completely believable and realistic-looking models, the quality of acting,
etc. I don't think it looks dated at all. Let me tell you... I'll take
good old models over the fake-looking CGI crap of today ANY TIME! Seriously, most
of the rocket scenes looked pretty real. They had it down to a science! If you
choose to think of what you are looking at as real, it isn't hard to actually
believe it. Also, the amount of detail in set designs, the beautiful
photography, the whole look... man, I wish I could go back to that time! They knew
how to make great movies in the 60's. Personally, I've lost all interest in
Hollywood movies today. Anybody with a budget can do CGI. I hate it! Bring back the
models! Think of all the people that style employed! Anyway, I am ranting. :-) If
you like good sci-fi that's very well-done, you will do yourself a service by
watching this.
I first saw this in the 70s on syndicated TV and admired its production values,
which were high tech for the time. The remastered video is rich and colorful, far
more intense then the pale 35 mm TV prints. This movie deserves more attention: it
paved the way for UFO, Space: 1999 and even Star Wars with its detailed miniatures
and cleverly conceived gadgets. Sure, the story of an alternative anti-matter
planet Earth has been recycled a hundred times since Star Trek, but the beauty of
this film is its self-conscious European flair for design: from the Rolls Royce
space engines to the "Euro Sec" letterhead business paper, JFSS or Dopplegangers as
it was called in Europe is enjoyable for the imaginary vision of Europe in space in
the shadow of the Superpowers. Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's ambitious epic gets a
little tedious when the American astronaut finally realizes that he is on the
doppleganger Earth, and everything is literally downhill after the poetically
graceful shuttle boarding sequence. A mediocre story is helped along by a grand and
lyrical classical score by the late great Barry Gray, the John Williams of Britain.
I have fond memories of watching this visually dazzling film as a child in the late
70s/early 80s on wor-tv (now upn-9) in NY. Though a product of the swinging 60s,
this film has hardly aged. The effects are just as wonderous as 2001, and in some
ways superior (the model work is flawless). With an attractive cast, great color
photography and set design, and an evocative score, JTTFSOTS is a winner!
"Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (aka "Doppelganger") is an entertaining,
Twilight Zone-style sci-fi offering from Gerry and Sylvia Anderson (the team behind
Space: 1999, UFO, Thunderbirds, Fireball XL-5 and others). In the film, Roy Thinnes
(of the "Invaders" TV show) and Ian Hendry star as astronauts sent on a flight to a
planet which shares an exact orbit of the earth, but on the opposite side of the
sun; hence previously hidden from view. A pushy European space flight director
(over-acted by the late Patrick Wymark) gets the flight fast-tracked and after
rigorous training , the astronauts are good to go. Thus begins the best sequences
in the film, the launch, flight and landing on the 'other' earth. Dazzling rocket
miniature work (by Derek Meddings) and a dream-like, elegant spaceflight (somewhat
reminiscent of the best moments of "2001: A Space Odyssey") are easy highlights of
the movie. The landing on the "doppelganger" earth is both exciting and eerie.
After this, the Twilight Zone aspect of the film kicks in; with a plot lifted
almost whole from the classic TZ episode, "The Parallel." That aside, the film is
still solid sci-fi, with some intriguing 'mirror-world' stuff to chew on (backwards
writing and left-handed handshakes, for example). Less successful are the scenes
depicting a mid-21st century earth; where all the men wear turtlenecks and Nehru
jackets and all the women wear mini-skirts. Some of the relationships with women in
the film are very 'non-PC' by today's standards as well. And (in the most
consistent failing of most 20th century sci-fi) the computers, telephones and other
hardware are all big, colorful and clunky (right out of Patrick McGoohan's "The
Prisoner"). No one foresaw the digital microprocessor age! If one can accept these
failings in foresight, the movie is very interesting, with a solid lead performance
by Thinnes as the troubled astronaut. And with a nice, 1960s/early '70s style
nihilistic ending! For fans of retro sci-fi (like myself) this is a "Journey" worth
taking!
'Doppleganger', ( or 'Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun' as it is more commonly
known ) was written ( with input by the late Donald James ) and produced by Gerry
and Sylvia Anderson, best known for their 'Supermarionation' television shows such
as 'Thunderbirds'. The international space agency Eurosec discovers the
existence of a mysterious planet on the other side of the sun, and proposes a
manned flight be sent there. The committee balk at the exhorbitant cost, and shelve
the project. But when a security leak at the agency is discovered, fearing that the
Russians might get there first, the project gets the green light. American astronaut Glenn Ross ( Roy Thinnes ) is teamed with British scientist
John Kane ( Ian Hendry ). After weeks of gruelling training, the Phoenix blasts
off, heading for the unknown. Three weeks later, their ship crashes in
what appears to be a bleak, mountainous landscape. Ross survives, but Kane is badly
injured. A light is seen moving towards them... I will leave the
synopsis here. Until this point, the film has been gripping, with excellent special
effects ( by Derek Meddings ) and music by Anderson's resident composer Barry Gray
( why it has not been issued on C.D. is a mystery ). But when Ross and Kane crash
land, and we discover the secret of the alien world - it is a duplicate of our own,
everyone on it is the same, the only major difference is that things are reversed -
it becomes less interesting, and ends with a shattering anti-climax. I think the
cinema was the wrong place to do this idea, in fact Gerry & Sylvia later did
something similar on their 'Space: 1999' show. Ross risks ( and ultimately loses )
his life in an effort to return to Earth - his Earth. But why? The new Earth is so
similar he might as well not have bothered. Roy Thinnes had recently
done 'The Invaders' television series, and gives a competent performance ( pity
there weren't more scenes like the one where he rows with his wife ). Ian Hendry is
good as 'Kane', but vanishes from the story too soon. Several actors went on to
appear in the Andersons' 'U.F.O.' such as Ed Bishop and George Sewell. Blink and
you will miss Nicholas Courtney ( 'The Brigadier' from 'Dr.Who' in a tiny role ).
But the acting honours go to the late Patrick Wymark as 'Jason Webb', head of
Eurosec. The character is not far removed from 'Sir John Wilder', the one he played
in A.T.V.'s 'The Power Game'. Webb is such a devious character he is marvellous to
watch. Herbert Lom's contribution ( as a spy with a camera hidden in a false eye )
amounts to little more than a cameo. Like I said, the special effects
are marvellous, as are the sets. So the film is worth watching, but do not expect
very much to happen once the action moves to the mirror planet. With a stronger
script, this could have been another 'Planet Of The Apes' or - dare I say it -
'2001: A Space Odyssey'. In Anderson's productions, he made the future
seem like a great place, an adventure playground where science was cool, everyone
had swank cars whose doors opened vertically, sexy women, and absolutely no
suggestion that anything is seriously wrong with the world. We are in the future
now and people are still watching 'Coronation Street' every other night. How
disappointing. If a mirror Earth really exists somewhere, one hopes that is a
better place than this one. If all the women there look like Lynn Loring or Loni
von Friedl, I will be on the next flight!
This is an excellent Anderson production worth comparing with the best episodes of
UFO or SPACE 1999 (first series). Of course it isn't some SFX extravaganza or Star
Wars pseudo-mystic tripe fest, but a subtle movie that has a slow pace, yet it
conveys the creepy, eerie and uncanny atmosphere of the best Anderson productions:
for lovers of 'cerebral' sci-fi. Lynn Loring's voice is ABSOLUTELY AWFUL. SFX are
good for this kind of product and acting is good as well. Two astronauts visit a
planet on the opposite side of the sun but crash land home instead...or do they?
Ah, videophones! Every now and then peddled as the next 'everyone's gadget next
decade' but still to happen 40 years later. The device of Earth's twin planet on
the opposite side of the sun also returns in Gamera tai daiakuju Giron (1969), so
who copied whom?
I saw this movie in the early 70's when I was about 10 yrs. old on TV. It was on
after school, and as I watched, I was so drawn into the whole idea of the two
astronauts going on a mission to another undiscovered planet, that I asked my mom
if I could get the cassette recorder out. She let me. So I wrapped the cord of the
mic around the Channel knob, so the mic was hanging in front of the speaker. This
movie is the first one I ever paid enough attention to - and cared enough about to
record. (Just the audio - there were no VCRs at the time.) The plot will have you
hanging onto every word.. every minute of this film.. The ending will blow your
mind. After watching the Journey to the Far Side of the Sun.. You will Have flash-
backs in your mind about it for a long time. I did replay the audio recording for
many years... and "saw" it over and over in my mind. Then - maybe 15 years later..
when VCR's were common, and they sold tapes in stores.. I always looked for it..
but never found it. But when the Internet came along one day I searched for it and
purchased it in a second. So.. after about 30 years after seeing it for the first
time - I got to see it again. WOW!~~ It was spectacular! Just for reference.. I
must have watched it 50 times since.
One of my favourite films, whenever it is on, although I do admit one time missing
it when it was on Foxtel last year. Despite the age of the film it
doesn't look like that and the story even though it'd been done a thousand times
before still felt entertaining. There were one or two little niggles for me in the
story but I looked past them and just enjoyed the film for what it was. Overall I give it a 7/10
This lesser known film starring Roy Thinnes (From TV's Invaders) is actually what I
consider a lost gem. It was made at a time where the story was more important that
the special effects (though the effect are fairly good for its time). A scientist
theorizes that there is another world in Earth's Orbit directly behind the sun.
Since the sun always blocks it from us we can never see it from Earth. Roy Thinnes
is selected to go on a mission to get to this world. I don't want to tell the rest
of the plot because it will give the rest of the movie away. Let's just say there
are some real surprises. The movie is British and has that good British
flavor of acting that was in such TV series like The Avengers.
At the time that this movie was made most housewives knew exactly who Barbara
Stanwick was parodying.Today only some women over 50 probably remember Gladys
Taber,whose column "Butternut Wisdom" ran in Family Circle Magazine from before
World War II until the 1970's.She lived on Stillmeadow Farm in Conecticut,and her
columns were collected into a number of books,Stillmeadow Seasons, Stillmeadow
Daybook, etc. The lines that Barbara Stanwick recites as she types them for her
column are quite typical of the ones that began a typical Gladys Taber
column.Besides cooking and country living,she got rather nostalgic and
philosophical at times.She talked a lot about her favorite dogs, mostly cocker
spaniels.You might say that Martha Stewart is the Gladys Tabor of today. Christmas is Connecticut may not be any cinematic masterpiece,but it is
pleasant,lighthearted entertainment,soothing to the stressed out mind,and that is
good enough
When I saw that this film was being aired on late night TV I initially decided to
give it a miss. I am glad that I then started watching. Yes the special effects are
the same as Gerry Andersen's puppet shows. Some of the actors/actresses are from
his other productions, he obviously used the same composer later on, as the cheesy
soundtrack could only have come from one of his productions, and the plot is as
slow as a wet weekend. Get by all that and you have a film that shows up intriguing
possibilities. Is there a planet on the far side of the sun? Is it a duplicate
earth? Is everything about it reversed and if so do they speak English in reverse?
I love this dated SF if only for Gerry's wonderful model cars, planes, buildings
and spaceships. Some of them are not so far fetched as they seemed back then. And
did you see the European Space Centre logo? Very reminiscent of the Euro logo of
today. Suspend belief and spend a couple of hours watching this, you will be glad
you did.
Journey to the Far Side of the Sun is about the discovery of a planet on the other
side of the sun which shares the same orbit as earth and therefore has been
undiscovered until a space probe on the far side of the sun photographs it. Of
course two astronauts (Roy Thinnes & Ian Hendry) are sent to explore it but due to
a malfunction they crash & find themselves back on earth only 3 weeks into their
six week journey. Of course they're berated (at least Thinnes is, Hendry is gravely
injured) and grilled and asked why they turned back on their mission but it's
claimed that they didn't. Until Thinnes seems to notice a few very odd things about
being back "home". This is excellent if somewhat talky at times, and the sets and
feel aren't a far cry from "Thunderbirds" territory but will live actors for once.
It's no big "Star Wars" type production but more quiet science fiction that one has
to think about a bit. Well worth seeing and it's criminal that the DVD is out of
print. 8 out of 10.
Gerry Anderson's first live-action foray in the way of a major motion picture that
benefits from incredible model FX work and,a great Barry Gray music score. The
reel-to-reel analog computers, in the far-off year "2069" (I guess Anderson really
wanted a safe date of a 100 years later!) are a hoot to see as are the guru-jacket
fashions, but one could easily accuse 2001 of the same violations, but no one could
have foreseen some things as they turn out. This film was the springboard for the
series UFO the following year, and in fact not only had the same FX people, and
producers but many of the cast were regulars in that show. It always
comes off like an "alternate history" future more than anything else-the "Apollo-
like" rocket used in the lift-off, it always seems like this is really another
planet than earth. Given the "alternate earth" plot, one would assume that was the
feeling they wanted. We end up with an ending that posits more questions than
answers. That because the "other earth" exists every movement, event and thing said
is duplicated as it's happening on both worlds. Because of that given, and the sun
in between, the two versions of the same person (in this case Glenn Ross,
astronaut) can never meet. A complete accident discovered the planet in the first
place when it would have most likely stayed a secret forever. Filmed
mostly in Portugal with FX work in England, it's a must-own for any Gerry Anderson
fan. I have the Image bare bones DVD from a few years ago now out of print, but one
hopes Universal will re-release it with, perhaps extras and even a Gerry Anderson
commentary.
Fans of Gerry Anderson's productions will recognise several actors and vehicles
from UFO (which was made after Doppelgänger) - as well as sound effects from
various Anderson series. Barry Gray's excellent music (mostly unique to this film)
adds to the feeling of familiarity. For these reasons alone, I think any Gerry
Anderson fan would find Doppelgänger worth getting. Judged simply as a
film, it has to be said that Doppelgänger is flawed. It is known that there were
major problems during production, and I suspect this is why there is a time-
consuming plot thread that ends abruptly and appears to have no relevance to the
rest of the story. Presumably time/budget constraints prevented the relevance from
emerging! Distractingly, the special effects range from outstandingly
good - better than any 1960s film that I know of - to disappointingly bad. Nevertheless, even with these flaws, Doppelgänger's main story is well told
and keeps the viewer (or, at least, this viewer) engaged throughout. The ending is
perhaps not what one might expect from Anderson, yet at the same time it is typical
of Anderson, and it is certainly appropriate. To find out what I mean you'll have
to watch it for yourself. :)
Interesting premise; interestingly worked out; the strongest feature of this film
is the emotional tension of the astronaut who knows a truth, but is unable to
convey it to others. Overlook the weaknesses and just enjoy the movie, but be
prepared for a certain level of suspense.
All right, I'll grant you that some of the science in "Doppelganger" (or "Journey
To The Far Side Of The Sun") is kind of dopey.The idea of an entire planet existing
undetected (because we can't see it on the other side of our sun) doesn't hold up
at all - any Astronomy 101 student knows that another planet the size of Earth
would cause gravitational perturbances in the motions of other planets. That's how
astronomers deduced the existence of Pluto, after all, and that's how they find
comets and asteroids and moons on a regular basis. And the idea that a
mirror image Earth somehow evolved in almost perfect parallel to our Earth, down to
English speaking scientists and human counterparts for each human born on our
Earth...that takes things out of 'hard science' fiction and into "Twilight Zone"
territory. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it requires a major suspension
of critical thinking to accept and enjoy. But man, this movie knocked
my socks off as an adolescent. I was still used to fairly cheerful, upbeat science
fiction films when the hero won through in the end - even "2001" could be
interpreted as having an 'upbeat' ending. But in this case: Thinnes
attempted to dock with his orbiting mothership so he could return to his own Earth,
only to be bounced back out of his docking berth (Something about 'the polarities
not being reversed because his 'doppelganger' wasn't doing the same thing.
Apparently Thinnes' 'doppelganger' had decided he was happy in his new home.)
Thinnes' ship started the descent back to the CounterEarth launch site, and I was
certain that he would somehow get the damaged craft to land safely and try again,
armed with the new info that would let him and his backers succeed. He was The Hero
after all, and the Hero always wins through in the end. Instead,
Thinnes couldn't maintain control of the crippled craft, and the ship's subsequent
crash into the launch site was so horrible and devastating that it killed everyone
(except for the chief project leader) and destroyed all records of the project and
Thinnes' existence. Thinnes never got to go home, and he perished uselessly, his
secrets never revealed. Except for the Planet Of the Apes series, I had
never seen such a sad and downbeat ending, and it always stuck in my mind -
especially the ferocious devastation of the crash scene near the beginning of the
move (you knew that spaceship was NEVER going to fly again!) and the one at the
very end. I'd love to see this movie again, and see how well it held up
over the years.
In this film, the astronauts sent to explore a newly-discovered planet must deal
with several dilemmas, and they do so intelligently. The film approaches it's main
plot theme in a unique way, and unfolds it gradually, though it can be guessed
beforehand. The acting is very good, though sometimes stiff, as some
late-60s acting can be. It can also be somewhat wordy and even melodramatic,
especially after the plot theme reveals itself. Visually, it has a scene that
resembles one in the previous year's "2001: A Space Odyssey", and that tends to
date the movie. Some of the actors went on to star in the 1970 TV show "UFO," which
is delightfully campy and worth checking out on DVD. Despite these small
points, the space flight itself is realistic, and considering this was 1969, the
scenes inside the cockpit of the spacecraft also had a realistic look. (Look for
some 1990s/2000s video technology in use, too!) One thing: I suspect a love scene
has been cut, but I can't prove it! It would have been a distraction anyway. Unlike most Sci-Fi films, this film will make you think about the plot, and
that's well worth a look. I'm pleased to have this film in my video library.
This is the question that astronauts Roy Thinnes and Ian Hendry ask themselves when
they discover a parallel world of Earth always hidden on the far side of the sun in
this 1969 cult science fiction melodrama, released here in America as JOURNEY TO
THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN. The plot of the film was devised by British writers Gerry
and Sylvia Anderson, the creators of such TV shows as "UFO", "The Thunderbirds" and
"Space 1999". It is exceedingly weird at times, betraying the influence of "The
Twilight Zone" and even Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The visual
effects work of Derek Meddings, who would also later work on SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE,
holds up surprisingly well under the last three decades of special effects
advancements; and while they are not really on the same exalted level of the
Kubrick film, they are very superb. If you don't anticipate a STAR WARS-type of a
film and can overcome the occasionally trite dialogue, DOPPELGANGER is a good film;
it was good enough for me to rank it a '7' and consider it an undiscovered sci-fi
gem.
I had never seen this movie before it aired on a local cable sci-fi network. It
reminded me of the Irwin Allen TV series of the late 60's (Time Tunnel etc).
Excellent effects (they beat Star Trek 5 done 20 years later, but then that wasn't
very hard to accomplish). I found the script very intriguing and mature
for this type of production. They would have needed a few touch ups to tie some
loose ends on the characters' level, but for a kid movie its surprisingly
interesting (especially the the glimpse at futuristic euro- politics, surprisingly
similar to today's European Union!) The plot is indeed reminiscent of
Twilight Zone in general (as other users have pointed), but in this case it's a
compliment. Great sets, by the way! 7/10
This movie is surprisingly good. The ninja fighting sequences were unbelievable. I
haven't see all Sho Kosugi's films but this is probably the best of those I've
seen. Probably the most impressive fighting sequence was at the beginning when
ninja killed about 20 people, that was one of the most impressive ninja fighting
sequences I've ever seen. Another good fighting sequence was at a cops funeral
where the ninja provide more people to bury. The last fight was also very
impressive. Also I kinda liked the soundtrack of this movie. The story was good
enough for a ninja-movie, actually it was kinda different from other ninja-movies.
So if you are a fan of ninja-movies, you'll probably like this one.
From the perspective of the hectic, contemporary world in which we live, the so
called `good old days' always seem so much more serene and innocent; an idyllic era
gone by of which we have only memories and shadows that linger on the silver
screen, as with `Christmas In Connecticut,' a warm and endearing film directed by
Peter Godfrey. Barbara Stanwyck stars as Elizabeth Lane, a popular `Martha Stewart'
type magazine columnist who writes about life on her beloved farm in Connecticut,
always with the latest recipe at the center of the story. One of her biggest fans
is Alexander Yardley, played by Sidney Greenstreet, the publisher of the magazine
for which she writes. Yardley has never visited her farm, and in response to an
idea expressed to him in a letter from a nurse, Mary (Joyce Compton), he decides to
spend an old fashioned Christmas with Elizabeth, her husband and child and, as a
special guest, a certain Mr. Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor just
recovered from spending fifteen days at sea on a raft after his ship was torpedoed.
Elizabeth of course cannot refuse her boss, but there are problems; not the least
of which is the fact that she has no farm and writes her column from the comfort of
a high-rise in the city. It makes for a precarious situation for her as well as her
editor, Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne), as the one thing Mr. Yardley demands from
his employees is total honesty. What follows is a charming and delightfully
romantic comedy that transports the audience back to a seemingly more simple time
and place, to share a Christmas Past where a warm hearth, good food and kindness
prevail. Barbara Stanwyck absolutely sparkles as Elizabeth, with a smile
and presence warmer than anything the grandest hearth could provide, and totally
convincing as a city girl entirely out of her element on the farm. Morgan also
fares well as the somewhat naive sailor, whose trust in his fellow man is
admirable. Even with the deceptions being played out around him, he's the kind of
guy you know will somehow land on his feet, and in the end it's Elizabeth you
really feel for. One of the true delights of this film, however, is Sidney
Greenstreet. His Yardley has a gruff exterior, but beneath you know without a doubt
that this is a man with a heart as big as Texas. It's a straightforward, honest
portrayal, and it's a joy to watch him work; the most memorable scenes in the movie
belong to him. The supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner (John
Sloan), the terrific Una O'Connor (Norah), Frank Jenks (Sinkewicz) and Dick Elliott
(Judge Crothers). A feel-good movie that plays especially well during the Christmas
Season (though it would work any time of the year), `Christmas In Connecticut' is a
memorable film that never takes itself too seriously, is thoroughly uplifting and
will leave you with a warm spot in your heart and a sense of peace that makes the
world seem like a good place to be. It's a true classic, and one you do not want to
miss. I rate this one 10/10. 
This is probably the only female Ninja movie ever made. It's great as a B film and
the action sequences are a lot of fun to watch. This movie is just so deliciously
80's. You'll never see another film like it. Check it out for some 80's retro fun.
for many and many years, gaijin have visited japan for learning martial arts,
instead of acquiring any knowledge on it, gainjin have been told only nihonjin
could achieve the excelent performance required to show some techniques in a
"public" performance such as a movie... this one special movie, made by
sho kosugi, not only shows all of those techniques and skills, but also teaches
many and many lessons on how to achieve them, and one can verify that by seeing a
LUCINDA DICKEY performing fantastic and unforgettable acting skills in
NINJUTSU... I strongly recommend watching this movie more than thrice,
because three times is not enough to seek out hints and tips given so easily by sho
kosugi to those who really seek knowledge itself, the gnosis...
Wow. I've never seen nor heard of this film. It just came on tv (2:00 am) and I am
in complete awe. Setup: a bunch of rich fat cats are out golfing. One knocks a ball
into the rough. It lands by a NINJA!!!! A tuxedoed man walks over to pick the ball
up. The ninja grabs it. Crushes it in his hand. Man pulls gun. Ninja pulls blowgun.
Ninja blows dart into gun barrel. GUN EXPLODES!!!! This is just the beginning of
the greatness, people. Everyone must see this movie. 10 big ol fat stars from
trusty.
There are few movies that have the massive amount of non stop ninja action as Ninja
III: the Domination. This is a story of love, redemption and revenge, however, this
is mainly a story about flipping out and killing people for no reason at all. If
you've been searching for a movie where a ninja goes absolutely nuts and takes all
kinds of people to their graves just because he's a ninja and he can do it, this is
the movie for you. I can't think of any movies to compare this to, because no movie
is this awesome. Wait, oh, have you ever seen the thing with two heads? There is a
part in that where the titular thing is riding around on a motorcycle and about a
million cop cars are chasing it/them around, but they keep crashing and what not
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CATCH THE THING WITH TWO HEADS!!! Well, that is kind of what
Ninja III is like. I highly recommend this film especially if you like the
following things: Ninjas, swords, Lucinda Dickie from Breakin' and Breakin' 2:
Electric Boogaloo, video games about being a bouncer in a bar, ambiguous and
underdeveloped love stories or "good" ninjas.
This is an action packed film that makes me feel very peaceful and relaxed every
time I see it. The film (short of its conclusion) demonstrates that in the face of
extreme odds, it is still possible to prevail. This film is very
refreshing, and likely to be banned at any moment. Get a copy of it before the
thought police burn every copy they can find. They don't want you to have hope for
the future, or to think you have a chance. On the other hand, should
Political Correctness fail to supress it, this would be an excellent movie to
release on DVD. Such a release could contain interviews with the writer and
director, and related goodies. I'm sure it would sell some copies, and I would be
one of the first to buy it. - Mincka
Excellent plot line makes this movie one of the classic, cult ninja flicks of all
time. The plot being that this woman's soul is possessed by an evil ninja spirit. I
mean to be honest if i could obtain ninja ability through possession I would.
Furthermore, for being in the 80's and such the fact that the ninja aspect was far
greater in this particular decade is evident and despite all that, Ninja 3 The
Domination manages to keep it original from the American Ninja cookie cutter molds
that plagued the 80's for so long. This chick is definitely Michael Dudikoff on
steroids.... I mean the first American ninja was great but let's get real folks it
has nothing on Ninja 3
After seeing this movie, I have no choice but to write a review in the hopes that
there are others like me out there who were blown away by the rocket fueled ninja
action and white hot sexual titillation that is Ninja III: The Domination. We all know that Sho Kosugi rocks. That is a given, but how about Jordan
Bennett's ultra macho interpretation of his character police officer "Billy
Secord"? Bravo Mr. Bennett, bravo. You prove early on, while trying to seduce the
buxom Christie (played to perfection by one Miss Lucinda Dickey of Breakin'
fame)that you are not afraid to take chances on your craft. I particularly enjoyed
how you do not feel the need to step in and attempt to help her as 4 thugs try to
rape her outside her gym. Oh you could have helped sure, but by standing there and
watching you let her know who was boss. Secord will wear the pants in this
relationship. I also enjoyed how Mr. Bennett was not afraid to repeatedly take off
his shirt or wear the wife-beater tank top despite his gorilla like shoulders and
back. Back and shoulder hair are hot and Secord knows it. And How about Lucinda
Dickey? All I can say is "KABOOM" - I see a sex bomb getting ready to explode.
She's got all the right moves as both a temptress and a martial arts whiz. The
chemistry behind Dickey and Bennett is what makes this movie tick. You'd think she
would hate him because he's kind of a cheesy jerk, but no my friends. The animal
magnetism is too strong to resist, and they bond like crazy glue. Sho Kasugi is not
as prominent as you might think, though still a main character, which is fine by me
because all I wanted was more Bennett and Dickey. He does seem to wear a lot of eye
makeup which was nice to see. The special effects? Wow. That is all I can say. I
will not give away the ending but let's just say it will not disappoint. I love
Ninja III: The domination, and can only hope that there is a Ninja 4. I give it a 5
out of 5 throwing stars. disappoint.
This film is the greatest ninja film ever made in my opinion and if you haven't
seen it then its worth watching. I would rate this film a 10/10 if you want to see
more then check out http://uk.geocities.com/ninja3thedomination The opening
sequence where the evil ninja is killing everyone in his way is excellent his
character is the best. He then has to possesses ayoung woman who finds him dying.
She then has to take revenge on the cops that killed him which means there's more
killing and action. But only a ninja can destroy a ninja so she and her boyfriend
who is also one of her targets enlist the help of Yamad(Sho Kosugi) to release the
evil ninjas spirit and destroy him.
I've always been fascinated by ninjistsu, who would know that it will go further
than beyond. In "Ninja III", it's fun creepy and intriguing. A ninja gets shot up
by the police, and uses his spirit for revenge. The victim, a lovely young woman
named Christie(Lucinda Dickey). She falls for the cop who was involved in the
shooting. The love scene where she pours the V8 on her body knocked me out! The
ninja's death gets the attention of another in Japan named Yamada(Sho Kosugi) he
comes to America not only to save Christie, but to put the ninja back to the grave.
Simply because he put out Yamada's left eye with a shuriken(throwing star). The
fight scenes were excellent. I liked the part when the plywood falls on Yamada, and
he splits it with his foot. And when he was caught, he tells the officer Christie
was involved with that everything will be fine. Rule of thumb: Never under estimate
a ninja. He took out the other cops without killing them. And he did his thing
without worry. Of course, Chirstie did her best trying to put the ninja in his
place for using her a tool for revenge. It was a good movie, great for martial arts
buffs. 3 out of 5 stars!
This is a pretty silly film, including what may well be the least erotic come-on
ever to make it to the big screen (the heroine pours V-8 all over herself and
invites the hero to lick it off -- yuck!). And yet it also features the resplendent
Lucinda Dickey in what is far and away her most erotic performance. In those long
ago days, women -- even action heroines -- with real muscles were a rarity, and I
can still remember the way my jaw dropped when Dickey took off her shirt, revealing
the most powerfully built female back and biceps I'd ever seen. Dickey's beauty and
vitality carry the film: she could have been a female Schwarzenegger if anybody had
had the vision to promote her.
I first saw this film about 15 years ago, and I have been enchanted by it ever
since. It is such a feel-good experience, that I could happily watch it at any time
of the year. However, to me, it is the ultimate Christmas movie. The
fact that it is in B&W is irrelevant - although I often wonder what it would be
like in colour. You can just get that warm, glowing feeling watching the Christmas
events unfold. Stanwyck and Morgan are perfect together, and
Greenstreet is the antithesis of his usual character, Sakall is a blustering joy to
watch. It is light relief and certainly does not tax the brain, but
leaves you feeling glad that you saw it. I can't wait for it to become
available on DVD in the UK. I shall certainly be at the front of the queue to buy
it.
As well as being a portrayal of a lesbian love story, FIRE is also a comic satire
of middle-class (?) Indian culture. I find this is a quality which is little
appreciated about the movie. These two genres (i.e. deep meaningful alternative-
love story and comic satire) usually mix together just as well as oil and water do,
but Mehta (somehow) manages to achieve the balance to near perfection. The servant
Jatin's behaviour, the family's treatment of him, the bedridden grandmother's
constant inescapable presence, Ashok's obsession with a swami's teachings: coming
from a culture much like India's, these are things I can immediately identify as
being typical. They have been crying out to be pointed out and ridiculed. While
developing her primary subject matter, Mehta manages to achieve this secondary
theme skillfully. In fact, much of the humour in the film which provides essential
relief from the heavy subjects of taboo lesbian love and gender issues, stem from
this satire of the seemingly ordinary. The film flows from the comic to the serious
with great subtelty. All in all, brilliant use of symbolic devices
(Radha compared to Sita of legend and coming out of Fire unscathed and, therefore
pure; the lifelong desire of the young Radha to see the ocean finally achieved when
she gains freedom). Kudos to Shabana Azmi(Radha), the lighting crew and Deepa
Mehta; their very un-Hollywood-like (and un-Bollywood-like!) talents made this
movie special. One criticism: the first scenes seemed rather disjointed to me in
that they did not flow into each other very well. The verdict: 9 on 10.
Nothing less for a movie with scenes so burned on my mind.
This might be my favorite so bad it's awesome film of all time. like many pre-teen
children of the 80's repeat viewing of revenge of ninja spawned a ninja phase of my
childhood. Man i thought Sho k. was badass back then. Jet Li could wup him with
both legs in a cast! This movie has insane crossovers that include flashdance,the
exorcist and the Lee Van cleef ninja TV show. ugh. but as a friend of mine says
anyone can get a good movie made it takes true genius to make a film that starts
with a ninja surviving 17 shotgun blasts long enough to take over the body of
arobics instructor to get revenge. wow. While previous commentors have metioned the
sword flying out of the closet on the string no one has yet metioned the powerful
love scene. Where the sexy leading man cop takes off his shirt to reveal a mane of
backhair. The fun never ends. Rent this!!!!!!
Sam Firstenberg's "Ninja 3:The Domination" mixes martial arts with "The Exorcist"
like horror.The horror elements thrown on screen are simply laughable,but the film
works as a mindless action/martial arts flick.The fight scenes are well-
choreographed and exciting,and the film is never boring.So forget stupid
dialogue,lame acting and annoying soundtrack-grab some beer and check this one out!
Highly recommended!
Canadian film-maker Ron Switzer delivers a solid, non-stop thrill ride of
relentless horror with the superb 1991 sci-fi film "Science Crazed". A hideous
monster takes revenge on his mother, a police officer and tenants of an apartment
building. Brilliant practical make-up and special effects designs create a truly
terrifying monster, especially when lurking through the atmospheric shadows and
smoke of the gloomy apartment settings. The characters are developed beautifully
with outstanding and surprisingly touching performances from an ensemble cast.
Produced by Donna Switzer, newcomer Ron Switzer also penned the film's face-paced
script, weaving together an engaging roller-coaster ride of twists, turns, and
terror that keeps you guessing until the last frame. Science Crazed will no doubt
leave you haunted long after the shocking conclusion. Highly recommended!
For those who expect documentaries to be objective creatures, let me give you a
little lesson in American film-making. Documentaries rely heavily on
casting. You pick and choose characters you think will enhance the drama and
entertainment value of your film. After you have shot a ton of footage,
you splice it together to make a film with ups and downs, turning points, climaxes,
etc. If you have trouble with existing footage, you either shoot some more that
makes sense, find some stock footage, or be clever with your narration. The allegation that the filmmakers used footage of locales not part of the movie
(favelas next to beautiful beaches) does not detract from the value of the film as
a dramatic piece and the particular image is one that resonates enough to justify
its not-quite-truthful inclusion. At any rate, you use the footage you can. So they
didn't happen to have police violence footage for that particular neighborhood.
Does this mean not include it and just talk about it or maybe put in some cartoon
animation so the audience isn't "duped"? Um, no. As for the hopeful
ending, why not? Yes, Americans made it. Yes, Americans are optimistic bastards.
But why end on a down note? Just because it's set in a foreign country and foreign
films by and large end on a down note? Let foreigners portray the dismal outlook of
life. Let us Americans think there may be a happy ending looming in the
future. There just may be one.
Unlike the previous poster, I liked the celluloid treatment. It looked good, and
made the movie that much more enjoyable to watch. To me, it didn't detract at all
from the power of the documentary's content. In fact, I felt the slickness of the
look allowed me to just lose myself that much more in the content. The previous
poster was fair to liken the style to a Nike commercial; it definitely has that
look. But for my tastes, it worked really well (and I am far from a fan of Nike
commercials). In my opinion, this is how documentary film-making should
be done. I can't wait to see the next installments from these promising filmmakers.
The producer, Matt Mochary, stumbled upon the film's subject, Anderson Sa (leader
of the AfroReggae music movement), when on a Hewlett Foundation trip to Rio de
Janeiro. Mochary was so moved by Sa's story that he called his friend, NYC
filmmaker Jim Zimbalist, who quit his job and joined Mochary in Brazil to work on a
documentary on Sa, Rio's favelas, and the culture of violence. The first
part of the film shows you the culture of violence in Rio's favelas (shantytowns
where the poor live) via footage of police raids and assaults on the residents. The
footage is graphic and shocking. Rising from the negativity of the
favelas is the charismatic Anderson Sa, who overcame a possible career in drug
dealing to start the AfroReggae movement, which combines elements of Afro-Brazilian
culture, Reggae, ska, and other elements into a fast-paced, percussion heavy style
of music which has since spread to other parts of the world. You can't help but be
carried away by the music, especially when you see the local children get involved
in Sa's school, which he founded to keep kids out of drug gangs. The rest of the
film follows Sa's meteoric rise and his positivity changes many of the children's
lives to seek a life beyond drug running. SPOILER: Just when the filmmakers thought
they had wrapped filming, an unbelievable life changing event occurs of which the
resolution has to be seen to be believed. The film then continues and you are
gripped in your seat until the end. This film is a response to "City of
God," and a worthy one at that. The bleak situation portrayed in that movie is
countered by a real example of how favela dwellers can overcome the dire situation
they are in and use their resources to constructive ends. You can't help not liking
and rooting for Anderson Sa to succeed. This film is terrifically shot,
fast-paced, and is quite absorbing. Judging by the overwhelming response of the
audience at last night's SilverDocs screening, the film should get domestic
distribution in the US and the thumping soundtrack should be released as well. Keep
an eye for this superlative documentary--it is excellent!
Scintillating documentary about how a small group of idealistic young men have used
music, art and dance to unify and heal the community of Vigario Geral, one of the
most violent slum neighborhoods in Rio ("favela" means neighborhood in Portuguese),
offering to its young people a positive alternative to the lethal gangster world of
drug traffickers. In their feature film-making debut, Zimbalist and
Mochary have crafted a movie that is breathtaking because it works on so many
different levels. As social document, it gives the facts we need to know to have a
context for understanding the significance of the particular story told here. The
story itself is well developed, with a strong narrative arc, and, for added
measure, it is shot through with keen suspense. There's an arresting, charismatic
central protagonist, Anderson Sa: he's a savvy natural leader, articulate,
courageous, spiritually evolved, a talented performer, a visionary who walks his
talk. There's also plenty of music and dancing to entertain. There are
talking heads mainly Sa and his closest associate, Jose Junior - but they are
presented with imaginative cinematic brilliance. The editing nicely mixes footage
of differing themes, punctuated only occasionally by a few fact-filled still texts.
The pace is as lively as the music. A lot gets accomplished in 78 minutes. Grupo Afro Reggae, the neighborhood social club that Anderson, Junior and a few
others formed in 1993, deploy music and dance as the weapons to go up against the
drug lords and the duplicitous police. They teach percussion skills to any kid who
wants to join a class, along with dance, martial arts, a community newspaper. The
only requirement for kids to belong is no smoking, no drinking, no drugs. There is
a subtle, soft sell spiritual fabric running through the movement, loosely based on
the Hindu God Shiva, the destroyer of old habits. Jeff Zimbalist, who
also was the lead cinematographer and the editor, is a Modern Culture and Media
student at Brown University. He burnished his chops editing feature documentaries
for PBS and others, and he teaches film at the New York Film Academy and elsewhere.
Matt Mochary, like Andrew Jarecki ("Capturing the Friedmans") did a few years ago,
recently came to film from the business world. Zimbalist and Mochary
together won the award for best new filmmakers at the 2005 TribBeCa Film Festival,
and "Favela Rising" was tied for the best film of the year in awards made for 2005
by the International Documentary Association. I could go on for pages about Afro
Reggae, Sa, and this movie. A way better idea is simply for you to go see it! My
grade: A 10/10
For once a story of hope highlighted over the tragic reality our youth face. Favela
Rising draws one into a scary, unsafe and unfair world and shows through beautiful
color and moving music how one man and his dedicated friends choose not to accept
that world and change it through action and art. An entertaining, interesting,
emotional, aesthetically beautiful film. I showed this film to numerous high school
students as well who all live in neighborhoods with poverty and and gun violence
and they were enamored with Anderson, the protagonist. I recommend this film to all
ages over 13 (due to subtitles and some images of death) from all backgrounds.
I'm surprised with the questions and issues this documentary has brought up in the
reviews here, specially because they're indeed interesting questions. Surely, the
ones who could best address it would be the makers of the film themselves.
Nevertheless, I think I can shed some light upon something that I think has been
overlooked, which is, in my opinion, the purpose of the film, what it is about and
what it's trying to convey. What's its message after all? At the risk of pointing
out the very obvious, I'll start saying the filmmakers have an intention. They're
trying to tell a story, extract meaning out of it and get a point across. With this
in mind, we can shoot down many of the criticized points, particularly the ones
involving what people expected in contrast with what the filmmakers were really
trying to show. Causes and consequences of violence? The film is not about that.
It's not "enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences" about the Brazilian favelas' issue?
Well, who wanted to do that? Is AfroReggae this or that and supported by whom? It
doesn't matter in this context. Not enough women in the film for your tastes? It's
not about equality or the feminist cause. Every little detail about Anderson's
life, mother, son, family and all the aspects and the workings of the AfroReggae
movement? Well, don't be so picky because it doesn't matter. There's just so much
length a story can have before it can't become a film anymore. If the authors were
to show everything everyone is expecting, they'd have to make a 6 months TV series
instead. If you are expecting all that, you approach the film the wrong way. The film is actually about two individuals who started a movement. Two
individuals full of ideals. Two individuals who thirst for change. Two individuals
trying to do something about all the wrongdoing going around them. Individuals who
went rock bottom and wanted to get up again. It's all about finding purpose in
life, drawing inspiration from misery, changing the destiny and becoming something
else than what they were destined to be -- criminals and drug dealers for that
matter. It's about achievement and hope and not about the cruel reality of violence
in Rio de Janeiro, though it's an integral part of the film given that's what the
characters are constantly surrounded by. Unexpectedly and not without a reason, the
film ends up centered much more on Anderson's course through difficulties in life.
This is because they were faced with Anderson's accident while they were shooting
the film. I'm not sure about this, but they may have even seriously considered
ending the filming right there, leaving behind all effort spent. But Anderson
wanted to keep going. And so they did, risking to lose in having a film with a bit
of an identity crisis, considering the sudden change of course, but gaining in
showing someone overcoming such a devastating happening. It's very evident for who
watches it that the film begins about AfroReggae and winds up about Anderson. It's
very unique in this sense (the shift of the story line). Maybe their only sin is
not making it evident upfront, which may initially rise expectations that will go
unfulfilled. As for the importance or ordinariness of Anderson, I'd say
not everybody wants to change the whole world, end all violence, feed all the
hungry, be like Mahatma Ghandi, be as known as Mother Teresa or whoever other known
personalities there are. It's much easier to relate to and draw inspiration from
someone who is, such as everybody else in fact, trying to transform his or her own
harsh life, raising problematic kids, coping with permanent injuries or diseases
and even managing to pay the bills by the end of the month. To understand the movie
you have to see that's about leaving behind a past of involvement with drugs and
crime, making up for it, and trying to persuade others not to go down the same
troublesome path. Though you can criticize if the way they chose to do it is
effective and doubt the ideology of the method, you cannot deny their
intentions. Also, the perception that Anderson is special or a chosen
one may have partially something to do with the fact that the filmmakers became
very involved in the lives of the characters they were depicting. As much as
becoming friends with them. There's no way it wouldn't tint the whole movie with a
more favorable light over Anderson. If a dear friend becomes paralyzed in an
accident, it's not just a fact, you make a big deal out of it. And this is not
necessarily bad. It's not much that they treat him like "a chosen one" as much as
they go to great lengths trying to show him as a seed for transformation and source
of inspiration. In conclusion, don't watch this documentary for the
scenes of the reality of poverty and crime it contains, watch it for what it is
much more, an inspirational story. Nike-Ad-like? Seems just damn good
and professionally made to me and doesn't affect or detract from the intentions of
the film. Romanticized? Speculate on its credential as a documentary if you will,
but why not when it's supposed to cause reaction and inspire? Isn't trying to
better people's lives through music and dance -- the essence of what the subjects
are trying to do -- romanticizing the very own reality? Pardon me, but showing just
the plain facts is what reporters do and you can watch it on TV every night. If I wanted to become a filmmaker, I wish my first film would also be this
great.
Favela Rising is a documentary about the slums of Rio, the favelas, specifically
the most violent one, Vigário Geral. According to this film, a lot more kids have
died violently in Rio's favelas over the last decade or so than in Israel/Palestine
during the same period -- a fact astonishing if true, which shows how under-
recognized this social problem is in the rest of the world. This is an important
topic, especially for those who see hope in grassroots efforts to marshal the
neediest and most at risk through a vibrant cultural program. This is a compelling
documentary, if occasionally marred by a somewhat too personality-based version of
events and by grainy digital video and film that sometimes may make you think you
need to have your eyes examined. Drug lords rule in the favelas and gun-
toting teenage boys are the main drug dealers, like in parts of Colombia. Fernando
Meirelles' movie City of God/Cidade de Deus has been accused of celebrating
violence (Cidade de Deus is another of Rio's many favelas). But the early section
of Favela Rising shows that in fact favela boys do celebrate violence and want to
deal drugs where the money and the action are. It's cool to carry a gun there, cool
to work as a drug trafficker: it's fifty times more profitable than the earnings
available by other means. Mochary first discovered the AfroReggae
movement and its leaders Anderson Sá and José Junior while visiting Rio for a
conference and quickly persuaded his friend and mentor Zimbalist to quit his job
and come down to help make a film with his own promise to fund it. Sá's eloquence
and charisma and a startling twist in his life make him the center of the film and
its chief narrator, but like the favelas themselves the film teems with other
people. No doubt about the fact that Sá is a remarkable leader, organizer, and
artist. Vigário Geral is compared to Bosnia: shooting there was very
dangerous. Anderson Sá's friendship and protection and caution and diplomacy in the
shooting enabled the filmmakers to gain access and shoot detailed footage of their
subject matters while (mostly: there were close calls) avoiding any serious
confrontations with drug lords or drug-dealing cops. They also trained boys to use
cameras and left them there on trips home. That resulted in 10% of the footage,
including rare shots of violent incidents including police beatings. It's hard for
an outsider to keep track of police massacres in Rio. There was one in the early
1990's that looms over the story and inspired Sá, who ended his own early
involvement in drug trafficking to lead his cultural movement. The cops are all
over the drug trade and if anybody doesn't like that the ill trained police
paramilitaries come in (often wearing black ski masks) and shoot up a neighborhood,
killing a lot of innocents. This is pretty much the picture we get in
Meirelles' City of God, except that this time Sá, Junior, and the other guys come
in, starting in Vigário Geral but spreading out eventually to a number of other
favelas to give percussion classes that attract dozens of youth -- girls as well as
boys. Their AfroReggae (Grupo Cultural AfroReggae or GCAR) program, formed in 1993,
is a new alternative way of life for young black men in the Rio ghettos. It leads
them to leave behind smoking, alcohol, and drugs (that's the rule) to explode into
rap, song, percussion, and gymnastics in expressive, galvanic performances.
Eventually the best of the performers led by Sá wind up appearing before big local
audiences with local producers, and their Banda AfroReggae has an international
recording contract. Other centers and groups have been created by or
through the GCAR over the years in Vigário Geral and other favelas to seek the
betterment of youth by providing training and staging performances of music,
capoeira, theater, hiphop and dance at GCAR centers. The performance
arts aren't everything, just the focal point. GCAR is also a movement for broader
social change Gathering public awareness through such performances, the centers
also provide training in information (newspaper, radio, Internet, e-mail links),
hygiene and sex education, to seek to bridge gaps between rich and poor, black and
white, and to offer workshops in audio-visual work, including production of
documentaries. The program is currently active in four other favelas. There are many scenes of favela street and home life in Favela Rising and they
look very much like the images in City of God with the important difference that
the focus and outcome are very, very much more positive. Not that it isn't an
uphill battle. And the corruption of the police, the inequities of the social
system, and the indifference of the general population of Brazil are not directly
addressed by any of this. But there's a scene where Sá talks to some young kids in
another favela, cynical boys not enthusiastic about AfroReggae and determined to
work in the drug trade as Sá himself did as a boy. Sá doesn't seem to be convincing
any of them despite pointing out that traffickers don't make it to the age of
fifty. But we learn that the most negative boy in this group, Richard Morales,
joined the movement five months later. There's also the account of a freak accident
that disabled Sá, but with a positive outcome. It would be great if the
images were sharper and clearer and if the story were edited down a little, but
this is vibrant, inspiring material and represents committed, risk-taking
documentary film-making and it's nice that Favela Rising has been included in seven
film festivals and won a number of awards, including Best New Documentary Filmmaker
at the Tribeca Film Festival. It's currently being shown at the Institute of
Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London. However, a wide art house audience in the US
seems somewhat unlikely. Included in the SFIFF 2006.
This Christmas gift arrived courtesy of TCM. We had never seen the film, even
though we have seen most of the films of Barbara Stanwyck. This comedy made us
laugh so much, that at times, we had to restrain ourselves, in order to hear the
dialog. This is a movie that should be seen by people suffering from
stressful situations, especially around Christmas. It would certainly lift one's
spirits by just letting go. The movie would make a perfect gift in the form of a
DVD, or a VHS tape. "Christmas in Connecticut" was directed with great
panache by Peter Godfrey, based on a story by Aileen Hamilton. The best
thing in the movie is the felicitous pairing of two of the most popular stars of
that era: Barbara Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan. Barbara Stanwyck always played strong
willed women, obviously, this was a change of pace for her. In this film, as well
as "Lady Eve", Ms. Stanwyck displays a knack for comedy. She and Mr. Morgan, who
played in a lot of musical comedies, make a winning combination. There
are no weak performances in the film. Sydney Greenstreet, an actor notorious for
playing 'heavies', is a delight to watch as the rich, and fat, Alexander Yardley,
the man who owned a media empire and who knew a good thing when he saw it. Reginald
Gardiner, an accomplished English actor, adds luster to the stellar cast behind the
two principals. S. Z. Sakall, is another source of continuous mirth; he
plays the Hungarian chef Felix,who has a hard time with his own version of the
English language. Also, Una O'Connor makes a perfect Norah, the housekeeper in the
Sloan perfect Connecticut farm. In reading other comments in this forum,
it's sad to learn that the glorious black and white cinematography is not
appreciated by some people. After all, color was not widely used in the 40s, and
most of the classic movies have to be seen in its original format because, what
would be accomplished in 'coloring' them? This film should be a
requirement for anyone looking to spend almost two hours of uninterrupted fun at
Christmas time because total merriment is assured. Watch it with an open mind and
heart an maybe you'd like to see "Christmas in Connecticut" every year.
I actually found out about Favela Rising via the IMDb website. I have a particular
interest in Afro-Brazilian culture and films. Favela Rising is one of those gems
that gives a new meaning to human transformation. Beautifully documented and filmed
by Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary its the story Anderson Sa, a former Rio De
Janeiro drug trafficker who after the deaths of family members and friends becomes
a Christ-like, Malcolm X, and Ghandi all rolled into one. Sa formed AfroReggae, a
grassroots cultural movement that uses Afro-Brazilian hiphop, capoeira(Afro-
Brazilian Martial Arts)drumming, and other artforms to transform the hopeless and
most times angry youth into vibrant, viable, caring community loving
individuals. A few years ago I remember going to a screening of City Of
God (Cidade De Deus) and walked out of the theatre completely numb. The images were
grim yet stunning and you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. I remember how
hopeless some situations were in the Favelas and how decadent the society was due
to the governments neglect. How drug trafficking was a way of life, how indifferent
the citizens of the slums were because death was an every day occurrence. Like City
Of God Anderson Sa talks about how the people of the favelas were also
desensitized. He talks about the police corruption, and how the communities were so
immobilized by drugs and gangs that you couldn't visit family members in other
Favelas you had to meet in a neutral location. Unlike City of God Anderson Sa's
grassroots movement AfroReggae provides solutions to the anger, the
hopelessness. There was one part in the documentary where Anderson, in
the spirit of a preacher approached some youth and asked them to join AfroReggae.
These jaded youth were so scarred by everyday survival and violence. Their role
models were drug dealers and this is what they aspired to be. Anderson told then
that drug dealers don't live very long. There was reluctance of course but five
months later he was able to get some of the youth to join AfroReggae. The visuals in Favela Rising are beyond amazing. Its clear to me that Jeff
Zimbalist and Matt Mochary are not only great story tellers but visual artist as
well. This is a must see documentary! There are some really magical and
transforming moments in this documentary. I don't want to spoil them for you. I
want you see it for yourself. Please tell your friends, academics, youth
counselors, family members about this wonderful film. It will make you care about
the world and our children. I would give it eleven stars!
I just love this movie and I have my TV programed to record it when it comes on
again on Nov. 2nd. It is a really nice love story with a twist. The song that is
played at the end of the movie is one you would not think would be a big hit but it
is a song that stays in your head and I am now trying to find that song so I can
hear it and play it. I really have no style of the shows I see or the songs I like
to hear and there for makes me pretty open to seeing things new with an open mind.
I would like to say there is some parts in this movie that is not meant for the
whole family to watch. This movie does show skin. It is kinda like a lifetime movie
for women, about women. I say watch the movie and you may just like it as much as I
did.
Although this was a low budget film and clearly last minute, it holds a certain
charm that is difficult to pinpoint. I tend to believe it is the scriptwriter-
Grant Morris (see Dead Dog), who, despite the warped plot line injected a fantastic
slice of humour, sorely missing in many of today's box office hits. Definitely a
must see for a Sunday afternoon laughfest. Speaking as a true single girl, and very
sceptical this film did not inspire me particularly, but did ignite a small flame
of hope for a lovelife. Not my lovelife, so much as my slightly crazy neighbour's
lovelife who lets her hamster sleep in her bed with her. She may find someone.
Just as Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is about to get a break in his professional
life his frustrated wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) finally gets up the courage to leave
him, leaving Ted to care for their five year old son (Justin Henry). Being a single
parent proves to be quite the chore for Ted, and he suffers professionally but also
learns there's much more to life than a career as he continues to bond with, and
really get to know, his own son. But then Joanna returns and intends to get her son
back, which leads to a cruel custody trial. Kramer vs. Kramer is a
superbly well written and magnificently acted human drama that will only leave the
most cold-hearted a viewer untouched. Hoffman's growing relationship with his son
is so well portrayed and the film never takes an easy way out. It always feels very
real and thanks to the film's low-key approach it makes even more of an impact and
can easily work upon multiple viewings, the film's dramatic impact does not
lessen. Easily recommended; 10 out of 10.
What can I say about Kramer vs. Kramer? On the surface it's rather simple but
underneath it deals with emotions greater than life itself. It delivers many
fantastic moments, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry. You sympathize with the
characters and you care about them. Many films fail at this, Kramer vs. Kramer is a
success. I think everyone would agree the acting is superb. Once you
watch Kramer vs. Kramer, for some time the acting in most other films starts to
feel plastic and unemotional. The actors seem to get along well with their roles
and the characters really live on the screen. There's some beautiful chemistry
between them. I think the best performance in the film comes from the young Justin
Henry. He's different from any other child actor I've ever seen. He's amazingly
natural. Also, there's some kind of neurotic beauty in Meryl Streep. And
Dustin Hoffman delivers one of the best performances of his career! The story is
very well written. It's simple but complicated at the same time. The concept is the
simple part, the feelings associated is the complicated part of it. If
you haven't seen this film yet, you're definitely missing out! See it now!
Inexplicably, I watched this movie for the very first time just a couple of days
ago, and understood from the very beginning what all the fuss is about. This movie
held my attention from beginning to end, and ran me through the whole range of
emotions (and might have helped me discover a few I never knew about.) Dustin Hoffman absolutely shines as Ted Kramer. He is absolutely convincing as a
man having to juggle at least three different challenges in life: jilted husband,
workaholic ad executive and loving father. Meryl Streep as Joanna Kramer was less
central to the movie simply because Joanna was absent for a good part of it, but
when she was on screen she gave Hoffman a run for his money. The true standout,
though, (in my opinion) had to be young Justin Henry as Billy Kramer. Children are
always the innocent victim in a marital breakdown, and Justin seemed absolutely
natural and completely believable in this role as he deals with the conflicting
emotions around his mother and his adjustment to life with Dad, only then to have
the confusion around why he should have to leave his Dad when it was his Mom who
walked out on him. Young Justin didn't seem to miss a beat in this very difficult
role. All in all, this is an excellent, Oscar-worthy movie whose only
weak point was what I thought to be a truly disappointing decision to go for the
sappy and happy ending, which was totally unrealistic considering the destructive
custody battle Ted and Joanna had gone through. But there's not much else to
complain about here. 9/10
The Academy Award winning 'Kramer vs. Kramer' follows a snazzy businessman Ted
Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) and his divorce with his bored wife (Meryl Streep). One day
Ted's wife leaves him and their child in search for a better life, forcing Ted to
become closer to his son (Justin Henry). The two bond and become very close (but
only after some friction), and just as everything is going perfect Ted's wife comes
back to town and wants sole custody of their son. Ted then goes on a mission not to
let his son get taken away from him, and fights his wife in court. Dustin Hoffman
gives a tremendous performance along with Meryl Streep, and young Justin Henry is
impressive. It's a sad emotional roller-coaster of a movie, but it's a very well-
made and inspiring film. The film took the Oscar for Best Picture at the 1979
Academy Awards, along with Best Actor for Hoffman and Best Supporting Actress for
Streep. If you don't mind a tearjerker, 'Kramer vs. Kramer' is a great film to
watch. Grade: B+
KRAMER VS KRAMER won five Oscars, including Best Picture of 1979. This intense and
deeply moving family drama follows an advertising executive whose life is turned
upside down when his wife of eight years, walks out on him, leaving him to care for
his son and build a relationship with him he never had. Robert Benton's incisive
screenplay presents us flawed, but real human beings with hearts, souls, and
brains. For instance, in the scene where Joanna announces to Ted she's leaving him,
she doesn't just storm out the door...she gives him the keys, her credit cards, the
dry cleaning ticket, tells him which bills have been paid, and informs him she has
withdrawn from their bank account the same amount of money she had when they were
married, no more. This decision to leave was not a whim...it was thought about and
Joanna felt, with no other option than to leave, if she was leaving she was going
to do it properly...and with no specific plan in mind, she did not think it right
to take Billy. Dustin Hoffman won an Oscar for his Ted Kramer, a man so obsessed
with bringing home the bacon, he had no clue that his life at home was crumbling
into pieces. Meryl Streep also won an Oscar playing Joanna, the unhappy wife who we
feel sympathy for in the beginning of the film but that all changes when she
returns for her son. Hoffman is at the top of his form here. I always tear up
during the scene where he tries to explain to Billy (Justin Henry, Oscar nominee)
why his mom left and he does it all in a stage whisper or when he meets Joanna upon
her return and slams her drink into a wall (a Hoffman moment not in the script that
Streep was not told about in order to get a natural reaction). Justin Henry hits
all the right notes as Billy, the confused little boy who doesn't know why his mom
is gone and doesn't know how to communicate with his father. Jane Alexander also
got an Oscar nod as Ted and Joanna's neighbor, Margaret, who has switched
allegiances by the film's conclusion. This is an intense family drama but there are
laughs to be had here too...Billy and the chocolate chip ice cream...Billy pouting
because Ted is late picking him for a party...Billy catching his dad's one night
stand (JoBeth Williams) on her way to the bathroom stark naked, but it's the
moments of human drama you remember...Ted running through Manhattan with Billy in
his arms to get to the emergency room after BIlly falls off the jungle gym...Ted
getting fired right before beginning his custody battle and instead of making a
scene, he tells the guy in a whisper..."Shame on you." And of course, the finale
where Joanna tells Ted she's not taking Billy, which I found a little hard to
swallow. Why would she go to all that trouble of suing for custody and then just
change her mind? But this is a small quibble regarding a wonderful movie,
masterfully directed by Robert Benton and flawlessly performed by a top-notch cast.
A must-see.
This is a phenomenal movie. Truly one of the best movies I have ever watched. I am
a serious critic and it takes much to stir me, but this movie had all the right
combinations for "stirring". The passion of the actors,without the overacting, the
aching for all the characters involved, the serious and subtle truths about
marriage and divorce, all make this a must see movie, despite the fact that it is
1970s. This is definitely not an "old movie", but a classic/vintage movie. I hope
you engage with it as I did when you consider how volatile relationships of all
kinds can be, when you also consider how deep pain associated with love can be and
how the hardest decisions to make will always be the most painful, but once they
are made the pain will subside, but only gradually. This movie certainly
demonstrates that the most volatile relationships are not necessarily weak
relationships and that leaving certainly is not synonymous with lost/lack of love.
The 'crafting' of this movie certainly emanates from a place deep within someone's
heart and mind.
I have seen this film on 3 different occasions.On the first occasion,I was bowled
over by this film.It appeared as a very kind film to me.I hated this film as a
sentimental garbage on my second viewing.However my third viewing reasserted my
belief that it is a good film.There is a lot of emotional power in this film
especially scenes of emotional confrontation between Mr Kramer and Madam
Kramer.There are some scenes in which Meryl Streep appears a cruel person despite
the fact that she is a beauty in real life.Dustin Hoffman appears as a lost hero
unable to grapple with the recent task of his child's custody.There was even a
controversy on the sets of this film.According to the master cameraman Nestor
Almendros there was a shot in which he just escaped getting hurt as the character
of Mr.Kramer,in order to show the intensity of his anger,decides to break a glass
hard.Luckily nothing happened to Nestor.Kramer versus Kramer shows the destruction
of a family structure.It also tells how family must be maintained if there are kids
involved.
First, I loved the documentary. It represents a new school history/theory where a
subject can reflect a wide range of social and historical issues. I'll
get the camera and dogs out of the way first. I hate the Blair Witch quality of the
camera, but also understand the advantage of such a casual approach. In fact, I
agree with the other reviewer that it gives us unprecedented access. Dogs: Warning, I have a doctoral degree in literature which I do NOT use as a
profession, so some of my training may seep in: The dogs are a beautiful metaphor
for the complex relationship of human's great endeavors and our need to find the
labor to achieve them. The dogs might reflect their owners, as one reviewer
suggested. But they also serve as a stand-in for the workers we see in the film.
While this might hint at the Marxist problem raised by one reviewer, I think it
also shows how difficult it is to globalize labor issues. No Mondovi's in Italy may
not translate as well elsewhere. (Yikes! I am a Marxist at heart and hate to hear
my cynical resignation hold sway!) It is a remarkable bait and switch. The dogs are
family, the workers are family. But, in the end, the dogs are the workers (the last
scene with the poor farmer). While you may disagree with the politics, the artistry
of the analogy, coupled with the more overt politics of the film, are wonderful. Had only Faulkner (I am from Alabama) had the power of film beyond the
Hollywood market, what interesting tales would have been told.
This is probably the best cinematic depiction of life in a Manhattan ad agency: the
pressure to perform; client and agency demands; the parties; the creativity; the
money; the cool surface with powerful corporate undercurrents. Toss in
parenthood for Dustin Hoffman. The movie is textured and deep. It
follows his internal relationship as he tries to understand and live with what's
going on; his relationship with Meryl Streep (and her friend, who becomes his
friend), and his the relationship with his son. While Meryl Streep was
great, did she set the record for least screen time to win an Oscar? She sure can
deliver when she is on, though.
Moving beyond words is this heart breaking story of a divorce which results in a
tragic custody battle over a seven year old boy. One of "Kramer v.
Kramer's" great strengths is its screenwriter director Robert Benton, who has
marvellously adapted Avery Corman's novel to the big screen. He keeps things
beautifully simple and most realistic, while delivering all the drama straight from
the heart. His talent for telling emotional tales like this was to prove itself
again with "Places in the Heart", where he showed, as in "Kramer v. Kramer", that
he has a natural ability for working with children. The picture's other
strong point is the splendid acting which deservedly received four of the film's
nine Academy Award nominations, two of them walking away winners. One of those was
Dustin Hoffman (Best Actor), who is superb as frustrated business man Ted Kramer, a
man who has forgotten that his wife is a person. As said wife Joanne, Meryl Streep
claimed the supporting actress Oscar for a strong, sensitive portrayal of a woman
who had lost herself in eight years of marriage. Also nominated was Jane Alexander
for her fantastic turn as the Kramer's good friend Margaret. Final word in the
acting stakes must go to young Justin Henry, whose incredibly moving performance
will find you choking back tears again and again, and a thoroughly deserved Oscar
nomination came his way. Brilliant also is Nestor Almendros'
cinematography and Jerry Greenberg's timely editing, while musically Henry
Purcell's classical piece is used to effect. Truly this is a touching
story of how a father and son come to depend on each other when their wife and
mother leaves. They grow together, come to know each other and form an entirely new
and wonderful relationship. Ted finds himself with new responsibilities and a new
outlook on life, and slowly comes to realise why Joanne had to go. Certainly if nothing else, "Kramer v. Kramer" demonstrates that nobody wins when
it comes to a custody battle over a young child, especially not the child
himself. Saturday, June 10, 1995 - T.V. Strong drama from
Avery Corman's novel about the heartache of a custody battle between estranged
parents who both feel they have the child's best interests at heart. Aside from a
superb screenplay and amazingly controlled direction, both from Robert Benton, it's
the superlative cast that make this picture such a winner. Hoffman is
brilliant as Ted Kramer, the man torn between his toppling career and the son whom
he desperately wants to keep. Excellent too is Streep as the woman lost in eight
years of marriage who had to get out before she faded to nothing as a person. In
support of these two is a very strong Jane Alexander as mutual friend Margaret, an
outstanding Justin Henry as the boy caught in the middle, and a top cast of
extras. This highly emotional, heart rending drama more than deserved
it's 1979 Academy Awards for best film, best actor (Hoffman) and best supporting
actress (Streep). Wednesday, February 28, 1996 - T.V.
Ever since `Midnight Cowboy' I have been on the lookout for films with Dustin
Hoffman and have mostly not been disappointed. Ever since `Kramer vs Kramer' I have
been on the lookout for films with Meryl Streep and have mostly not been
disappointed. She gave a superb performance, really one of her best, in `Sophie's
Decision' and I lapped her up in Òut of Africa'. That these two actors came
together over 20 years ago for `Kramer vs Kramer' was definitely a very good idea:
the result is an excellent character drama with a theme which is still very
relevant in today's society. On divorcing everyone has a pretty bad
time, though the kids seem to suffer most..Beautifully handled by Robert Benton
in some original directing presenting some memorable scenes: even the passageway
takes on character and should be included in the cast! And as for the breakfast
scene with Billy (Justin Henry), just simply magnificent. Just how do you get an
eight-year-old to act? Benton managed it, and of course with Hoffman there seemed
to be good electricity: the result is certainly engaging, endearing, and
convincing. Justin Henry's performance must rank among the best 5 or 6 kids'
performances of all time. The best thing, once again, was the naturalness, there
was no going over the top, so frequent these days. This film came up
again on the small screen the other night, though I have had it in my video
collection for years: it is still worth watching and paying attention to
everything. Around 7½ out of 10.
Life was going great for New York City advertising artist Ted Kramer. He had a
great job and a loving wife. No, actually, his wife wasn't so loving, for when Ted
returned home late from work that night his wife, Joanna, had a suit case packed
and was heading out the door. He tried to stop her, but she just got into the
elevator and out of Ted's life. Well, now in addition to his job he's now got to
mind the house as well as their 6-year-old son, Billy; Ted assured his boss that
his wife's leaving would not affect his job performance in any way. It did however
affect his performance as a father. He blew up when Billy spilled punch on his
client artwork! Well, some time later Ted and Billy receive a letter from Joanna,
and it was obvious from her letter that she wasn't coming back. Ted was distraught.
Well, he was late coming home from work on Billy's birthday, which made Billy sore
at him. Ted was late to work one day and his boss yelled at him because
he had missed a very important client meeting. When he got home, he yelled at Billy
for sneaking ice cream during dinner. Then later he truthfully told Billy that the
break-up between he and Joanna may have been his fault, not Billy's; Ted invited a
good friend, Phyllis Bernard over that night, and well, Billy got his first look at
a naked woman. When Ted took Billy to the park the following day, he fell off the
jungle gym and landed face-first onto his toy plane. Ted literally ran him to the
hospital where they had to administer stitches. After that, life began taking a
downward spiral for Ted. Then one day out of the blue he received a phone call from
none other than Joanna! They met in a corner café. At first they have a pleasant
conversation but then Joanna informs him that she has returned to collect her son
and take him with her. Ted would have none of it and stormed out. Well life got
even worse for Ted when his boss, Jim O'Connor, took him out to lunch and abruptly
fired him. Not only that but Joanna was choosing to sue for custody of Billy, and
without a job, Ted didn't stand a chance in hell for winning. He hired himself a
lawyer, John Shaunessy, who charged a pretty penny: $15,000 exact change. And
that's IF they win. Ted was also able to find a new job. It was
actually a step down from what he used to do with a considerable cut in salary but
he accepted with great determination. Finally the court date, January 9, 1980,
arrived. Judge Atkins presiding. Joanna took the stand and Shaunessy proceeded to
question her about why she left Ted and about her other relationships and how they
were failures. The next day, Ted took the stand and Joanna's lawyer really grilled
him like a cheeseburger. Ted's good friend Margaret took the stand as well and she
really didn't help matters. Well, the judge took some time to think it over and
sure enough, one day Shaunessy informs Ted that he lost. Joanna got sole custody of
Billy. How typical! Always ruling in favor of the mother. Well, Ted and Billy were
just devastated about parting ways. They had a tearful goodbye when suddenly Joanna
stopped by. She and Ted have a little talk and well, rather than just give away the
ending, let me assure everybody that everything turns out alright for everybody! This was a very good movie. Dustin Hoffman was very good. He earned that
Academy Award. I've also seen him in Hook, Meet the Fockers and Rain Man, which he
also won an Oscar for. Meryl Streep was good. She also got an Oscar. Justin Henry
was good too, so where was his nomination? I guess the Academy had a rule against
giving Oscars to children, but the rule was lifted when Haley Joel Osment came
along. This movie has great drama, light comedy, and is very subtle. It does a good
job of holding your attention. I was watching Rain Man on TCM the other night then
this came on after and I just couldn't help but watch. And that's what you should
do. If you like Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep or movies of this genre, then I
recommend Kramer vs. Kramer! A gripping film about the pangs of two divorced
parents fighting over their child. I liked Ted's little speech about ruling in
favor of mothers all the time. What was it about sex that makes a good parents?
Actually, that's how they have the child. But seriously, he's right. Why always
rule in favor of the mother because she's a woman? Also in the cast, George Coe,
Howard Duff, who passed away in 1990, and Howland Chamberlain who passed away in
1984. Watch for an up-and-coming JoBeth Williams in the nudity in the hallway
scene. Anyway, see Kramer vs. Kramer today!!! Good movie!! -
Good drama movie about a child custody case with great performances by all the
actors.A good example of what an excellent script can do to propel a simple story
to a much higher quality.The screenplay was just average though and this is what
kept the movie from the list of the all time best dramas.Still,the great acting
makes this movie a good one to see if you are a fan of court dramas or a big fan of
the lead actors.The movie really should have been a tad longer though for more
excellence but that would really be nitpicking......
The child actor certainly deserves a lot of credit. It was a pretty weak field for
Best Picture that year. I think "Apocalypse Now" should have taken it, but the
Academy probably felt it was too violent and strange, plus Vietnam was still too
recent. Meryl Streep was tremendous, as always, playing a very unlikeable
character. I don't usually compliment directors, but I really liked that bit with
the elevator doors. Grade: B
I remember going to drive inn with my parent and sister. I was in grade 5, and
still a kid, and the drive closed down 4 years later, but the film still lingers in
my memory. An adult movie, which a kid finds entertaining. That is a mark of
excellence. Hoffman is one of hollywoods better actors, and this film proves it. I
like the Billy put down the ice cream scene, and I remember the SCTV version in
there film I factory myself. Remember Joe Flairty crying. Please email me if you
like the SCTV skit. Not a bad film at all, it is a story about a father, and his
son. Touching and intertaining, I love the part where Hoffman talks about Killroy,
and how the streets change. Worth a second watch. 7/10
If you asked me to pick the best acted movies ever made, this movie would be on a
short list along with 1951's Streetcar Named Desire. I imagine i'll discover some
others that qualify, but Kramer vs Kramer is an outstanding exercise in naturalism.
So its a very satisfying experience on that level: just watching the marvelous,
probing performances of Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep and the child Justin Henry in
particular. One of the best child performances ever. But I also find it
very satisfying to watch, because its such a thoroughly involving story - it always
makes me forget my own problems. It has such excellent narrative drive. Once you
stick Kramer vs Kramer on, and Alice Kramer leaves Ted to juggle work and their
young son, telling him nothing more than she has to discover herself - you keep
watching to know that everything turns out okay for them. And even once you know
how things do turn out, each moment of the ride just rings so brilliantly true that
its a joy to watch it happen again and again. Make no mistake - Kramer
vs Kramer is not light entertainment: its a very realistic portrayal of the effects
of divorce on everyone involved. 10/10. For one of the best
scripts (born out of conversations between Benton and Hoffman, who was going
through a divorce at the time) ever written, executed and performed beautifully and
faultlessly. Not to mention what a great, involving story it is. Put simply, a
perfect film.
I thought this film was quite good and quite entertaining for a film heavy on
emotion. I agree with what another user wrote about the script being sympathetic to
the three main characters. I think that this is what what made the film good. It
didn't villainies either Mr. or Mrs. Kramer and it was refreshing, I think, to see
two people essentially work the issue out on their own and eventually do the best
thing for Billy. And, although it was a little strange, I actually liked the music
in this film as well. For some reason the music seemed appropriate for the journey
that the three main characters embarked upon. This movie flowed quite well and
didn't doodle, like some emotionally heavy films tend to do. It dealt with a
serious situation but didn't take itself too seriously. It simply told the story in
a straight forward way and it worked quite well.
Normally, movies stay out of the realm of "domestic drama," and for good reason:
who wants to intentionally seek entertainment from a story about what they or those
close to them have to deal with in real life? Divorce hurts an incredible
percentage of American families of all classes and custody battles are ugly and
necessary parts of it. That's not escapism -- the number one reason the average
person turns to movies -- that's sad reality. Normally, divorce or
custody is simply part of a greater story and affects the way we understand it or
relate to its characters. "Kramer vs. Kramer" focuses on it and asks us to
understand why we do it and why that makes it so troubling. That's a challenge for
both this film and its audience: turn something so real into something that can
capture our attention and then make us not feel spiteful as the mirror is held up
to our face. Writer/director Robert Benton definitely achieves both and in
impressive fashion in adapting this novel by Avery Corman. The story, as
one would expect, is quite simple: Big business advertising man Ted Kramer (Dustin
Hoffman) comes home to find his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) is leaving him and their
7-year-old son Billy (Justin Henry). Ted then must quickly learn to be an active
father in the boys' life and as soon as he does, Joanna brings a custody suit upon
him. To make an Oscar-winning drama about something so generic and
particularly dialogue- heavy first takes tremendous acting talent. You don't get
much better than Hoffman and Streep. Hoffman is in his prime in this role: his
first Oscar win after three other notable nominations. He creates a thorough
character, one whose self-centered and quick-tempered ways clearly change as he
learns to be a better father and the sole care-giver. Streep wins her first Oscar
in only the second major role of her career as a woman who doesn't get much screen
time but must communicate both inner torment at her decision to leave as well as
renewed sense of identity when she returns to take custody. Streep does so
effortlessly. The young boy, Justin Henry, who at his age was the youngest
competitive category nominee in Academy Awards history, plays the embodiment of all
7-year-old children exceptionally well. Benton's writing and direction
takes these performances to the level where we see deeper into this family's
troubles than we do our own and thus reconsider our thoughts about love and raising
a family. Benton's previous notable credits ("Bonnie & Clyde" and "Superman")
wouldn't indicate a strong command of family drama, but the man can flat out write.
Numerous scenes give us strong visuals that show us much more than the typical
family scenarios they depict. The first morning that Joanna is gone and Ted make's
Billy french toast is a classic that perfectly demonstrates all the talent going
into this movie in a scene that happens in Americans' kitchens every morning. You'll rarely see a story as straightforward as "Kramer vs. Kramer" done
better. There aren't any surprises at the end or twists and turns that will keep us
desperately glued to the screen. The film then has to rely on its talents and they
are all sure-fire, delivering a new understanding of a subject that's so familiar.
Our reviewer from Toronto told you what you need to know about this film (except
note that it needs editing-the hand held technique gets really old, really fast). I
saw this film last night in Menerbes, France-we are in the Luberon Valley, which is
covered with vineyards and of course wine makers. They were all there in the Salle
de Polyvalente for the showing-crammed in. Polite, patient, genial. Although my
French is testy, I got the gist of the film but noted that the audience loved the
"old" terror growers interviewed-esp. the one from a communist village in
Languedoc. He got a lot of laughs. This is unusual in France-laughing aloud. There
is no question which side of the terror-globalization war they are on! SM
Certainly when I saw this movie at HBO, I was bit erratic in following the plot,
but it catches my attention when seeing Dustin Hoffman in it. Honestly I'm not
enthralled watching old movies, but then in the long run it changes my point of
view. Seeing this stirring film made me experience once again couching at my seat
not noticing my tears suddenly roll down my cheek, and then after, let loose a
heavy sigh in realizing the impact of what I've just witness. Kramer vs Kramer was
indeed one of the best classical drama movies I've witnessed for a long time that
even I, myself couldn't imagine how it touched me. The story was strongly
emotional, but is not saturated with such. The characters weren't unrealistic for
their roles; they possess qualities that make viewers like them whatever position
they have in the film, like the role of Meryl Streep, she was a mother who honestly
concede her mistakes at the past but then she's confident to stand up her emotional
motives to get what she desires in a fair and square battle. Dustin Hoffman was way
too outstanding, I can't even fathom how this guy could play seriously difficult
roles and suddenly jump into another role which is completely different, then
performed it well. Even though I have already seen the movies a lot of times, when
I seat back and lounge at my home scanning worth movies to peer and buy a time for
it, catching a glimpse for Kramer vs Kramer will make my experience another
worthwhile moment.
Kramer Vs. Kramer is a near-heartening drama about shocking, drastic augmentations
of the two subjects of a failed married couple. Meryl Streep, in the throes of her
trademark maternal sensitivity, plays an unhappy stay-at-home mother who feels
confined to such a role and within the first five minutes of the film leaves her
inattentive husband, in a fantastic performance by Dustin Hoffman, to find another
role for herself. Hoffman is dumbstruck, having absolutely no idea what to do with
himself, having taken so much for granted that he doesn't know the first thing
about getting his son to school in the morning. Hoffman seamlessly
characterizes this husband as such a juicy load of setbacks. He is restless,
relentless and impatient, but even though the positive side to those three
adjectives should include just the opposite, he is unremittingly fixated on
whatever he turns his head to. He's been focused on his career in advertising, and
when he is left to raise his son Billy all by himself, chaos ushers in immediately.
He's the one throwing temper tantrums and quitting angrily halfway through an
activity. After awhile, as he befriends his neighbor and Joanna's former friend,
played by sexy Jane Alexander, Hoffman cools his jets enough to understand why his
wife left. In the meantime, his boundless energy redirects towards raising Billy
and he loses his job. The custody battle of the title is a brilliantly
grey circumstance. Even if the ending is a little unmotivated, subjectified for the
audience, the last line and the last shot still have that witty screen writing
touch that seemed to diminish after the magical 1970s.
I've seen many Dustin Hoffman's movies like Straw Dogs or Rain Man and I liked
them, but his characters are much to often calm or even shy persons. I expected him
to be in this movie the same as he was in Straw Dogs, but I saw a totally different
person. He was much more energetic in this film and kinda reminded me of Al Pacino
in Serpico. The movie was very interesting from beginning to the end. I liked the
way Dustin Hoffman's character was ready to do just about everything to stay with
his son. This movie is also revealing. Personally, I think it shows that people
should learn to find a compromise them self without involving other people into
issue.
Kramer vs. Kramer is the story of a marital breakup and the consequences of same.
They can be devastating to the partners and even more so to a minor child which in
this case is played by Justin Henry. What I really did like about Kramer
vs. Kramer, it's greatest strength as a film is the way that parents Dustin Hoffman
and Meryl Streep are presented to the audience as whole people with many sides to
their nature. Though the film is slanted in Hoffman's direction and more about his
relationship with his son, he's not presented as any kind of saint, nor is Streep a
completely black villain. Hoffman's a career oriented man in the advertising game.
He's pretty much ignored his wife's dreams and aspirations, still it's a big shock
to him when Streep says the love's no longer there and she wants out. She also
wants out of being a mother, at least for a while. Hoffman and Henry
make do the best they can. The pressure of being both parents causes Hoffman to
lose his job and he has to take a lower paying one in another agency. At that point
after over a year, Streep decides she wants custody. Both parents make
compelling witnesses and state their case beautifully, but in these situations, the
tie is always broken in favor of the mother. Dustin Hoffman and Meryl
Streep won their first of two Oscars respectively for this film, her in the
Supporting Actress category. I'm not sure how these things are decided, Streep does
get less screen time than Hoffman if that's the determining factor. The film does
focus on Hoffman's relationship with his son and his evolving realization that he
has his share of the blame for the marriage failure. As for Meryl it's a Hob's
choice for her as it is for many women, to balance a career and motherhood. The
conflict in her psyche registers for all to see on the screen. Dustin
Hoffman may have won that Oscar partly for the same reason that Spencer Tracy
picked up his first, by performing the impossible task of not letting a scene
stealing child steal the film. Children with their lack of inhibitions are natural
actors and Henry is great because he comes over as a real kid, not a Hollywood kid.
I wonder if Hoffman saw Captains Courageous and saw how Spencer Tracy dealt with
Freddie Bartholomew. Dustin could have done a lot worse than channel Spencer Tracy
in his performance. Kramer vs. Kramer also won Oscars for Best Picture,
Best Director for Robert Benton and Best Adapted Screenplay. It's an intelligent
and compelling drama about adults falling out of love and trying to deal as best
they can with it for themselves and their child. Don't miss it if ever broadcast.
The marriage of an upscale New York City couple with child falls apart when the
wife wants out ("It took a lot of courage for her to walk out that door!" a
neighbor tells us); the busy, distracted husband takes on the "motherly"
responsibilities and grows closer to his son, but soon the wife returns. Highly
manipulative picture doesn't give us a very realistic familial unit (with young
Justin Henry certainly not resembling the product of a marriage between Dustin
Hoffman and Meryl Streep!), but the dynamics are intriguing and involving, and
director Robert Benton keeps the pace popping with lots of cleverness, marvelous
classical music, canny editing and surefire bits of humor. Streep's character is
designed to be a cold, self-centered witch, but I was ready to feel a lot more for
her than Benton probably wanted. It all has to be painted in terms of black and
white, good and bad, with Hoffman learning how hard his wife had it and getting a
second chance at being a good parent. The film never falters from its preconceived
path, and very fine acting nearly saves it, but I'm not sure where Benton was
steering the film in the final act, and the closing scene is awfully abrupt. ***
from ****
No, this has nothing to do with the sitcom "Seinfeld" or its eccentric and
hilarious character Cosmo Kramer. In reality, "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a fine drama
movie, without a doubt one of the finest of its kind and one of the greatest movies
ever. I'm glad that it won more Oscars than "Apocalypse Now" because it really
deserved such glory. "Kramer vs. Kramer" is an excellent film, so well
made and so perfectly balanced that I wouldn't change anything about it in any way.
There is nothing wrong with the film. It's film-making of the highest quality. And
it stands the test of time, too. Not only it doesn't look any dated, but also its
cultural impact is long-lasting and its realistic story remains just as significant
as it was when it came out in 1979. A timeless classic. They don't make movies like
this today. This movie is dramatic, realistic, simple but brilliant,
intense, powerful, sweet and even tragic and depressing sometimes. Yet, it has fine
humor as well. It has no special effects, but who cares? This is not the movie or
place to discuss such thing. For a movie like this, such thing would be pointless
and absolutely unnecessary. The story is very interesting. The actors's
chemistry is just perfect. All of the actors are great, but the 3 main ones are the
very best. Dustin Hoffman, a brilliant actor, has his greatest performance ever
here as the lovable but distant workaholic Ted Kramer. Meryl Streep is great as
Ted's wife, Joanna. And cute little Justin Henry is terrific as the loving but
sometimes stubborn Billy, son of Ted and Joanna. The soundtrack is all
instrumental and wonderful. The opening song (by the guitarist Frederic Hand) is
brilliant. The rest of the soundtrack is mostly Antonio Vivaldi's classical music
and is simply dazzling. This motion picture has also an incredible
development of the characters. See the character Ted Kramer: a workaholic who
becomes an amazing father after being left with no choice but to take care of his
son, trying to adjust these new responsibilities with his job after being left by
his wife Joanna. With this, Ted learns about the most beautiful things in life, but
also realizes how though life is, with the problems in his job and the return of
Joanna, who wants the custody of their son. But even Joanna changes for better and
the ending is an unexpected surprise when one sees this for the first time. This movie has also some though things, such as courtroom scenes where both
Ted and Joanna face brutal character assassinations unleashed by the lawyers.
Another though thing to see is when poor Billy falls off a jungle gym with his toy
(a plane) and gets seriously injured on his face. But then again, the scene is very
well made and what comes next is very intense: his father runs quickly and crosses
numerous blocks, ignoring the traffic to take his son to the hospital. Overall, this is a movie which is a good lesson of life. This should
definitely be on Top 250.
I think not! I mean yeah if you compare this film to The Godfather, or maybe a
little older film like Casablanca, or maybe even a little newer film like The
English Patient. It doesn't have the camera work or the cinematography like these
other films, but that doesn't mean that this is a bad movie, or does it? I think
the reason why this film is underrated is because a lot of people always compare it
to other great Oscar winning films (you should never do that) which makes it hard
to understand the beauty and the realism in this movie. In the categories Best
Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role, this
film really deserved all of them. The magnificent Dustin Hoffman gives us, once
again, one of his best performances. A couple of times in this movie I forgot that
it wasn't his son because it was just so real! I have never seen a film about
relationships in different families where it was so easy for the actors to play
that specific role but still so beautiful. So Dustin Hoffman passes the test with
flying colors, in my opinion. There are a few actresses in the world who deserve to
be called the best: Katherine Hepburn, Meryl Streep, Jane Fonda and Ingrid Bergman
(I can't help it, I think she's great). Meryl Streep, even though she's in a
supporting role, is amazing and real and you just can't help but being drawn ed to
her talent and the way she makes it hers and real. Wow, that's all I can say.
Justin Henry was great considering his age, his tears and his relationship with his
mom and dad was beautiful, so I say good job to cute little Justin Henry. While I was watching this film for like the third time, alone, I couldn't stop
crying. I tried but I couldn't. Thank god I was alone! This is probably the purest
film I have ever seen. Other films that were nominated for Best Picture was
Apocalypse Now, Norma Rae, Breaking Away and All That Jazz. I'm ashamed, cause I
haven't seen any of them, but from what I've heard, Apocalypse Now is great but
when I heard about Norma Rae I only thought of Sally Field. I think that
considering the other nominees, this film deserved it's five Oscars, and that it'll
continue to touch and make other people cry for a long time in the future, just
like it has for the past 28 years. Good job all the actors and actresses in this
film for giving us great performances and memories from watching this film that we
won't ever forget. Thanks for your time.
I consider myself lucky that I got to view a wonderful movie with two marvelous
actors. "Kramer vs. Kramer" was great to me because I think I could relate to
it. Unfortunately, my parents are divorced. Even though I was older than
Billy in this movie, I felt his pain and confusion. Having two parents who you
thought were happy and end up hating each other is the worst. Through this movie,
actually, I think it made me realize that my parents are people too, and they had
as just much pain as my sister and I had. Back to the movie, this was a
good one. Yes, it's dated and Meryl and Dustin are very young. But I would
recommend this for a lot of people, because I think most can relate in some way.
There are funny, sad, happy, and relieving moments that are carried away terrificly
by these great actors. It's a good movie and deserves more credit than a 7.5. 9/10
After a decade of turbulent unrest, American movies began to switch gears and turn
their cameras away from war-torn battlefields, political corruption, and general
social unease to the more intimate world of family dysfunction. The toll the
selfish Baby Boomers began to take on the American family as they grew up and had
kids of their own was making itself felt. "Kramer vs. Kramer" is one of
the first of these dysfunctional family dramas that would continue to be so popular
throughout the 1980s, and it's one of the best. It gets a rather bum rap now,
because it's known as the film that beat "Apocalypse Now" for the 1979 Best Picture
Academy Award, but comparing these two films is like comparing a banana to a
marinated chicken breast: they're not remotely the same, but can't we enjoy them
both? Director/writer Robert Benton doesn't try to do anything fancy with his
movie; its strength lies in its performances, those of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl
Streep particularly, playing a divorced couple fighting childishly and selfishly
over their son. The courtroom scene in which they duke it out for custody, and in
which each is forced to hurt the other in terrible ways, is devastating, and feels
authentic. The movie doesn't present Hoffman's solid dad as a hero, or Streep's
straying mom as a villain. They're neither good or bad as people -- they're simply
bad at being married. The film is tear-jerky at the finale, but not in a
manipulative way. It earns its right to elicit sobs. Grade: A
Kramer vs. Kramer is one film to hold on too and not forget. It isn't one of the
most popular films ever made and is certainly one of the weakest best picture
films, but it does not mean it still isn't important. I thought the movie was well
done and made you just want to watch more and more of it. The performances were the
best positive for the film and Dustin Hoffman played one of his best roles he's
ever done as the lonely workaholic who has to take care of his son, as his wife
separates from him. Billy, who is Hoffman's son, played another great performance
along with Meryl Streep, playing the depressed mother of Billy. Kramer vs. Kramer
is not one of the greatest films and is not a perfect 10, but it succeeds in making
the film worth watching and worth caring about it. Certainly, one of Hoffman's best
films he's ever done. I highly recommend it. Hedeen's Outlook: 9/10 ***+
A-
mondovino is a moving and rewarding documentary. in the world of wine there is a
huge different between the big winery and the small one. it's not just about size
of of your vineyard but also the amount of money and power you have. if you have
enough money to place ads in the wine spectator and hire a so called "wine except"
then it doesn't matter the size of your estate. also in business world of today
wine often has to mass marketed and suited to people's taste. what is means many
times wine filtered of it's origin. mondovino shows the commercial side of wine in
that of mega producer Robert mondavi, and Michael Rolland the wine expert who
shapes wine to the taste of today's critics like Robert parker who is also in the
film. now these men are not evil or wrong for they have done a great deal of good
for wine. but they have power on a grand scale. as we all know power corrupts.
mondovino also shows small wine makers such as Aime Guilbert of the languedoc and
Hubert de montille of volnay in burgundy. these wine makers are not starving wine
makers but they know like all great wine makers that it's about where the grapes
are from. the best example of this is explained not by a wine maker but by a
Haitian man working for Neal rosenthal the wine importer. the area the grapes are
grown the terroir that matters, that a guiding hand that knows this makes important
real wine.
Although credit should have been given to Dr. Seuess for stealing the story-line of
"Horton Hatches The Egg", this was a fine film. It touched both the emotions and
the intellect. Due especially to the incredible performance of seven year old
Justin Henry and a script that was sympathetic to each character (and each one's
predicament), the thought provoking elements linger long after the tear jerking
ones are over. Overall, superior acting from a solid cast, excellent directing, and
a very powerful script. The right touches of humor throughout help keep a "heavy"
subject from becoming tedious or difficult to sit through. Lastly, this film stands
the test of time and seems in no way dated, decades after it was released.
This outstanding film has about the best acting that you'll ever see, and that
alone makes this a must-see. The entire cast is excellent, but then again, it had
to be in order to keep up with Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. It didn't take me
long to get hooked on this film, and aside from a courtroom scene that is merely
good, this is top-notch entertainment. This is a rare film that actually deserved
all the Oscar recognition that it received. See it for yourself and you will
definitely not be disappointed.
"Kramer vs. Kramer" is a terrific drama about an unhappy woman who walks out on her
husband and young son. The husband now has to take up the responsibilities of
taking care of the boy. As he does, they get to know each other better. But then,
the mother and wife returns, and she wants custody of the boy. "Kramer vs. Kramer"
has lots of drama with some wonderful bits of comedy thrown in for good measure.
Dustin Hoffman won his first Best Actor Oscar for his brilliant performance here.
Most people say his performance in "Rainman", which won him his second Oscar, is
his best. He was great in that film, but I disagree that its his best. In my
opinion, the best performance of Hoffman's career is in this movie. Scene after
scene shows us why Hoffman is one of the best American actors working today. He's
also funny at times. Also giving a terrific performance is Meryl Streep, who wasn't
as well known when she made this film like she is today. Streep, like Hoffman, also
won her first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actress) for her work in "Kramer vs.
Kramer" as the wife and mother who tries to find herself after walking out on her
family. Justin Henry, who was only 8 years old when the film came out, is wonderful
as Hoffman and Streep's son. He won an Oscar nomination for his role here, and
still to this day he is the youngest performer to receive an Oscar nomination in a
competitive category (Best Supporting Actor). Jane Alexander is also fine as a
conserned family friend. She too got an Oscar nomination (for Supporting Actress
where she lost to co-star Streep). "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a great film from start
to finish. Writer-director Robert Benton has made a film that's absolutely
unforgettable. **** (out of four)
I hate to say it, but I really do think this one's overrated, and I love Jackie's
films. It's got more plot behind it than usual, but unfortunately, though it has
some great stuff, I find it to be a bit slow. All in all, I say it's entertaining,
but not great.
Hi! Being able to speak Cantonese, I found this very funny and was able to all the
jokes that one might not get due to language barriers. The fight scenes are
spectacular and it's a good movie. However, I have my criticisms. First of all, I
find that it is not as good as the first one Project A -GO AND SEE THAT NOW! :-)
Reason is, SPOILERS AHEAD-DON'T READ ON IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM!!!!!) because
in Project A, Jackie ends by fighting his enemy; the man he is sent to kill,
Sanpao. That is what he has been striving to do all the film and the showdown is
spectacular. But in A II, hough he fights Chan, the showdown scene between Jackie
and his nemesis is not long enough and the bulk of the action is against the
Empress's men. They are not nearly as "bad" enough and have only played a minor
part in the film in relation to Jackie so though their fight sequence is
spectacular, they are not the ones Jackie is hunting throughout the whole of the
film, so thus leaving the viewer slightly unfulfilled. However, this is just my
humble opinion so don't take it word for word-go and see it yourself! It is a great
film in it's own right! Take care and hope your admiration for Jackie grows! Yours
Sincerely, Ian PS. You know the police chief in A II? He's the same guy in First
Strike-nice to know he's still going strong!
Sequels are a capricious lot with most nowhere near the stature of the original.
Sometimes you find a sequel that is considered better than the original, some
critics (such as John Charles) have stated that Project A2 is better than the
original, I disagree somewhat but this movie is still a worthwhile follow-up and
fits well in the output of brilliant Hong Kong action cinema in the 1980s as well
as Jackie's own oeuvre. I do wonder how with such an awesome release of great films
that his later films were not as good. He only has directed two films in the 1990s
and none past that, but he has had much clout in many of the films where he is not
officially the director. Earlier in 1987 Jackie had brain surgery
following a disastrous fall in the filming of Armour of God. This encouraged him to
work on his next film close to home. This did not encourage him to stop risking his
life and his stunt team for our amusement. What resulted is a smash hit at home
that eclipsed the original in box office tallies (31 million HK dollars compared to
19 million for the original). Jackie Chan is once again police officer
extraordinaire Dragon Ma and he is ordered to work with "Three Wan" Superintendent
Chun (Lam Wai, Royal Warriors) who is the only Chinese police officer allowed to
have a gun yet is thought to be staging arrests to make himself look better and
ignoring the crimes of a triad lord named Tiger Au (Michael Chan Wai-Man, Dragon
Lord). Apparently Chun has too much power to be taken down directly, but he is
relieved of the Sai Wan district (now he is "Two Wan") which Dragon Ma takes over.
This inefficient and corrupt office will soon get a makeover and there is a great
scene where three officers, who do not know who they are dealing with, attempt to
assault Ma to teach him a lesson about complaining about police officers. He soon
has that district ship-shape and Tiger Au taken care of. The fight choreography and
stunts with Tiger and his men are quite awesome. My favorite stunt was a
beautifully brutal fall from the second floor into a large vase and that vase did
not appear to be soft. Meanwhile a couple of subplots are happening.
There are pirates who have survived from the first film who are looking for revenge
and food. Then there are revolutionaries including Maggie (Maggie Cheung, In The
Mood For Love) and (Rosamund Kwan, Casino Raiders) who are trying to raise funds
for Dr. Sun Yat-sen to overthrow the Qing Government as well as government
operatives who are trying to find these rebels. Throw in a mixture of corrupt Hong
Kong and British Cops as well as legitimate ones and you have a stew that is
getting a bit too many ingredients, but yet still seems to coalesce. This works
well when there is a Marx Brothers influenced scene (the Marx Brothers have done
this type of scene a few times with The Cocoanuts (1929) being the first) at
Maggie's place where everyone is looking for someone while hiding from someone
else. Many weeks were spent on this scene alone and the effort certainly
shows. There are several faults with the film. There is a certain
didactic nature that creeps in the film that seems a bit out-of-place especially
one small speech towards the end that Jackie gives when dealing with the Mainland
revolutionaries and the extremely easy conversion of the pirates that survived from
the first film. Female characters are once again underused and under-appreciated,
especially Maggie Cheung. I was not as satisfied with the continuance of the plot
as much as the first film either. The individual scenes dominate my feelings for
the film instead of thinking of this movie as a cohesive whole. I do not fault the
film for not being able to have Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao like the first though (I
have heard the main reason behind this was that those two were filming Eastern
Condors, but I do wonder if Jackie could have waited a small while to get them to
perform in this they would work together for the last time the following year in
Dragons Forever), but they are missed. I found this to be quite an
enjoyable and well-made film and it is rightfully regarded as one of the better
comedic action films of the 1980s. This film is also quite good in a few unexpected
places. The art direction is superb (Eddie Ma Poon-chiu), the costumes are
exquisite, the cinematography is good and the movie looks quite authentic. But the
stunts, comedy and the action is what I remember this film for. There is a chase
involving a handcuffed Dragon and Chun that is superb (part of the axe throwing
scene would be used in Shanghai Noon). The last twenty minutes is full of awe-
inspiring hits, falls, chili-peppers as a mouth-mace (Jackie writes in his
autobiography about how he used real peppers in this scene; you can see him in a
lot of mouth pain during the outtakes at the end) and is a worthy conclusion to
this movie. The most famous stunt from this sequence is his homage to Buster Keaton
from Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928) with the exception that there is no hole and only a
weak section where his head pops through. Fans of Jackie and/or Hong
Kong action cinema should consider this a must own and watch. I certainly do.
Dragon Ma (Jackie Chan)is back, having rid the seas of the dreaded Pirate Lo. Back
on land, he is assigned to the police force, where he is to clean up corruption and
crime in a local suburb. Along the way, he is caught up in the fate of several
Chinese patriots attempting to secure sympathy and support for their revolutionary
cause. The Chinese Manchu government is after these revolutionaries, and anyone
that stands in their way is in trouble, even if they are in the police force. I had
big expectations for this movie after i saw Project A. But sadly I was a little
disappointed. There is just too little action compared to the first film. There is
just one good fight scene until the big ending. That fight scene is in the
"gangsters place" and its good, a lot of people flying all over the place and hard
kicks and punches are throw. Jackie Chan and his stunt team don't disappoint here
at all. The ending is very entertaining, Jackie Chan shows us why HE is the best
stuntman in the world. Really exciting stuff! The only bad thing with the ending,
is that the fights are too short and forgettable. Conclusion: Many funny moments,
good acting and crazy stunts. But not enough fighting for a top rating.
Project A II is a classic Jackie Chan movie with all the kung fu, crazy stunts and
slapstick humor you expect. Not as good as the prequel but still it is a great
movie if you just want something fun to watch. The story is simple, jackie chan
versus the evil men. So if you want a movie that you don't have to be a braniac to
understand, i would suggest this one.
i honestly dont know why so many people hate this movie, i have always thought that
it was one of my absolute faves. the fight with tiger and his men rocked, the fight
with the pirates with the axes rocked, the whole skit with everyone trying to avoid
one another in the house is pure genious...ok so it didnt have the requisite kick
ass final confrontation but the manchus were pretty good. i give it a 8/10.
This production was quite a surprise for me. I absolutely love obscure early 30s
movies, but I wasn't prepared for the last 25 minutes of this story. If, by any
chance, you're not convinced in the first half, hang in there for the finale. Of
course, you must look at the blatant racism as being purely topical. A fascinating
viewing experience, but I think THE CAT'S PAW is not available on video/DVD yet.
Watch your PBS listings!
It's not really about wine. No, Nossiter's real targets are those who would
streamline and assimilate the peculiarities of local (wine) production for business
purposes. To this end he has made an excellent, objective film. Spirited,
bumptious, emotional and flawed independent wine producers are juxtaposed with
media-finessed, anodynesprech Amercians and auld-Europeans: the art of wine-making
against market-driven, laboratorised product manufacture. It's an open show that
doesn't lead conclusion. Nossiter's film is occasionally infuriating to
watch - cameras are neither concealed, nor steadicam, by any means. There are also
plenty of captions as well as subtitles to wade through, often too short a time on
screen. However it does outdo Michael Moore at the game Moore can't play
anyway. The characters speak for - and therefore condemn - themselves. Well worth a
viewing 7/10
This film would be considered controversial today, but is still very funny. The
racial stereotyping is done from the view of humor & not hate. This film strips off
& shows how corrupt politicians already were in the early 1930's. This film proves
it started before the 1970's & beyond when it has accelerated in the United States.
Lloyd is still in his typical genre here, even though his character was raised in
China. The meaning of a Cat's Paw in this instance is a person who is
running for political office but is being used by the established political machine
to advance their agenda. In other words, they think this guy (Lloyd)is harmless
when he runs for office. Then when he gets elected, he surprises them. This same theme is used later in James Stewarts film Mr. Smith goes to
Washington. Stewarts is more famous & has a stronger message. This film is more
clever & subtle which are Harold Lloyds trademarks. There is still the
heart of romantic comedy hidden with the facade of the movie but today's mainstream
audiences would still appreciate the political humor & the ending is absolutely
priceless. I wish someone could beat today's political system in this way. I was
surprised how much I enjoyed this film & find myself wishing Harold had done more
like it during the 1930's. At least we have this one. I think the
person who is quoted most in the movie is fictional Ling Po. I always thought
Confusicus was the wise one but this one makes me believe the wisdom of China was
not limited to him & is a vast field of comedy Lloyd mined in this movie.
I really enjoyed this old black and white talkie. At first I didn't recognize
Harold Lloyd as Mr. Cobb, a missionary to China coming home to find a wife. There
were many twists and turns in Mr. Cobb's attempts to clean up city hall. His
methods of making the punishment fit the crime would likely be illegal, but this is
not a movie based on reality. This would be a perfect movie for children except
that there is female near nudity (pasties only on Grace Bradley)! The old
telephones are enchanting. The only fault is a problem typical of the day -
Caucasians are used to represent Chinese men. This is offset by the positive way
the Chinese are portrayed. They are the wise, good and friendly guys. Trivia - a
Bekins truck appears in the movie when the police run out of Black Marias.
For those of you looking for the crazy stunts that typified a Harold Lloyd silent
comedy, this is not the film for you. What The Cat's-Paw gives us is an interesting
and atypical character for Lloyd who was trying to establish himself in
sound. For me the closest movie comparison to Lloyd's character is that
of Peter Sellers in Being There. For all the education that Lloyd has received in
dealing with the world, he might as well have been brought up in isolation as
Sellers was. But where he was brought up was as a missionary's child in
China and I don't know how much Christianity he and his family were able to teach
the Chinese, but young Harold has learned the wisdom of Chinese philosopher Lin Po
whom he quotes constantly like a fortune cookie aphorism. As it turns out Lin Po
turns out to be one wise dude. Anyway Lloyd's father Samuel S. Hinds has
decided his son needs some education in the modern world of 20th century America
and he sends him back to be the guest of the pastor of the home church which
sponsors the mission. The pastor there is the perennial candidate of the 'reform'
movement of that town of Stockport. But no sooner does Lloyd arrive and the pastor
dies. Now the reform movement is a sham and the pastor a patsy of the
political bosses who need a straw-man opponent in every election. They decide Lloyd
just might be a better patsy than the guy who just died. Of course as it
goes in these type of films the patsy proves to be not so easy a proposition. In
fact Lloyd constantly quoting from Lin Po, the way Charlie Chan used to dispense
wisdom proves quite the adversary for the crooks who run Stockport. In addition
Lloyd gains the admiration of Una Merkel, as cynical a dame as Jean Arthur was in
Mr. Deeds and Mr. Smith. The Cat's-Paw is still a nice political satire
though it did not establish Harold Lloyd as big a comedy name as he was in silent
films. A nice cast of players was selected by director Sam Taylor topped by George
Barbier who plays a political boss who discovers Lloyd and actually proves to have
a streak of honesty in him.
This movie caught me by surprise. For years I have avoided many of Harold Lloyd's
sound pictures (as well as those of Keaton) because they have a generally well-
deserved reputation for being lousy compared to the silent films because the basic
formula has been lost. However, when I saw this film I was pleasantly surprised to
find I actually liked it,...once I accepted it really was not a "Harold Lloyd" film
(despite him starring in it). This is because although it is nothing like the style
of his earlier films, it IS highly original and Lloyd isn't bad playing a totally
different type of character. As I mentioned above, the formula of the
old films is almost completely missing here. Lloyd does not do the old familiar
stunt work, the romance is quite unlike his early screen romances, and the plot is
just plain weird! Instead of the usual roles, he is the son of a Chinese missionary
who returns to America for the first time since he was a small boy. Because of
this, though he looks like an American (except for his white suit and explorer's
helmet), he thinks and acts a lot like someone who is Chinese. In many ways, he's
very naive about America and is like an innocent among wolves. Early on, he meets a
man who turns out to be a local party boss. This boss ALWAYS produces a losing
candidate for the mayoral race--because he is bought and paid for by the corrupt
mayor to produce a "token" candidate who has NO CHANCE of winning. Well, the old
geezer who they traditionally run for office just died and he decides to run the
naive Lloyd--he hasn't a prayer of winning! Well, the unthinkable happens and Lloyd
wins!!! This, and Lloyd's decision to clean up the town greatly upsets the old
political machine and they stop at nothing to destroy honest Lloyd. Just when it
appears Lloyd is headed to jail on a trumped up corruption charge, he creates a
scheme that is 100% impossible and very illegal to get signed confessions from the
crooks. However, despite this, it is incredibly funny and a great ending. So, my
advice is at the end, just suspend disbelief and enjoy. An important
note: This movie is definitely NOT politically correct. The word "Chink" is used
repeatedly. I found it offensive but considering the times, I ignored it as you
should too. If, however, you are someone who CAN'T and like being angry, I suggest
you never watch movies anyway--as you are bound to become offended again and again.
 As a Harold Lloyd fan, i agree with the other reviewer's comments,
EXCEPT that I feel that "Movie Crazy" was his best sound film; "Cat's Paw" is a
close second. (But, this is just MY opinion). This film is a "hoot" from
beginning to end and, in many scenes, George Barbier (the crook that gets him
elected mayor) almost steals the show! (Especially at the end of the film). One wishes that Una Merkel's character would be a bit more sympathetic to
Harold, especially as the film progresses. Only in the last few minutes of the film
do we find out her true feelings for him. (And, even then, there is no "romance" -
kissing, etc). This is a Must-See film!
What is often neglected about Harold Lloyd is that he was an actor. Unlike Chaplin
and Keaton, Lloyd didn't have the Vaudeville/Music Hall background and he wasn't a
natural comedian. He came to Hollywood to act; and he discovered he had a knack for
acting funny -- first in shorts, then in features. He made a name for himself as
"Lonesome Luke", a Chaplin knock-off; with the "glasses character" that made him
the all-American boy rather than a grotesque, Lloyd found his stride and his movies
became some of the best produced during the silent era. He developed a
reputation as a "daredevil" in some shorts, and retained this in some of his best
movies ("Safety Last", "For Heaven's Sake", "Girl Shy"). He was more popular than
either Chaplin or Keaton during the twenties and he became very rich before the
advent of sound. The first sound movies were often disasters. To get the
most out of their "sound", too much dialog was used in many movies. Lloyd's acting skills were, after two decades, geared for silents. He didn't have
a bad voice; its high pitch suited his "glasses" character. And his sound films
weren't the unqualified disasters of legend. Yet silent movies had been raised to a
high art (especially Lloyd's, which did not stint on budget and were extremely
well-crafted); with the introduction of talkies movies had to learn to walk again
and they made some missteps. Though he tried to move with the times and
embraced sound, Lloyd's best bits from his early (overly talky) talkies were still
visual -- such as the scene in "Movie Crazy" where he appears to be riding in a
swank car, but actually "hitched a ride" on his bicycle. Trying to
recapture the daredevil antics that made him famous, as he did in "Feet First", was
misstep. (In "Safety Last", his best movie and the one that, deservedly or not,
shoved Lloyd in the box as a "daredevil comic", he played a determined young man,
climbing to the top. "Safety Last" had a natural structure that ascended to his
character's scaling the side of the building. He was obviously afraid, but his fear
added to the humor. In "Feet First", he arrived in a precarious building-scaling
position by accident; his frantic cries for help detracted from the humor. His
character was pathetic and cringing, aspiration to save his neck -- possibly an
accurate statement of the 1930s, but not amusing). Harold Lloyd was not
mired in the past, like some wacky Norma Desmond. He embraced sound and tried to
take his movies in different directions, growing and changing with the industry.
When "Feet First" failed he left the daredevil business and made a satire on the
talking movie industry, "Movie Crazy". Just as he had to flounder through many
movies as "Lonesome Luke" before carving his place in movie history with the
glasses character, he had tried several directions in sound movies before hitting
his stride in sound, which he did with "The Catspaw". In "The Catspaw"
he plays a missionary's son reared in China who unwittingly gets elected mayor as a
front for corrupt political interests. When he finds out the truth, he sets himself
the task of cleaning up the town. Only in his early forties, Lloyd could still act
the brash young man. Yet "The Catspaw" was another box-office failure,
and Lloyd made only three more movies, including "The Milky Way". Of his chief
competitors, Chaplin still had silent movies in him and Keaton was hopelessly
mismanaged. "The Catspaw" and "The Milky Way" suggest Lloyd might have mastered
sound comedy if he had been a little younger, or if audiences had given him the
benefit of the doubt after his early sound fiascoes. Though the movie
has been unfairly maligned about the way Lloyd's character cleaned up the town, it
suits him. From his days in "shorts" Lloyd wanted to scare his audience, and the
climax of "The Catspaw" achieved it yet again, in a surprising way; until the trick
is revealed it appears gruesome, and then come the laughs. Viewed as a
product of its time, "The Catspaw" is charming and funny. A very well-written sound
comedy, well-acted by Lloyd. Directed by Sam Taylor, its curious blend of drama and
sly humor make it look almost like a Frank Capra or Preston Sturges comedy.
It has to be admitted that the best work of Harold Lloyd ended with his last great
silent comedy "Speedy" in 1928. After that he enters sound films (like Chaplin and
Keaton and Laurel & Hardy and W.C. Fields) and does do better than Keaton, but not
as well as the other three. Chaplin was rich enough to make his own films as
producer (but he paced his films so there were five years between productions).
Laurel & Hardy were under the protection of Hal Roach, so production standards for
their shorts and sound films were pretty good. Fields first worked with Mack
Sennett, than with Paramount, and then free-lanced. Lloyd tried the route that
Chaplin took, but with less success. He produced his own films, but
unlike Chaplin he did not own his own studio. Also his first two choices were not
good (especially "Feet First"). But he did begin to choose more wisely and "Movie
Crazy", "The Cat's-Paw", and "The Milky Way" were all good choices. These three
(and possibly "The Sin of Harold Diddlebock") were his best sound ventures. They
are all entertaining, but none are up to "Safety Last", "The Freshman", "The Kid
Brother", or "Speedy". Of the top four sound films "The Cat's Paw" is
the most controversial. Ezekiel Cobb's solution to ridding the city that elects him
mayor is very extreme for the tastes of 2005. Or is it? When a movie is made
dictates what it's politics are: "The Cat's Paw" is from 1934. That second year of
the Roosevelt New Deal (itself rather controversial for heavier government
involvement) movie audiences saw films like "Gabriel Over the White House" and "The
Phantom President", where our leaders did extra-Constitutional actions to rid the
nation of internal enemies (and to force disarmament around the globe). Even Cecil
B. De Mille got into this act with "This Day and Age", where a bunch of teenagers
use rats to force a gangster to confess his crimes. To us, the use of
violence to force anyone (even a bunch of goons and boodlers like Alan Dinehart's
gang) to confess is repellent. After all, the Supreme Court has protected us from
confession under duress. What we forget is that the reforms we are thinking of did
not occur until the Warren Court and the Burger Court made them. For example,
although Mr. Justice Sutherland's opinion in the Powell ("Scottsboro Boys") Case of
1932 guaranteed every criminal defendant had a right to counsel, Gideon v.
Wainwright did not extend this to ordering court paid counsel to defendants until
1962. The Miranda Case, with it's now well-known anti-self-incrimination warning is
from 1963. Nothing like this were considered necessary in 1934. If you
study other movies of the period up to 1954 (and even to 1960) tricks are used to
get confessions - Kirk Douglas confesses his crimes in front of witnesses in "I
Walk Alone" while Burt Lancaster holds a gun to him. When Lancaster leaves, Douglas
sneers about confessing under duress, only to see the gun is unloaded. Suddenly he
realizes that (legally - in 1948) he has confessed without duress. Hate to say it,
to any civil libertarians reading this note, but what Cobb/Lloyd does to Dinehart
and his pals in the conclusion of "The Cat's Paw" was not only legal, but would
have led to their jail sentences in 1934. We may call it heavy handed, fascistic,
or horrid, but it would have worked legally when it was thought up.
Returning from 20 years in China, a young missionary refuses to become THE CAT'S-
PAW for a gang of hometown hoodlums. This movie was a bit of a departure
from Harold Lloyd's previous movies. Comedy derived more from dialogue, often
rather serious, predominates here, rather than the elaborate sight gags which
powered Harold's classics of the past. There are some splendid moments, however,
which are pure visual fun, as when Harold attempts to follow a convertible down a
crowded street, or when he desperately tries to keep a nightclub stripper from
losing her clothes. There is also the climactic scene, set in a Chinatown basement,
in which Harold gleefully jumps unabashedly into the darkest comedy. But most of
the humor derives from Harold's refusal to be the patsy of the criminals who've run
his hometown for years. And it's quite a collection of crooked
politicians & thugs Harold finds himself up against, played by a bevy of fine
character actors: George Barbier, Nat Pendleton, Grant Mitchell, Edwin Maxwell,
Alan Dinehart, Warren Hymer & stuttering Fuzzy Knight. Pert Una Merkel is on hand
as the tobacco stand girl who catches Harold's eye and keeps him intrigued by her
no-nonsense outlook on life. Movie mavens will recognize Samuel S. Hinds
as Harold's missionary father; Charles Sellon as an elderly Stockport clergyman;
and Herman Bing as a German gangster--all uncredited. Also, showing up for only a
few seconds as an attempted kidnapper, is Noah Young, a familiar face from Harold's
silent films, here making his final appearance in a Lloyd picture. Fox
gave the film fine production values, especially in the opening scenes set in
China.
Went to the premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC and I absolutely loved the
film!!! I am Diane's #1 biggest fan and of course, as always, she gave a
magnificent performance!! I have seen every single one of her movies and I must say
that this is one of my new favorites. Diane was funny and moving and just took my
breath away. Donald Sutherland was surprisingly humorous but also a good amount of
serious. Anton Yelchin is just a wonderful young actor and gave an amazing
performance. All in all, I recommend this film to anyone who can appreciate an
excellent movie. 10 thumbs up!!! I would definitely go see it again and again and
again. This is the best film of the year so far!!!
this is an adaptation of a Dirk Wittenborn book, which I did not read. young Finn
Earl lives with his Mom Liz (Diane Lane) in a cramped lower East Side New York
Apartment. he dreams of joining his Anthropologist father studying a fierce tribe
in South America. Liz has boyfriends and does coke. when he is caught scoring coke
for her, one of her customers (Liz is a legitimate masseuse) a rich Mr. Osborne
bails her out in return for being his full time personal masseuse in his huge
estate in New Jersey. They are driven there in a limo with her strung out lying in
the back seat with her dress hitched way up and panties showing. (this and a few
low-cut dress scenes is the only exploitation of Ms. Lane. some may be disappointed
but I'm sorry she had to do all that stuff in "Unfaithful" to make the A-List. That
lady has more talent in her little finger than Streep, Roberts, and Sally Field do
in their entire BODIES and its time she was given her due.) when they arrive Finn
makes friends with Osbornes grandson Bryce, and has a coming of age with his new
girlfriend, granddaughter Maya. Liz meanwhile joins AA and dates an AA doctor. She
miraculously cleans up instantly. Finn however does a lot of drugs along with sex
with his new friends. Bryce seems like an OK guy but gets jealous when Osborne
takes Finn on a hot air balloon race instead of him, and this leads to
tragedy. the genius of the story, (and movie) is that they cut from the
violent acts of the Fierce filthy rich Blysdale tribe to the Yanomano warriors.
It's a little implausible though that when Liz finds out what happens to her son
she merely demands action from Osborne and does not either contact the authorities
or settle it Thelma and Louise style. there are elements of a Gothic Romance with a
revelation by the village idiot. Also they do almost no plot or character
development prior to the move to Blysdale. Liz, for instance, like Lane's Pearl
Kantrowitz in "Walk on the Moon" had an unwanted pregnancy with Finn at 18 and felt
trapped. This is in the book but not the movie. Still, these are minor
shortcomings. The movie will be in full release 12/31/05 over a year after the
original release date, and I just couldn't wait. There were lots of Red
Carpet moments in the theater I saw the movie at, with almost the whole
cast...except Diane Lane!! $#%#Q$ Director Dunne said she was off filming a movie.
I know she didn't promise to be there, but I came from way out of town and it would
have been such a thrill to see her in person. The movie is a definite Best Picture
contender, as for acting?? Sutherland was quite good, and so was the boy who played
Finn. Lane was magnificent as always, but I only recall one or two emotional
scenes, when she catches Finn with drugs "lets get f****d up together mother and
son" and with Osborne "your twisted grandson...". She would fare better with a
supporting actress nod but it wont work that way. unless they give it to her for a
"body of work."
Just saw this movie 2 days ago. A very interesting look at people and our world
through the world of wine. I have no special interest in wine, and yet I found this
very enlightening. The director gave me the impression that he has the ability to
show people as they are. While he exposes a lot of things that are below the
surface he manages not to take a stand and leave that for the viewer. He shows a
lot of compassion to people (and dogs) and sympathy and let people tell their story
and in the same time exposes what they don't want to tell. The movie
shows us where our world is going to, what are the benefits and what is the heavy
price we pay. It is a movie about the love of wine and the love of making it big,
personal and global, character and formula. The real stars of the people
for me are the older wine makers with their disillusioned look at the world and
themselves. It takes some time to get use to the hectic camera moves and
editing, but it's worth it. Highly recommended.
From the opening scenes of FIERCE PEOPLE (an interplay of tribal customs as
photographed by the anthropologist father of the young narrator Finn Earl,
demonstrating why this South American tribe of Ishkanani is so fierce) the
direction of the film is nebulous: are we watching a dark comedy about comparing
life in the New York streets to uncivilized peoples, or is this a message film of a
more serious intent? But as the story develops this fine line between entertainment
and philosophical impact becomes increasingly clear. Griffin Dunne's direction of
Dirk Wittenborn's adaptation of his novel may be a bit careless at times as it
strays from rational plot development, but in the end there is a strong enough
final impact to patch up the holes he created. Our narrator Finn Earl
(Anton Yelchin) lives with his coke-addicted masseuse/sexually obsessed mother Liz
(Diane Lane) in New York, waiting for the summer when he is to join his
anthropologist father on a field trip to South America (a father he knows only from
letters and videos), when a drug bust abruptly changes their lives: one of Liz's
wealthy clients Ogden Osborne (Donald Sutherland) rescues the down and out family
and moves them to his ten acre estate, the epitome of wealth and power. In exchange
for being Osborne's private masseuse, Liz and Finn can live in the mansion with the
'filthy rich' Osbornes - daughter Mrs. Langley (Elizabeth Perkins) and
grandchildren Bryce (Chris Evans) and Maya (Kristen Stewart). Osborne and his
physician lead Liz on the drying out path and Finn bonds with Osborne and his
grandchildren, and despite the disparity in poor versus wealthy, the living
situation works - for a while. Incidents occur to alter feelings and Finn is
attacked and raped by a masked assailant, a turning point for the film and Finn's
view of the Osborne family. Osborne reveals his past to Finn and together they
manage to discover the truth about Finn's troubling incident - and also about the
fierce disease of the wealthy class. The film uses many clips of tribal
activity during the film, drawing some disturbing parallels for some of the more
challenging scenes. For this viewer that works well, but when the director elects
to place tribal individuals in full regalia within the context of the Osborne
estate, the concept feel contrived, as though the audience has to be forced to 'get
it'. The various subplots between maid Jilly (Paz de la Huerta) and Finn and the
introduction of an obese retarded chalk artist Whitney (Branden Williams) push the
credibility edge of emphasizing the line between the wealthy and the 'lower class',
but the performances by Sutherland, Lane, and Yelchin are strong enough to make us
forgive the film's lapses. Not a great film but one with a lot of worthy ideas
splashed around on the screen of a project that often feels lost in its struggle
for direction. Grady Harp
To the eight people who found the previous FIERCE PEOPLE comments by "Psycolicious
Me" and "Topdany" "helpful," as well as to any future site visitors who see them
before their authors delete them: these negative critique's are not only shorter
than the site guidelines mandate, but they are entirely bogus, nonfactual,
incorrect, and misinformative. For instance, Blythe's dad is in a coma, NOT dead--
Maya and Finn even visit him in the hospital. Furthermore, it was estate deer
poacher Dwayne--NOT Blythe--who knocked up Jilly the maid, etc., etc. So if you
have ADD which makes you incapable of focusing on the simplest details, please keep
your condition to yourself by not pretending to be Siskel or Ebert. Otherwise,
include a disclaimer with your comments!
A brilliant and sensitive movie with interwoven plot lines. As a general warning,
the movie turns quite dark about half way through. As sudden as it is, this is a
change that I found fitting to the themes of the movie, particularly the comparison
of the Ishkanani to the filthy rich, and (as is said by Finn at the end) how each
person makes up the tribe, and how the whole tribe is reflected in each
person. Anton Yelchin (Finn Earl) is spectacular in this movie. He is
probably best known as Chekov from Star Trek or Kyle Reese in Terminator Salvation,
but he's been in a whole plethora of movies you've probably never heard of (Alpha
Dog, which is another brilliant performance on Yelchin's part, House of D, Hearts
in Atlantis, to name a few...) The point is that this kid really takes this movie
and makes it his own. Other excellent performances from Diane Lane and Donald
Sutherland are what takes this movie up a notch, from great to excellent.
I really enjoyed Fierce People. I discovered the film by accident, searching
through my On-Demand movie lists trying to find something interesting to watch. The
film is mostly about class in America, and it quickly grabs your attention. The
characters are smart and articulate and the story doesn't stick to the usual
Hollywood rules. The main protagonist is Finn, a precocious, but
underprivileged 15 year old who spends his summer with the Osbourne family. Donald
Sutherland plays the patriarch, Ogden C. Osborne, the seventh richest man in
America. Diane Lane plays Finn's mother, a friend of Ogden who is also a habitual
cocaine user and a slut. The Osbournes own a large estate and seems to live by
their own rules. At first they seem charming and sophisticated but the super-rich
are different. They are used to getting their own way. The film is enjoyable mainly
because it has crisp intelligent dialog, superb acting and a story which takes
unexpected turns. It is also an R rated movie, so it's not entirely wholesome.
 The cast is excellent. Anton Yelchin is believable and sympathetic in
the demanding role of Finn. Sutherland and Diane Lane have never been better. Chris
Evans is impressive as Osbourne's devious grandson. Kristen Stewart is good as the
pretty grand daughter. High quality movie.
I can't imagine why it hasn't been theatrically released yet. It's got a great
ensemble cast, with Sutherland, Lane, and especially Chris Evans doing spectacular
work. Wake up, studio execs! The story is based upon the experiences of
the author/screenwriter, growing up as the "poor kid" in an extremely affluent
community, where class is everything, and makes a difference in every aspect of
life, from clothing to justice. During the film's Q&A, the author was
asked about his experiences, and particularly what we don't know about the ultra-
rich. He said they aren't stupid, they're very smart (as opposed to how they may
portray themselves), they've got plans, and they are a threat! In many
ways, this film is extremely timely.
I was lucky enough to see this at this years Tribeca film festival. I was stunned
by how well made and how entertaining this wonderful little film was. Director
Griffin Dunne has done a great job assembling this film that has several characters
and several story lines that blend so smoothly and seamlessly. The main story
involves the family and it is very thought-provoking and entertaining story that
involved the viewer in every scene. The film as a whole has credibility and
integrity, yet still has that commercial edge - an "indie" movie for the masses if
you like. The performances by the cast are all excellent but it is Diane Lane who
shines the brightest. Diane Lane is simply sensational in this wonderful film and
should be Oscar nominated. Early days I know, but Lane acts her socks off here.
I thought this was a very good movie. Someone said it was 'sick' so they couldn't
watch it. I think if you realize its rated R then you will be prepared for the
nudity and drug use. It is a good story and the acting is amazing. Just can't be a
prude to appreciate it! Its basically about a mom who does drugs and wants to get
clean so she calls a very wealthy old friend and he moves them to his estate and
crazy things happen. I guess it is a drama. I am just so sick of people who don't
like movies because of cursing or nudity. That is the world we live in. You
obviously aren't comfortable with yourself if you can't see things like this movie.
And it's rated R. So, that should tell you from the beginning that its not all
peachy happy rainbows. I liked it. I think you will too!
I attended a screening of "Fierce People" at the 2006 Woodstock Film Festival. I
hesitate to label it a "premiere" of any sort, since it was shot in the spring of
2004 and had its world premiere at Tribeca in 2005. It played several festivals
that year. Release seemed imminent, then it disappeared. Poof. Vanished. Or so it
appeared to the film-going public. Rumors of a theatrical or DVD release have
popped up now and then, but all proved unfounded. Then this screening was
announced. Perhaps one can call it a "re-premiere?" It certainly felt as if I was
witness to a buried treasure. And what a treasure it was. I suppose one
could characterize "Fierce People" as a coming-of-age drama. But it also has
elements of comedy and tragedy, as well as mystery. And a bit of farce thrown in.
In short, real life. That makes it hard to pigeonhole, which puts it more into the
category of an indie as opposed to a Hollywood movie. But its high production
values, big budget feel, and star caliber cast seem at odds with the indie label.
So let's call it a hybrid. And, perhaps, that's why it's been "lost." It defies
categorization. Meet Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin), 15, whose father is
absent. In fact, Finn has never known him. But he sees him and hears him via the
collection of home movies sent from South America. Dad is a renowned
anthropologist, and has made a name for himself by setting up shop with the
Yanomani, the tribe of "Fierce People" who live to kill and, well, procreate. All
their activities are built around those two "tasks," and Finn is captivated by it.
Mom Liz (Diane Lane) is also somewhat absent. Although present physically, she is
lost in a world of cocaine and alcohol. So Finn becomes an adult in his little
solitary world with his reels of film. One summer, Mom decides to drag
Finn along with her into the wilds of New Jersey. A massage therapist, Mom has
catered to a wealthy client, Ogden C. Osborne (Donald Sutherland, in a tour de
force performance) and he has invited her for an extended house call at his
palatial estate. Osborne's "tribe" includes an assortment of eccentric rich kids,
servants, and village idiots among whom Finn will find himself part of his own
anthropological study. Will his experience with Dad's films help him survive life
as a visitor to this tribe? Will he be accepted? Or will he be seen as an outsider,
concurrently struggling with his own identity as an adolescent? Such is the stuff
of fairy tales, and I suppose this would be if not for the dark underbelly which
director Griffin Dunne and writer Dirk Wittenborn have infused into this
magnificent story. With Anton Yelchin's voice-over, intercutting pieces
of Dad's home movies, Finn must learn to go back to being the teenager he never
really had a chance to be, stop being the parent to his Mom, allow newly-sober Mom
to be parent to him, and learn responsibility on the way to adulthood the way it
should have taken place all along. Yet he needs to make this transformation in a
dangerous, dark world where playing with fire is folly to this fractured family. This is, first and foremost, a story-driven film and Griffin Dunne
emphasized as much in the intro to the film. He bought the rights to Wittenborn's
novel even as it was being written, and Wittenborn's own screenplay comes to life
in the hands of the masterful Dunne in a way that's a work of wonder. This is also largely a character-driven film, and Sutherland has never been
better. His star turn as Osborne stunned those around me and will likely leave you
amazed as well. Diane Lane's character ultimately exhibits so many personalities
that it's hard to imagine another actor pulling it off so well. She is
breathtaking. But more than anything, "Fierce People" is Anton Yelchin's film. He
has a long resume as a child actor but preciously little as a teen. Other than the
little-known "House of D" (also a gem), he is best known as Byrd on TV's "Huff." In
January, he will be seen in "Alpha Dog" (also sitting on the shelf since 2004, a
film I saw at Sundance this year and in which he is the "heart and soul"). His
performance here goes far beyond what one would expect from someone so young, and
is nothing short of spectacular. This complex, quirky film has remained
out of sight long enough. "Fierce People" is a treasure filled with light and
shadow, comedy and tragedy, joy and pathos, but mostly wonder.
In the 2nd of his Historical Martial Arts films, Chiba portrays his real life
sensei Mas Oyama. The film even recreates Oyama's incredible feat of killing a
raging bull with his bare hands (Oyama did this feat over 50 times in real life).
Dynamic fight choreography featuring authentic Kyokushinkai techniques. Ironically
this is one of the rare Sonny Chiba films in which he DOESN'T tear out or rip off
body parts of opponents. A must see for Sonny Chiba fans definitely one of his top
5 films
Oddly enough, the Independent Film Channel showed this film a week AFTER it showed
KARATE BEAR FIGHTER--even though the bear film was the second in the trilogy and
this film was the first!!! What were they thinking?! While all three of these films
are supposedly based on the life of this great Kyokushin Karate master, you can't
help but think that they MUST have embellished the story quite a bit--especially in
this first film. Sure, the guy evidently DID fight and kill a bull and later a bear
(in fact, he fought and killed MANY bulls during his career), but in this film set
in the early 50s, at the end of the film, the hero actually fights about 60 guys
and kills many of them brutally. I just can't imagine that this really occurred. So
I did some checking and found that while many of the details are correct, some of
this film is pure bunk! Yes, he DID kill a man in self-defense and YES he did
follow the widow and her son and spent a year working for them--trying to get them
to forgive him. But the end of the film is great to watch but hogwash. Seeing one
of his opponents get a staff thrust through his head and all the other gory details
couldn't have happened or else the Japanese government would have locked Oyama up
to protect society! The film is entertaining and the fighting is excellent. There
are no complaints about the action or acting. The only minor complaint is the
camera work--which is a tad sloppy during some of the fight scenes. Despite this
minor complaint, this is a most enjoyable film. In many ways, the wandering Karate
master theme is pretty reminiscent of the Zatoichi films--which are also lots of
fun to watch but many of the exploits are truly impossible. FYI--There
is an Englished dubbed version of this film entitled "Champion of Death" and I just
saw it as well. It's not a bad dubbing and it was letter boxed (a big plus), but
still I prefer the subtitled version.
A very interesting documentary - certainly a lot more than Sideways, a pseudo wino
drama - where the capitalist conspiracy is revealed in all its greed. According to
the documentary - and confirmed by the recent publication of a biography on Parker
- only two men dictate the nature of wines in the world: Robert Parker of
Massachussets and Michel Rolland, a French wine industry expert based in Bordeaux
and also known as a "flying winemaker". The director is clever enough to insert
interviews of local wine producers from many different regions of France, from
Sicily to Argentina and interviews of the biggest players in the industry such as
the Mondavi family to uncover the wraps on the globalization of wine making and
marketing. A must see for anyone interested in the dark side of the industry.
Drinking a glass of wine will not be the same political and commercial act after
watching this well made documentray.
Mas Oyama was the most successful karate master of the late 20th century. He
rejected the "training" of the karate clubs of the time focusing on an intense no
holds form of training. He eventually built his system into a huge business empire
with hundreds of schools across the world, without compromising his teachings. The
testing in the Kyokushin schools are still some of the most physically challenging
tests any martial art school requires. One non- physical hardship Oyama faced was
prejudice due to his Korean ancestry and he spent time proving that loyalties were
to Japan and Japanese Karate. This movie series was part of that effort although
anyone who had the chance to meet Oyama (I did) would never question his allegiance
to Japan. In this series, Oyama's most famous student, Sonny Chiba, is called upon
to portray his master. Oyama arrives from the countryside where he has
been training alone. He challenges and makes short work of the established Karate
schools he encounters. Disgusted by the state of karate, Oyama returns to his lone
training. He eventually picks up a student, falls in love and gets in the way of
gangsters who are allied with the established karate schools. In the middle of this
is the legendary bullfight with a mad bull. How much of the film is true is
questionable. That Oyama could kill a bull with his bare hands is true.
He was called on to repeat this feat numerous times. There are filmed instances of
Oyama actually doing this, although sometimes the bulls seemed to be tethered as
Oyama was getting on in years. Sonny Chiba portrays his master with conviction and
the karate is quite good. Chiba may not have been the best karate practitioner but,
at this point in time, he was certainly above average. As a whole the
movie is good, much better then most martial art films in the drama department. I
always wondered why it's not more well known. Possibly it the very realistic
depictions of martial arts. People are shown getting tired and hurt unlike 99% of
action film where the hero is a limitless fountain of energy and each blow
instantly dispatches an opponent to death. Chiba seems so exhausted at one point
that it hurts to watch. Perhaps viewers rather not have their entertainment reflect
reality so closely. Recommended especially for martial artists.
Sonny Chiba, as everyone knows, is the man. In this film, he portrays Mas Oyama
(1923-1994), a real martial artist who fought over 50 bulls with his bare handsand
won (interesting guylook him up). Anyway, Chiba only kills one bull in the film
but it's a memorable scene and as the liner notes say, right up there with the
zombie vs. shark scene in Zombi! The film also offers up loads of hand-to-hand
combat and a decent plot to boot, though I don't believe all of it is true. This
film is the first of the Oyama trilogy Chiba made and is recommended for fans of
martial arts action. Finally, three neat little tidbits; part of the opening theme
was used in Kill Bill Volume 1, Oyama himself appears in the opening sequences, and
that is because he trained Chiba in real life for five years!
When it comes to movies, I don't easily discriminate between crap, pure crap and
masterpieces. I believe this movie is an absolute masterpiece and it's hard to keep
me entertained for more than 90 minutes. This movie ran SLOWER than Mystic River
and Harry Potter 3 combined and I still managed to stay riveted to my seat. For me,
it was the passion that Eric Bogosian put into his performance. It's extremely
difficult to pull off such a stunt and manage to garner any positive effect from
it. Bogosian probably nailed one of the toughest single-man performances in modern
cinema. I didn't have any respect for Bogosian until the end of the film. The
entire monologue minutes before the inexorable climax was the turning point, it was
the key that turned me around. This man hit a point so low that he knew he could
never recover from it. The corporate boys congratulated him on the performance. His
blistering prose made even the slimiest one in the cavalcade shake his head in awe.
It made me realize that personal integrity and hypocrisy don't matter in the world
of talk radio, even in the corporate world for that matter. Stone may have been
pushing some uber-liberal agenda but it was the actual movie and production that
got my attention. Oliver Stone is a minor master of the moody. The final third of
the film had probably the best lighting and cinematography I have seen in any film.
Stone artfully makes the DJ booth feel like five-by-seven cell in a nineteenth
century prison. Visually speaking, it appears that Bogosian's only friend is the
black foam that absorbs his routine vitriol. He speaks and it doesn't speak back.
It's a sad metaphor considering the way he treats the people who handed him his
success. Stone and Bogosian carved out a stunning film of a man who is trapped in
both a prison of walls and a prison of self. This man is confined to his own
volition and he can never escape it. The scene that made me realize his conundrum
was when he was unwilling to his ex-wife back. He preferred his own prison instead
of the world on the outside. Every story has a conflict and it came down to the
simplest of all conflicts: man versus himself. 'Talk Radio' presents this conflict
in an intelligent, gripping, and artful fashion. There are no hidden messages in
this film and the progression of events should be expected by any astute viewer. I
just leaned back and let my mind be grasped by this film and I loved it. It's
unheralded, unseen, and it will never receive its due recognition. Let's hope it
stays that way because gems deserve to be found and then hidden again. It's a gem
because I found it in the discount DVD bin at my local Wal-Mart store. For $5.50,
it was worth the half-hour I spent digging trying to find it. I did and I got more
than my money's worth. This is one of the best movies ever made and that is worth
ten reasons alone. Ten reasons give a score of ten. Here ends my rant!
This is a very cool movie. The ending of the movie is a bit more defined than the
play's ending, but either way it is still a good movie.
This film is totally mindblowing. It manages to be thought provoking, funny,
tragic, and cinematic yet claustrophobic. Although the flashbacks are
unnecessary, the film maintains a pacy, punchy grip and the performances are all
excellent, in particular Alec Baldwin, and the mesmerising Eric Bogosian as the
film's anti-hero, Barry Champlain.
In my opinion this is the best Oliver Stone flick -- probably more because of
Bogosian's influence than anything else. Riviting stuff -- full of dread from the
first moment to its dark ending.
This is a film about passion. The passion it depicts is largely misdirected, even
for the leading man. But therein lies the incredible power of this film: it shows
us that what we believe can be contaminated by nonsense, and can even lead us to do
things that are destructive -- to ourselves or others. Moreover, those who try to
escape from acquiring passion (watch the druggie who visits the studio) also risk
self-destruction. The world needs to hear the message of this movie more
often.
Oliver Stone hits the bull's eye with this film, aided chiefly by Bogosian's
electrifying screen presence and biting, brilliant screenplay. Every moment
crackles with a steadily-growing tension, climaxing in a truly, memorable movie-
going experience. If there was ever an indication of a writer and a director's
ability to meld two highly volatile temperaments into a seamless union of
creativity, then this is it! The result is a powerhouse achievement, made more
timely now perhaps because of our culture's disturbing fascination with celebrity,
and it's distorted interpretations of fame. An ultimate indictment of
our society's increasing morbidity, and self-sickening hunger for the next big
thrill. A film not easily forgotten. I highly recommend it to anyone
interested in the darker side of human nature.
With boundless, raw energy and an uncompromising vision, Talk Radio brilliantly
explores the public's fondness for reducing strangers' private problems into
entertainment via the radio. Eric Bogosian is sensational as Barry
Champlaine, a rude, in-your-face talk radio host. He's a natural for this kind of
role, and fine tunes one of the most impressive, interesting radio personalities
I've ever seen on screen. The timing and delivery of his insults to his various
callers are strokes of genius. Alec Baldwin also shines as Barry's boss.
He demonstrates the same explosive cynicism that he would later display 1992's
Glengarry Glen Ross. But the supporting role that truly stands out is the stoned,
seemingly brain-dead teen played by Michael Wincott. You have to see it to believe
it. Oliver Stone and Robert Richardson do a great job with the
photography, which is almost entirely confined to a single broadcasting room. The
claustrophobic feel of the movie perfectly mirrors its tone. After all, one of the
major points of the film is exploiting people's private moments to draw an
audience. Stone demonstrates that these moments are often too private for the whole
world to experience. Talk Radio is a film with strong emotional and
cerebral impact - the likes of which are seldom seen today.
Eric Bogosian gives as great a performance as you'll ever see in an Oliver Stone
film. His Barry character is an assault rifle disguised as a man and he blows away
anyone, on or off the air, that offends him. Adapted from Bogosian's stage play,
"Talk Radio" is a vicious and frightening ride that doesn't let you off until it's
too late. By then, you've become familiar with the fringe of racists, rapists,
paranoids, wannabe assassins and mere prank callers who listen, speak and lurk in
the dark of Dallas nights. Stone behaves himself, if that's even
possible, letting Bogosian dominate every scene, from Barry's humble beginnings to
the make or break point when his radio show can reach national syndication. The
rest of the cast are uniformly excellent as the lovers and/or co-workers that all
have being used and tossed aside by Barry in common. The only thing I'd
change is the recurring theme music, "Bad To The Bone". I'd have used Bachman-
Turner Overdrive's "Not Fragile". A better song, one I haven't heard in a film so
far and a driving, relentless tune whose ominous riff is like the true soundtrack
to Barry's life. Listen if you dare!
I was expecting a lot from this movie, and I can say I haven't been disappointed.
First of all, this movie, as a world tour of wine making, let the spectator enjoy
beautiful places. The people interviewed are really interesting and funny too, in
particular Hubert de Montille. The shooting may be confusing, the camera always
being unsteady and often focusing on secondary elements in the backgrounds. You may
not like it, but I don't consider it as a defect. The themes raised in
the movie may be kind of confusing as well, since globalization isn't the only
issue discussed. But Nossiter managed to give his movie a consistency all along. A
great achievement of this movie is revealing all the characters involved in the
wine industry as they really are, avoiding a cliché "Good against Evil". This could
be the main difference between "Mondovino" and Michael Moore's documentaries;
Nossiter's point of view appears in a subtle way, through opinions expressed by his
favorite characters. The richness of this documentary relies mainly upon the
characters, the history of long-time wine-making families, such as the De
Montilles, the Mondavis, the Antinori and the Frescobaldi. Nossiter lets the
spectator discover that wine is somehow related to families, rather than just being
a business and an industry. This movie doesn't make you want to drink wine, but
certainly make you want to discover vineyards and wine-makers. I watched
this movie as a student in Enology, and let's just there are many ways to learn. I
give this documentary 10 out of 10, despite his technical particularities.
Talk Radio sees a man somewhat accidentally stumble through life, indeed the
American Dream, from whatever bog-standard and everyday job he has in a store; to
presenter of a local radio show before going right the way through to the same job
only later syndicated nationwide. It's a role he adopts out of his own aggression
and natural mannerisms, a frothing mad approach to freedom of speech as he attacks
just about everyone and everything, even those that often call up to agree with him
or compliment him. His role as a man that rants on all things good, evil, right,
wrong, political, religious, moral and immoral is something that people seem to
take to in one form; that of 'it's entertaining and worth tuning in for', but
additionally on a plane of rejection and antagonism two things born out of the
very things seemingly encouraged in professional working life in the Western World.
This, towards a man as he gets to the very top of his game by way of the American
Dream and dealing in freedom of speech as people take to a man but do anything but
take to what it is he says. Talk Radio begins with a montage of tall,
towering buildings in a business based area of Dallas, Texas. The skyscrapers are
shot from a ,ow angle and tower over the viewer plus everything else in the general
vicinity as this voice of one man tears through the images, belting out statements
and information on items as these monolithic buildings dominate out screen. They
are the very physical representation of capitalism, while the voice of what we
learn to be a radio DJ is the oral representation of the free west; personal speech
and opinions on anything and everything. Stone will finish his film in the exact
same manner in which he started it, although the film is anything but a circular
journey of any sort as the characters undergo monumental changes in both what they
witness and their general livelihood. Rather, the shots of the buildings act as an
anchor around which the study is observed. The ideologies and ideas of a way of
life exist; people subscribe to them, but it does them more harm than good; before
the re-establishment that this proud way of life still exists and will continue to
exist in churning out the sorts of people on display in the film until someone or
something drastically changes things. The DJ is Barry Champlain, a man
with a radio show on a local Texan station dealing with just about anything.
Champlain's somewhat carefree attitude to some pretty explosive content is
established when he flies from one call with a bigoted man whom recently visited a
Holocaust museum to a young drug addict whose girlfriend has supposedly overdosed
and onto both the berating and mocking of a pizza shop. To us, the content comes
across as quite shocking; to these people, everything seems to be business as usual
which plants some serious seeds of both doubt and horror within the minds of us,
the newcomers to all of this. What Barry's show is about, nobody ever
seems to really establish: everything and nothing. Indeed, time is taken in the
form of either jingles or dialogue that the shows immediately pre and post
Champlain's show are on specific subjects; gardening, for instance, and are hosted
by calm speaking and methodical people whom, I'm sure, do not flit from one random
or extreme to another all the time raising the stakes. One wonders what Barry's
jingle is, the kind that plays around about lunch time during someone else's' show:
"Coming up later, the Barry Champlain show! Featuring the village idiot and
psychotic drug abusers!" Indeed, his show's introductory piece carries a matter-of-
fact tone, a shouting at the audience, as a loud rock track accompanies it. Barry's success arrives in the national syndication proposal. It's born out
of confrontation and a relationship built on the contempt he has for his listeners
and that they have for him. The furthering of the material and the upping of the
stakes ought to call into question just how far they think they can take this, and
whether this progressing down a track for sake of entertainment is really worth it.
It is when the show reaches this level of broadcast that Barry seems to come
unstuck for the first time in his broadcasting life, when a supposed serial rapist
calls in and leaves mostly everyone slightly stunned. It's at this point the camera
pauses on Barry, and by way of depth of focus, encompasses those same looming,
towering buildings the film began with which stand outside of the window, directly
behind Barry. They remain tall and proud. Specifically, of the ideologies they've
been built on and this furtherance of freedom of speech in broadening Barry's show
nationwide as one man climbs his profession's ladder suddenly clashes with the sort
of content that's being offered. Everything reaches a point too far, and that with
freedom, ought to at least come a sense of clarity rather than a mere revelling. Oliver Stone made Talk Radio right in the middle of both a fascinating and
explosive period of film-making he had in the late 1980s. In this time, he produced
a series of really well received films in a pretty short space of time; beginning
with one of my favourite war films in Platoon before continuing with the quite
brilliant Wall Street and eventually finishing with 1991's JFK. One might even say
that this run continued on into the mid-nineties with Natural Born Killers. Talk
Radio is like its lead character in the sense it's loud, booming, stark and
confrontational. It isn't anti-capitalism, as much as it is focused on drawing a
line between what is perceived as entertainment and what is just going too far for
sake of popularity and riches. Talk Radio is certainly a film that sticks in the
memory.
Excellent and highly under-rated from beginning to end. One of Oliver's best. Well
Scripted, Directed, Shot, Acted and Stuarts Copeland's soundtrack (Trivia: the
music during the end credits vaguely sounds like a late 90's Pop hit by "Spacehog"
Band Eric and Cast are Brilliant, let alone the Callers. What a
whirlwind of emotions. It make's your hair stand on end. (..."Necks will be broke
and whips will Crack"--in a old female southern accent.. Yike! creepy. Scary than
any Horror Movie. 10 out of 10 Em
Oliver Stone, always ready to make politically-themed movies, makes another one
here. "Talk Radio" is loosely based on the career of Alan Berg, a radio talk show
host in Denver who was murdered by white supremacists. In this case, the character
is Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian), an outspoken talk show host in Dallas who loves
nothing more than to irk the people who call in. As it is, most of the people who
call in are a bunch of pigheaded racists. And things may be heating up more than
anyone realizes. Bogosian's performance brings a light comical tone to
an otherwise serious movie. I really liked the scene where he jabs at a redneck who
calls in. Granted, I wouldn't call this Oliver Stone's greatest movie ever, but
it's a good reference in an era when media gets more and more concentrated. Good
performances by Ellen Greene and Alec Baldwin also help.
I chose this movie really for my husband-who works in radio broadcasting. I thought
that it would be more of a movie that he would enjoy and relate too, though it was
from the eighties-so it was a little dated. This movie really draws you in. At
times you just want to strangle the host, Barry. At times you just want to send
some of the bigots who call in to a true concentration camp. At times you really
feel sorry for Barry, because he has truly gotten too big for his jeans if you know
what I mean. It was on the Drama channel on Encore-so I am thinking this is a true
story. If you truly love dramas you will love this, even if you don't know all the
ins and outs of the broadcasting business. If you are an Alec Baldwin fan and are
watching it to see him, you shouldn't. His part is really a bit part in this movie.
WOW, a masterpiece of a movie not to be missed. I had no idea what this
movie was when I started watching it late night. I didn't find out it was a Stone
film until after the film when I went on IMDb. Watching it, I was mesmerized. The
cast, especially Eric Bogosian is just superb. One of the best scripts and camera
work ever...The movie drew me in and kept me entranced until the very end...I did
not dare blink for fear of missing something...Amazing how a small-budget film can
be so engrossing and well made while huge-budget films that feature tons of action
and computer generated special effects can be so incredibly boring. Don't miss this
film...
Absolutely nothing. The movies that are great in this world are not recognized
unless they are filled with gunshots, explosions, and death. This movie is filled
with a man talking about showing you a more complex character than has been seen in
many movies. When a movie is incredibly fast paced but stays mostly in
one location it has to be the work of a genius. Surprisingly enough, it is, this
movie is directed by Oliver Stone and therefore is one of the best directed films
of our time. This movie's screenplay was co-written by Oliver Stone and
Eric Bogosian (Barry Champlain, main character.). With Oliver Stone's help, the
screenplay was created as a seamless, rolling script which keeps you interested the
entire time if you have any amount of intelligence. If you have an open mind about
any subjects, and the wit to comprehend others, then this movie is something which
you should find some way to watch, immediately.
Barry Champlain is a radio phone-in talk-show host in Dallas, whose no-holds-barred
ideas on a plethora of social issues disturb and offend many of his callers and
listeners. Is Barry a media messiah in search of truth, or a social misfit out to
assault his audience ? This is an intense, provocative character piece
about a man with almost no redeeming features who at the same time seems to be onto
some really profound philosophy. Though co-written and directed by Stone, this is
really Bogosian's piece all the way and he gives an astonishingly hard-edged and
penetrating performance from which there is no escape. Barry is at times one of the
most loathsome characters imaginable, spewing bilious misanthropy at everyone
around him, particularly those who care about him. But at the same time he is also
strangely empathetic, hypnotic, sage, even lovable. Bogosian's hawkish features
burn into the frame, with his green eyes constantly darting around as if
permanently seeking an answer to some riddle. The movie is essentially an angry,
self-righteous rant against all the bigotry, injustice and banality in the world,
culminating in a wild three-and-a-half-minute rotating single shot of Barry
delivering the ultimate I-hate-everything speech, but boy does it pack a punch. The
support cast are great, particularly Greene as the ex-wife and Baldwin as the boss.
Robert Richardson's keen photography manages to keep the single radio studio set
looking interesting and there's a tense score by Stewart Copeland, with a moving
coda featuring that endearing phone-music piece, Telephone And Rubber Band by The
Penguin Cafe Orchestra. If you're unfamiliar with Bogosian, check out his amazing
talent in this flick - like his contemporaries, Bill Hicks and Denis Leary, he's
someone who rarely appears in the mainstream media, purely because his writing is
so out there. I find Stone's movies variable; I don't much care for his big
successes, but when he is more ordered and objective, as with this (or Salvador and
Nixon), he is much more incisive and arresting. A great primal scream of a picture,
based on a play by Bogosian, inspired by the true story of Alan Berg, a Denver
radio talk show host who was murdered by neo-Nazis in 1984.
Alright, the first time I seen "Talk Radio" was in a video store for only $2.00 on
VHS believe it or not, and I looked at it and I thought it might be about Howard
Stern, because I just looked at it for about thirty seconds, then just didn't see
it again. Then I went to another store about a month later and I found "Talk Radio"
on DVD for only $5.00. So I see it was directed by Oliver Stone, and I picked it
up. So after the film was over I was speechless. I have never seen such a film like
this. Here's the main plot, then i'll tell ya what I thought of it. It
is about a Dallas talk radio host Barry Champlain, a Jewish radio host who talks
about whatever other people bring up and he interupts, and is taking everything
seriously. Now, a network wants to put his show live everywhere in the U.S. So
Barry's show gets a lot of interesting phone callers like Chet (a neo-natzi), Kent
(a rock n roll drugged kid), John (rapist), and others. Now some of the callers
sound like the same actor/actresses. But still I think it fits okay. Now
what I love a lot about this film is the dark corners and the paranoid atmosphere
of the radio station. The dark music in the background fits very nicely too. It has
a flashback scene in the film also how he started with radio, which I think they
did good on. But the great thing about the film is ending. I was
surprised by it, and it kind of makes you feel paranoid a little about the phone
callers off the air and everything about it is wonderful. It also tells you how to
say the right things to people over a big city like Dallas. One of Oliver Stone's
underrated/weakest films mentioned, but I think it's his best in my opinion. But definitely get this film if you like films with paranoia-feel like
films with a dark atmosphere with sinister music in the background. I still watch
this film a lot of the times now when i'm bored, as matter fact I watched it
tonight. Yeah, if ya wanna really get the sinister feel to the film, watch it at
nightime with the lights off. I may sound crazy, but it makes the film better!
 Another thing I forgot to mention is that the reason I don't think the
film did so well was maybe in my point of view because of the title. 'Talk Radio.'
It doesn't sound very tricky or anything, it's kind of plain. A better title like
the book "Talked To Death" or maybe "The Abusive Radio Host" or something catchy
and not plain "Talk Radio". Or maybe because of Universal Pictures? Oliver Stone
usually didn't do Universal I don't think. Paramount might have been a good
company. I don't know, something about this film didn't do so well, but I love
it. "Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can cause
permanent damage."
Talk Radio is of course, probably not the most well known of Stone's films, but
don't let that put you off, this film is ripe for discovery, I defy anyone not to
be entranced by it. Along with the best performance of 80's cinema by Eric
Bogosian, for me (along with JFK)this remains Stone's finest moment. Stone doesn't
seem to comment much on it these days and didn't do a director's commentary on DVD
like all his other films. Stone has nothing to be ashamed of, most directors would
kill to get a shot @ a film like this. The claustrophobia of the studio
is intense and the opinions of Champlain are still very crucial arguments for
today. The "legalise all drugs" speech is powerful and you might find yourself
agreeing with him.In my opinion the film is about freedom of speech and how
sometimes people don't like hearing things they don't agree with.The speeches and
conversations with the listeners are very compelling, even disturbing, a chill ran
down my spine when a crazed man calls Champlain saying he has to rape again because
the city drives him crazy is totally shocking.The tension is sometimes unbearable
with a scene when Heavy metaller Kent becomes unhinged, of course Champlain does
himself no favours by ridiculing him. Champlain(or should I say Bogosian) is
fearless in film and performance, totally mesmerising, a shame th@ Bogosians other
big role was the villain in Under Siege 2(dear god!!)One scene th@ didn't ring true
was when Barry's boss Dan(Alec Baldwin) gets him to calm down, Barry doesn't seem
to be the kind of person who shuts up and does as he's told, it seemed a bit
contrived and clichéd.The scenes outside the studio are criticised for being too
formulaic, it's true because Stone is trying to make the film more cinematic and
allow the viewer to see Champlains beginnings but it doesn't entirely work. It is a brilliantly cinematic film with extreme close-ups, deep focus,
extremely fast cuts a fantastic 360 set which is used for the final breathtaking
monologue. Must see cinema, it makes it rare because it was ignored @the time but
is now receiving attention again which it so richly deserves. A classic th@ should
be studied by generations of film students. 10 out of 10 for inventive
use of "Bad To The Bone" before T2, brilliant supporting cast including John C
Mcginley(Dr Cox from Scrubs) as the sleazy Stu, Leslie Hope(24)as Champlains
girlfriend, John Pankow and Alec Baldwin as the suits and Micheal Wincott who plays
three roles( a very underrated actor), the tension between the listeners and
Champlain which is very heart-racing @ times and of course kudos to the stars
Bogosian and Stone for such a fantastic piece of cinema. Enjoy!
Probably one of his lesser known films, it suffers from the same lack of exposure
as Salvador in that its actually one of his best. Written by and
starring Eric Bogosian, Talk Radio tells the story of an opinionated radio phone-in
host who upsets the wrong kind of listener. The film is important, and has much to
say on the issues of free speech and just how free it should be, and you can easily
tell that it started life as a stage play. Know what you're getting into before you
sit down to watch it and you'll be fine. There isn't much to the acting
really as Bogosian pretty much steals the film, he wrote and is given licence to
rant, I couldn't take my eyes off him and that was part of the fascination many of
the listeners had; the people who hated him wouldn't turn off in-case they missed
something. Not for everyone, but a very good drama and overall a very
good film.
Business vs. personal conviction. Profit vs. art. As with any
documentary that pits the capitalist large corporations against the small producer,
the viewer will invariably have to take the side of one or the other based on their
own believes. This is as much a documentary of the new standardized way of doing
things that globalization is bringing us, against the old traditional ways where
character and the art of making things matters almost more than getting the product
sold. If you have to remember one thing from this movie, it is that the
masses can no longer decide by themselves, they just follow the taste of one or a
couple of critics that tend to equalize and standardize taste in the same way as
MacDonalds used to do for the fast bite (something Parker himself admits to in the
film against a backdrop of a Burger King sign). "It is all about image" against
content as another interviewee says. That is the easy way, the standardized way.
Easier than taking the time for a nice wine to mature, easier than to forge your
own taste by trying and trying yet over again. Controlled branded taste is
easier. There is a glitter of hope when even some of our cousins across
the ocean agree that a few people are "levelling" the taste of wines to maximize
the profits and ensure a maximum of it gets sold to the "grey masses".
Individuality and difference is sacrificed for the extra buck. It is nice to see
that not everything or everyone is giving in to standardization, even across the
ocean. As in many other areas of today's world, dominance of a few and
reduced freedom of choice impacts us all... let everyone make up their mind and
decide what to go for. Too much standardization kills the mind and taste;
difference brings innovation and healthy competition and will allow for choice -
and not just vacuum-packed "more of the same". Standardization sells easily and a
lot, and brings everyone to the same level - the lower one. On this, I
am going to open up a nice bottle and wish you a hearthy "sante".
Never having seen an Oliver Stone film before, nor any films starring Eric
Bogosian, I didn't know what to expect from this film. Having toyed with the idea
of buying it for a while, I finally got it for free as a supplement with a Sunday
newspaper and I was hugely impressed. It tells the story of Barry
Champlain, a talk radio host who can be incredibly rude towards his callers, often
putting them in their place before they realise what's going on. Though this is
what has made him a popular radio show host, it has also earned him numerous
enemies. The acting in this film was hugely impressive with not one dud
actor in it. Eric Bogosian is brilliant as Barry Champlain, the troubled talk radio
host with Alec Baldwin turning in a strong performance as Barry's boss, Dan. It
also features the voice of, and cameo appearance by, Michael Wincott (my reason for
wanting to see this). The story was really well written as, despite his
arrogance, you feel for Barry as more about his troubled life is revealed and you
see how vulnerable he really is. I'd recommend this film to anyone as it
is captivating and, more importantly real on numerous levels, two of which being
that is was inspired by the life of an actual talk radio host and the fact that you
do actually get radio show hosts, and callers, like the ones featured in the film
in reality. High recommendation and 10/10. Aye yours, Cat
Squire
Oliver Stone is not one to shy away from a movie or theme for that matter. He is
eager to confront people with their fears or show them their ugly faces in the
mirror. Look on his CV for proof! This movie is not an exception, quite on the
contrary, it is another gem, that unfortunately not many have seen. As
controversial movies go, this is one that you should be thankful for. A movie that
should encourage you to think about you, the people next to you. The prejudices
that do exist and that everyone of us has in one form or another. Either we like to
admit it or not, but it is easier to categorize people and be like "Ah he's 'xyz',
yeah he must be like ...". Now I might be reading too much into it, but I don't
believe that. I believe that Oliver Stone is a very intelligent filmmaker and that
he was aiming for those things. And if that's something you want to explore (as a
movie or within yourself), than watch this film and be excited!
I have never been a great fan of Oliver Stone, often because I have found his films
to be forced, preachy and generally flawed. The two Stone films I truly like are
JFK and Talk Radio, yet Talk Radio takes the cake for being Stone's finest
achievement. Stone is a director whereby you are either a fan or you are not, it is
safe to say that before watching Talk Radio I was not fond of the guy and
considered one of the most overrated directors in the film industry, though after
watching Talk Radio some of my perceptions have changed. Talk Radio is an
unsettling and amusing attack on what is now known as "reality TV". Talk
Radio follows a self-indulgent, dysfunctional, determined, hysterical, outrageous
and perplexing radio host, named Barry Champlain who hosts a controversial late-
night radio show in Dallas. Quickly becoming well known for his bold and quirky
air-presence he becomes a late night sensation, whereby depraved junkies,
delinquents, racists, sociopaths, sickos, perverts and morons call in to be
ridiculed on air. The film shows the rise and fall of the man's career, carefully
making an accurate portrayal on freedom of speech. Originally adapted from a stage-
play, the film attaches itself to the theatre theme that it was originally built
around, wonderfully conveying the film's fierce nature. With the
ferocious energy and non-stereotypical air, Talk Radio brings all the hilarity
behind "crass media". It remains even more poignant today than it was in the late
'80s. The film goes into depth studying the likes of arrogance, self-obsession,
offensive behaviour, controversy, hypocrisy and ignorance. The film shows through a
controlled manner how it is good to have a personal opinion and freedom of speech,
yet it is something that should be used wisely rather than shamefully blunt. Stone
tries to show how freedom of speech is a crucial importance in life, but is
something that we should be wary and cautious about. The film asks the question of
"is our main protagonist just the same as the sad people who call up the show?" Stone fabulously creates the film's key set-piece (the radio station) with
an ambition and cold atmosphere. He then succeeds in capturing the isolation, fear,
ambiguity and the dangerous emotions that are built up at the radio station. Eric
Bogosian is perfectly cast as the isolated, self-absorbed and complex genius, Barry
Champlain. He fits the role perfectly letting off his lines with such enthusiasm,
urgency, perplexity, brusqueness and ultimately the bold hilarity of his offensive
nature. The performance brims with spark, which was evidently robbed of an Oscar
nomination. His voice suits the character, being that a primary element of a radio
host and his power of acting along with tragedy and comedy works brilliantly. There is a strong use of editing in Stone's films and Talk Radio boasts
some of his cleanest, most rhythmic editing. He uses beautifully controlled camera
techniques, which differ from being calm to suddenly becoming turbulent. There is a
vibrant energy behind the film, with its raw and wonderfully delightful script
working as a centre-piece for the greatness of the film. The striking and virtuous
cinematography stands out in the moments inside and outside the studio, most
impressively capturing the city at night. Not forgetting the hauntingly
heartbreaking and yet darkly funny climatic "spiral to decline" is ultimately
remarkable cinema. Talk Radio is an essential modern masterpiece, I am
certain you will be surprised by just how great it really is. I highly recommend
Talk Radio for anyone interested in media or film. Talk Radio is a fine example of
top-notch, intellectual and insightful entertainment, which still packs a well-
earned wakeup call. Finally, if it was not for Eric Bogosian the film would not be
the fun, delightful and enduring masterpiece it is today.
I tend to be inclined towards movies about people who choose to cross the barriers
of censorship, and express what they really want to express. Eric Bogosian's
character of Barry is like Howard Stern, but much more intelligent. The character
itself is very fascinating. As an Oliver Stone film, I guess I was expecting more.
The film sags a bit during the third act. Plus, it's pretty obvious that "Talk
Radio" is based on a play, with its long dialogue scenes. But overall, the film
works. Bogosian is great in the lead, and the fact that he also wrote the play from
which the movie was based on probably helped him. If you want to check out one of
Stone's greater films, I better suggest you check out "JFK" or "Salvador." This is
not his best work, but a good movie nonetheless.
"Talk Radio" is my favorite Oliver Stone movie, though he has made many great ones
including "Salvador", "JFK", "Natural Born Killers" and "Platoon". But I like the
intimacy of "Talk Radio", a cinematic expansion of Eric Bogosian's searing stage
play that was based on a real life account of a Dallas talk show host. Working with
ace cinematographer Robert Richardson, Stone turns what could have been a very set-
bound exercise into a visually arresting ideological battle that presents a radio
station as an arena of war. Bogosian is devastating as tortured on-air spouter of
abuse Barry Champlain and conveys the conflicted, destructive nature of his
character with conviction and a generous dose of self-loathing. Alec Baldwin, as
his Alpha male boss, strikes the perfect note as a man driven nuts by a guy whose
monstrousness he helped nurture. Ellen Greene is fantastic as Barry's sweet ex-wife
who ends up becoming another target of his vicious personal vitriol. Stone and
Bogosian fill every frame with interest and every line of dialog with sweet poison
and cutting ambiguity. John C. McGinley, as Barry's long-suffering
screener/technical producer Stu, turns in a hilarious, sharp performance, as does
the great Michael Wincott. The film is a flawless, underrated masterpiece of superb
writing, awesome acting and brutal, uncompromising direction. The Stewart Copeland
score is brilliant, too.
I have seen it a few times and get completely glued to it every time. It is very
suspenseful and intense. To describe it sounds boring but it is amazing. It is the
kind of movie where you need can't miss a thing, but if you soak it in it sticks
with you long after it ends. Now thinking about it I don't even know what Stone was
trying to make us see. Just the story of Alan Green? I don't think so. It was a
look at ignorance, stupidity, self-absorption, and a guy just loosing his grip.
Maybe he had more grip than the listeners though. I didn't like Barry but still
seemed worried about him for some reason. I was perplexed at why I couldn't get him
out of my mind when the movie ended. I wish I could see inside Olive Stone's mind
for this one.
***SPOILERS*** For some strange reason Oliver Stone's "Talk Radio" based on the
Stephen Singular book "Talked to Death" and the films star Eric Bogosian's play,
about the 1984 murder of Denver talk show host Alan Berg, has never gotten the
recognition that it so rightfully deserved. The 1988 movie was prophetic enough to
recognize the underground movement that was developing in the farm and hinterland
of America. A movement that spawned, some seven years later, the likes of an angry
and disgruntled Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh who's hatred for the US
governments actions in Wacco Texas lead to his and friend,Terry Nichols, detonation
of the US Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 that took the lives
of 168 people, the worst act of terrorism on US soil up to that time. The movie is, as far as I know, the first time that any major branch of the
entertainment media mentioned and elaborated on the rural militia novel "The Turner
Diaries" by the late William L. Pierce, that has since become a chilling
underground classic. "The Turner Diaries" forecast a domestic and utterly
disastrous terrorist attack, like the Oklahoma City bombing, on a US Government
Federal facility which was the FBI Building in Washington D.C. Dallas
radio station KGAB talk show host Barry Champlain, Eric Bogosian, is the top rated
show in the Dallas listening area and is now about to go national. Barry get's his
high rating by his razor sharp wit and abusive behavior when he's on the air.
Taking on all comers and ducking no issues, no matter how unpopular or taboo they
are, has gotten Barry to be the most listened to as well as hated man on radio.
Barry being a showman at heart and not thinking that his talk can lead to violence
keeps up his abrasiveness to his call-in listeners as his rating go up to the
celling. But there are those in the listening audience, mostly ultra right wing
types, that don't take too kindly to his in your face attitude. One of them decides
to take matters into his on hand at Barry's expense. Powerhouse
performance by Eric Bogosian as the tragic Barry Champlain who crossed the line
from entertainment to hard reality in his actions on the radio. Thinking that he's
not that important to be sought out and murdered for his on the air opinions which
is enemies dislike he found out only too late that there are those out there who
are crazy enough to do to him on the outside. Also in the movie "Talk Radio" is a
very young Alic Baldwin as Barry's boss Dan who tries to have him soften his tone
but in the end goes along with his talk show style since he's killing the
competition not realizing that in the end it's him that he'll end up getting
killed. Both Ellen Green and Leslie Hope are the two women in Barry's
life his ex-wife Ellen and now lover and talk show producer Laura whom Barry uses
to his advantage and almost ends up losing both of them at the same time. The 1988
film "Talk Radio" is so far ahead of it's time that even if you watch it now in
2005 you still think that it's too disturbing to be shown to an over sensitive and
delicate American public.
In one of the more under-seen films of the late 1980's, at a time when Oliver Stone
was riding high with Platoon and Wall Street (and before his opus Born on the
Fourth of July), he co-scripted and directed this look at the world of radio,
specifically one radio host in the middle of Texas. This man is Barry Champlain, in
a once-in-a-career turn from Eric Bogosian, who wrote the original play and also
co-wrote the script. Barry is like a mix of Howard Stern and one of those pundits
you hear on the radio stations many of us might turn off. He's got ideas on his
mind, opinions, and he's not only un-afraid to speak them, but also to stand up
against the phone callers. The callers, indeed, are the driving force in the film,
as Barry has to combat against the mindless, the obscene, the racist, and the
purely absent-minded. As this goes on, he also has to contend with his boss (Alec
Baldwin) and a hit or miss deal to go nationwide, outside the confines of the
Southern way station he's in. While after seeing the film I felt curious
as to see how it would've been done on stage (I'd imagine it was a one-man show, as
Bogosian has had several on the side), the direction of the film is phenomenal.
Stone has been known, almost typecast, as a director who loves quick cuts, the
limitless effects of montage, and effects with the styles of camera-work and other
little tricks, that give his films in the 90's a distinctive, almost auteur look.
But in the 80's he had this energy and feverish quality to the look of the film,
and wasn't as frenzied as the other films. In order to add the proper intensity
that is within the studio and head-space of Barry Champlain, he and DP Robert
Richardson make the space seem claustrophobic at times, gritty, un-sure, and
definitely on edge. The scenes in the middle of the film, when Barry isn't in the
studio, are fairly standard, but the style along with the substance in the radio
scenes is among the best I've seen from the Stone/Richardson combination. And one cannot miscalculate the performance of Bogosian, who can be
obnoxious, offensive, angered, passive, and everything that we love and hate in
radio show hosts. There is also a funny, near distracting supporting role for
Michael Wincott as Kent/Michael/Joe, who prank calls him one night, and the next
gets invited to the studio. These scenes are a little uncomfortable for a viewer,
but it does get very much into the subculture head-space of the 80's that Barry is
as intrigued as he is critical of. The stoner may not 'get it', but as he says to
him "it's your show". Indeed, it's hard to cover everything that goes on within the
talk, and there is a lot of it. But it's never boring, and like Champlain himself,
it's not easy to ignore. And when Bogosian goes into his climactic tirade on air,
with the background panning around in a continuous 360 spin, it becomes
intoxicating, and a reason why freedom of speech is so powerful. Stone
has been synonymous as a filmmaker of hot-button issues, who takes on subjects that
were or still are controversial, and gives them a life-force that isn't always
great, but is all his own. Here his skills and ambitions don't get in the way of
Bogosian's- it's boosted, if anything, making an extremely skilled vision of what
is essentially a near one-man show, which in and of itself is already well-written.
When you think 'Oliver Stone' the movies that come to mind would be his biggest and
most controversial ones like Platoon, JFK, Born On The Fourth Of July, or Natural
Born Killers. Talk Radio usually doesn't. It's a pretty small movie, actually. More
than half the movie takes place with Barry Champlain at his radio station talking
into his mike. But believe me, this is one of Oliver Stone's greatest movies and
should NOT be missed. Above all things it's a character study. Barry
Champlain is a rude, self-destructive, risk-taking talk radio show host who says
one too many things and starts to get in trouble with his boss, his lover(s), his
fans, and even some Nazis. He doesn't like his audience and callers and a lot of
them don't like him (eithor that or do like him, but have no idea why). But, at the
end he says on his show: "I guess we're stuck with each other." See Talk
Radio, even if you don't like Oliver Stone movies. You might be surprised. I sure
was. My Rating: 10/10
From the offset, I knew this was going to be a terrific movie, the pace, the
cinematography, personalities indigenous to the Dallas area, the diversification of
characters, not to mention the director Oliver Stone and of course Eric
Bogasian...The film starts out on a Friday (suggestively occult in the first place)
and begins with a radio station in Dallas that is hosting their number one talk
show, The Barry Champlain Show (Based on the Talk Radio Host Alan Berg)...Barry
(Eric Bogasian) is the abrasive radio talk show host and his job is such whereby it
is compulsory to pontificate all of the sensationalistic nuances of the radio
audience feeding into his show...He attempts to commiserate with a bunch of
societal deviates turned lonely, vulnerable, obscene phone callers who have the
masochistic craving to be publicly vilified, Barry Champlain is effective in coping
with this precarious ilk, by socially debasing them rather than simply subjugating
them to mere admonishment...New technologies serve a stigmatic purpose for the
Dallas radio audience, and paramount concepts take a backseat to perversion, talk
about "Baseball Scores, Orgasms and People's Pets!!" The whole thing is
a cacophony of drug-induced diatribes and a potpourri for psychopathic paranoia!!
This high profile cannon fodder is something that Barry Champlain thrives on!!! The
convoluted pathos, the deranged proclivities deeriving from inaneities and puveyors
of pornography and the overall pop culture afflictions serve as volatile ammunition
for Barry Champlain's stilted battleground!! The setting for this movie
is perfect in that there is a two thousand foot drop in terms of ideology.. In the
the center of Dallas there is an overbearing sense of cosmopolitan awareness,
whereby 20 miles away resides a significant chapter of the Ku Klux Klan!!...The
play is based in Denver,that is where the actual story takes place, other small
theater plays depict the cities of Louisville, Atlanta and Cleveland. Dallas is the
city where the film takes place, I thought it was an excellent choice!!...This
movie illustrates how people have a horrid and erroneous and deadly
misconceptualization of the Jewish people in America, whereby they control the
banks, their agenda is different than everybody else's and their intellectual
literature leads to perversion!! These preconceived notions compound Barry
Champlain's overall dilemma!!! Barry Champlain's personal undoing is whereby he is
irascible and non-responsive to his alcoholism, and his abrasive and politically
controversial nature is his ultimate undoing, this is what makes the film so
believable!! The characters in the movie were well portrayed, Dan, the
tailor made for middle management hatchet man (played by Alec Baldwin) who was
constantly monitoring Barry Champlain's every move!!..Laura, his girlfriend, also
his producer, will constantly feel Barry is someone who is always misunderstood!!
Ellen, his ex-wife, is a recipient of Barry's anguish and selfishness, but cannot
quite relinquish her feelings for Barry regardless of the path of personal
destruction he winds up resorting to!! The Dallas radio audience is a melting pot
of socially misplaced retro-bates who are dementedly amused by their own real
shortcomings!!!...In part, everybody's hang-ups including Barry Champlain's own
hang-ups are what do Barry Champlain in!! His audience ogles depravity, solicits
amelioration and ultimately becomes Barry Champlain's pet project for prescribed
sinners!! Social culture conflicts become Barry Champlain's downfall!! This movie is superb!! In my opinion Oliver Stone's best picture, including
Platoon and Natural Born Killers..That statement in of itself tells you how
magnificent a film Talk Radio is...The story consulting and acting and co-producing
of Eric Bogosian is simply compelling!! The camera angles, the dialogue, the
haunting character portrayals, all top notch..The cinematography of the Dallas
skyline at the end of the movie is terrific!! Dallas has the dubious distinction of
being deemed a mega metropolis...So now, just like Los Angeles and New York, there
are crack baby cases too numerous to count, low cost housing neighborhoods from
Hell and budgets cuts that will mean there will be a significant number of people
who will be dead by this time next year!!!!...Dallas asserts it's status as a major
metropolitan area in the precarious manner by which human debauchery prevails!! The
city has it's lynching radio listeners who have given a pejorative spin to the
marvel of nationwide air wave communication!! These are the culprits in the movie!!
The ghoulish tabloid derelicts who want to meet the big bad wolf, and their
decadent curiosity has morally obliterated "The last neighborhood in America"
I saw this at the London Film Festival last night, apparently the shorter version.
James McNally's summary of the content of the film is very good. Nossiter very
deftly blends his investigation of the wine business into wider concerns about
globalisation, homogenisation, the effect of the mass media, the power of capital
and the need for diversity. The film is shot on hand-held DV which some
might find offputting, but which does enable Nossiter to catch people off guard on
a number of occasions which probably would not have been possible using more
conventional equipment. Despite the sprawling feel of the film, the
editing is very sharp, not only giving us a parade of the world's dogs, but also
undercutting a number of interviewees' comments with somewhat contradictory visual
images, and giving others sufficient rope to hang themselves. To a degree this
evoked Michael Moore's recent work (although Nossiter operates in a more subtle
way), but probably the roots of the film go back to Marcel Ophuls' "The Sorrow and
the Pity", both in the way the film is constructed and in the emergence of 'salt of
the earth' French peasants as the stars. De Montille pere et fils were present at
the LFF screening and answered questions afterwards. We do indeed all need a little
disorder - bravo Hubert! Overall an excellent film with implications
that go way beyond the world of wine into the way we construct ourselves as people,
and organise our world.
Easily one of the best Indian films ever. Granted, that's not saying much(I made
this conclusion after a whopping 15 minutes of watching). But I can truly say that
Fire is also one of the really beautiful and brilliant films I've seen. Beautiful because of its imagery. The best example I can give is the parallelism
between the 2 female leads(Radha and Sita) and the characters of the same name in
Hindu mythology. Sita, for example, is the wife of the revered Lord Ram. As legend
goes, Ram subjugates his wife by making her walk through a Fire to prove her
`purity.' Sita, in response, cries and leaves him, reuniting with her mother(the
Earth). This story has all sort of crazy links to the stories of the 2 Indian
women(Nandita Das and Shabana Azmi). The word `Fire' all of a sudden has many
meanings - marriage, tradition, religion, motherhood, and probably a few others I
didn't catch. Brilliant because of its social overtones. Many who were
offended by the premise for this movie should in fact be first to see Fire(e.g. my
mom, who actually loved it). Why? Because although Fire is an attack on tradition,
it is also an attack on tradition. In other words, that is its strength, NOT its
weakness. Traditional conservative social mores(whether Indian or Canadian or
American or whatever) are useless if they enslave you. Gender roles and self-denial
can both do this. These are the things I took with me after seeing Fire.
Hats off to Deepa Mehta
Not a bad movie but could have been done without the full frontal nudity of a 10
year old boy in one of the opening scenes. This movie has excellent dialog; which
is certainly common among foreign films. Foreign actors still know how to act as
opposed to American actors who let the CGI, stunts, and special effects do all the
work for them. This film is just good old fashion acting. Gerarde DePardieux did an
excellent job as always. The costumes and scenery are accurate with the time. My
only complaint is that they should have dubbed the English words over the french
instead of using subtitles; this could just be because I hate reading subtitles.
Cinema, at its best is entertainment. If one is to question every aspect with which
one finds room for disagreement,and much of recorded history is based on
contemporary opinions - often biased - then one should leave the cinema, because
their prejudices will always spoil their enjoyment. When I spotted an airplane
flying overhead in a film dated 33BC I was amused. The background scenery in
"Casablanca" is absurdly fake. So, do I set up a moan & say that the film failed to
convince? Fiona, relax and enjoy some excellent acting. Wajda's decision to cast
the protagonists as French & Polish was inspired. one was immediately aware of
which side each of the main characters was representing. No need to dwell on the
authenticity of the wigs. This is powerful cinema. If there is a political message
which is still relevant today - have a dinner party - a Château d'Yquem with the
foie-gras; a Puligny Montrachet with the entree; some Polish Vodka sorbets and
perhaps a 1961 Château Lafite-Rothschild with the beef - and discuss the political
aspects of Danton until you drop with fatigue. Danton would surely have agreed?
Many American pea-brains who worship and support the political half-truths of
hucksters like Michael Moore would do well to sit through this movie more than once
and see how hypnotic manipulators can scare, intimidate and lie to an underinformed
public and get the people they fear or loathe killed, spindled and mutilated.
Robespierre in this fine epic kills the opposition by remote control, all in a fit
of self-righteous devotion to his principles. We get the impression that Robes felt
it quite justifiable to snip off his opponent's heads, even as he sent his minions
out to trump up false and misleading charges against the State. Today, the captains
of our rotting media institutions are much more sensitive that Robes...they merely
murder your character with innuendo and false charges laid down without foundation
or sources. Witness Dan Rather's attempts to assassinate W's character on the eve
of the 2004 election, or the constant drumbeat that the 2000 election was stolen,
although constitutional scholars continue to scoff at such irresponsible drivel.
This film is more than the story of Danton. It was a joint Polish French production
filmed at the time of the beginning of the end of the Soviet system. It probably
helped spur the Solidarity movement's union activity. It is more about Poland in
the 20th century than the French Revolution. Solidarity began the end of the
system. This film itself is historical by it's very existence....the rest is
History. Robspiere, aka. totalitarian leaders. Danton, aka. Walensa.
When one watches this film, one must remember the snowball which began in Poland.
 Actually, it could be useful for seeing the superpower struggle within
the only superpower left.
Unlike http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098238/ this movie provides no background
information. We are shown a snapshot of the fall of Danton, his mock process and
execution but, unless one studied the revolution quite extensively, it is difficult
to understand where characters come from ( Fouquier-Tinville, Philippeau,
Desmoulins, Robespierre... ) and thus to appreciate them for what they are: Danton
and Joe Blobb could be the same person to the viewer. For example Robespierre &
Desmoulins were close friends since their youth, and this explains how Robespierre
acts. Those who know the facts, though, will easily orient themselves and
appreciate this good movie with actors delivering solid acting, no useless subplots
and good reconstruction of the times. Desmoulins and Danton are the best
characters, but all do a good job, even the 'demented' Saint-Just portrayed as sort
of psychopath. 'Terreur' was a period of massacres whose importance hasn't been
fully documented and that -for the most part- were driven by ambition, greed and
the settling of personal disputes, fed to ignorant sans-culottes as the next
epochal step against tyranny.
I was very curious to see this Wajda-Depardieu outing, plus the time period is
definitely fascinating. Being a Wajda fan, I was disappointed, and that may be an
understatement. The film never really took cinematic flight -- there's no
foundation for the animosity between Danton and Robespierre, etc. Basically, the script was weak (adapted from "The Danton Affair"). And yet, the
direction was masterful...it's Wajda, afterall! Also, there were some amazing
actors BUT they never really grab the audience's attention like they should.
Depardieu comes off as a quasi-goofy, nonchalant Danton...not exactly the image we
have in mind. Woijech Pzsoniak is incredible, as usual, but again the script puts
up limits even actors of great talent can't break down. Andrzej Seweryn and
Bogoslaw Linda pop up ... as Bourdon and Saint-Just...and if you're familiar with
Wajda, then you'd know them. Overall, I was disappointed with this much-
lauded film. Great cast, great director, but no quality foundation. Bad, undynamic
script. We need to get in Danton (Walesa) and Robespierre's (General J) mindsets...
what are their motivations? Eh...who knows? One likes women, the other powders
himself? Riiight. Ok, so if you're looking for a great French Revolution movie I
HIGHLY recommend "La Revolution Francaise"...it's in two parts and oh-so-great!
Excellent performances, in-depth script, juicy tid bits...definitely a satisfying
experience!! Klaus-Maria Brandauer is a much better Danton than Depardieu...the
wonderful Andrzej Seweryn apparently took some notes from "Danton" and is BRILLIANT
as Robespierre. SEE IT! NOW! As for Wajda fans -- you're better off with "Man of
Iron/Marble", "Promised Land", and the like. Cheers!!
This is a great movie to look at, since it so nicely directed by Andrzej Wajda but
at the same time I wished the movie would had some more depth in it, in terms of
its story. It's an historically relevant movie about the last days of the French
revolution but yet the movie forgets to focus on the character's motivations making
the movie perhaps a tad bit too shallow to consider this a brilliant and relevant
movie to what. Somehow it doesn't make the movie any less great to watch
though. It's made with passion and eye for detail. every aspect about the movie is
good looking, such as its settings, costumes and camera-work. Also the
story still works out as powerful, though at the same time it could had been so
much better and more powerful with a just bit more character development and
insight historical information. Guess if you're completely familiar with the French
Revolution and the stories of Danton and Robespierre in particular, this movie will
be a perfect one for you to watch. It's somewhat typical for a French
movie to tell a story slowly and subtle, without ever stepping too much in detail.
Often this works out charmingly but in this case the movie could had really done
with a bit more depth. Other than that, this movie is still one fine example of
French cinema, despite the fact that it's being directed by a Polish director and
stars lots of Polish actors in it as well. Gérard Depardieu is great in
his role, though the movie also decides to concentrate a lot on many other
different characters. The movie perhaps has a bit too many characters but each and
every performance is a great one, so this doesn't really ever become a big
complaint, other than that it slows done the story a bit at certain points. A great movie that could had been brilliant. 8/10
The film tells upon the title role,Danton(Gerard Depardieu),confronting against
Robespierre(Wojciech Pszoniak) during the French revolution.The film is based on
real deeds,they are the following: Danton(1759-1794) as lawyer participated in the
overthrowing of the king Louis XVI and the proclamation of the Republic,being
Minister of Justice in the Convention(1792)and founder of Cordeliers club.He
proposed creation revolutionaries committees as the committee of public salvation
which he presided but was substituted by Robespierre,starting a period of
revolutionary dictatorship known ¨the Terror¨(1793). Besides in the film appear
other historic personages as Camille Desmoulins(Patrice Chereau,now a famed
filmmaker)Louis David,Saint Just(Jacobino),Tallien.. The picture
especially narrates the happenings surrounding the facing off of the principal
figures,one-time partner revolution ,and posterior execution,although gives results
a contemporary parable about the modern Poland,thus Danton is Lech Walesa and
Robespierre is Wojciech Jaruzelski who was the Prime Minister imposed the martial
law in Poland and with similar name than actor played Robespierre . Gerard
Depardieu is excellent in the title character and magnificently portrayed, also in
secondaries roles are awesome actors as the recently deceased Jacques
Villeret(Dinner game,Crimen in paradise)and Angela Winkler(The tin drum). The
motion picture is well directed by Andrzej Wajda ,considered the best Polish
director.The flick will like to historical cinema buffs.
If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard
Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de
Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the
breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part
despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his
hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve...
but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded
Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the
hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his
opponent Robespierre! For those who know the characters from history,
there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien,
Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop
St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect;
names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there
is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events
in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has
gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted,
as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in
the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold. Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards
the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between
the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which,
thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no
revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the
victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but
it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd
place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take
events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre.
This is one of the best movies on the French Revolution ever produced. Being a
person well versed in the the period I was amazed at the level of detail. The
costumes are spot on. Even the detailed little day to day items such as ink wells,
serving plates etc are all perfect. As an American living in France who has access
to the sites in the movie through his membership in various historical associations
such as the Napoleonic Alliance I can not over state how impressed I was with the
visual accuracy of the film. The dialogue where known is virtual
quotations and the where not recorded is in character. I was extremely pleased with
this movie and am disappointed that it is not out on DVD yet. This is how
historical drama should be done. Must see....
I saw this film at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival. Since I work in
the wine business, I had been quite eager to see this documentary, and I wasn't
disappointed. Reportedly drawn from over 500 hours of footage, the good news is
that Nossiter will be releasing not only a theatrical cut, but a ten-part, ten hour
series of the film on DVD by next Christmas (ThinkFilm is distributing it). The bad
news is that it's still a bit of an unwieldy beast. When it was shown in Cannes, it
was close to three hours long. For Toronto, he's cut about half an hour but it
still clocked in at 135 minutes. Now, for me, that's fine. I love wine and I love
hearing about the controversies raging in my business. But not everyone wants that
much. Nossiter flits around the globe, from Brazil to France to
California to Italy to Argentina, talking to wine makers and PR people and
consultants and critics about the state of the wine world. The theme that emerges
is that globalization and the undue influence of wine critic Robert Parker are
forcing a kind of sameness on wine. Small local producers are either being bought
up by larger conglomerates (American as well as local), or are being pressured by
market forces to change their wines to suit the palate of Mr. Parker, who dictates
taste to most of the American (and world) markets. It's a complicated
subject, and I can understand why Nossiter wants to let his subjects talk. There is
Robert Mondavi, patriarch of the Napa wine industry, and his sons Tim and Michael,
whose efforts to buy land in Languedoc faced opposition from local vignerons and
government officials. There is Aimé Guibert, founder and wine maker of Daumas
Gassac, iconoclastic opponent of Mondavi's plans and crusader for wines that
express local terror. There is Robert Parker himself, expressing some discomfort
with his influence while refusing to stop writing about the wines that he favours.
There is "flying wine maker" Michel Rolland, consultant for dozens of wineries all
over the world, advising them how to make Parker- friendly wines. There are many
many more fascinating personalities in this documentary. If you are a
wine lover, you will want to seek out the ten-part series as well as the theatrical
version of this film. But even if you're not into wine, the film is an interesting
look at how the forces of globalization are changing many of the world's oldest and
most established traditions. The effects on local cultures and economies cannot be
ignored. (8/10)
Danton was a hero and one of the founders of the French Revolution of 1789. This
movie is set five years later and the revolution has morphed into something ugly.
While initially the revolution promised freedom, at this point the small committee
running the country is extremely repressive and is a dictatorship. Danton and his
friends were angry at how the country wasn't better off in 1794 than it was BEFORE
they got rid of their king, so they begin criticizing the government. The movie
begins as the printer who makes critical pamphlets concerning the government is
beaten and his business is destroyed. So much for "liberty, equality and
fraternity"! So, as a result of being silenced this way, Danton et al begin
publicly criticizing the government. Eventually, Robespierre (the leader of the
committee) and his cronies trump up charges, have a show trial and get rid of the
dissent. Some have mentioned that the Polish director, Wajda, also intended this to
be a criticism of his own nation--which, at the time, was Soviet-dominated and very
repressive as well. This makes sense as you see the movie unfold--especially when
the government destroys all dissent "in the name of the people". The
acting is fine, the story compelling and I have no major criticism of the film.
However, I really wish the ending had been handled differently. Especially because
other than history lovers and French people, most probably have no idea that this
execution helped to end the government. AFTER this purge of Danton in April 1794,
Robespierre himself was executed in July 1794 because the country had just had
enough--plus, those surviving Frenchmen knew that they, too, would face the
guillotine sooner or later if this sick system remained in place. Some sort of an
epilogue would have been nice--such as showing the soldiers coming for Robespierre.
He responded by trying to kill himself first, but he only succeeded in blowing off
part of his face--still alive, he was guillotined shortly afterward. This would
have been a dandy little epilogue and could have been done in about five minutes.
However, not showing a connection between Danton's death and the fall of the
government is an odd thing to omit.
French cinema had always been very strong when comes the time to present historical
subjects. 95 % of the time, they never make errors. This film is of one of the best
of the genre, due to very very strong acting by Depardieu and Pszoniak. Wajda work,
as the director, is truly a wonder. Everyone should see this great film.
Set in the 1794, the second year of the French republic formed after the execution
of Louis XVI, this film portrays the power struggle between the revolutionary
leaders Danton (Gerard Depardieu, at his finest) and Robespierre (a commanding
performance by the Polish actor Wojciech Pszoniak). The moderate revolutionary
Danton has returned to Paris from his country seat where he has been since being
deposed as leader of the Committee of Public Safety in the previous year by
Robespierre. He is opposed to "The Reign Of Terror" which has resulted in the
executions of thousands of citizens, mainly by guillotine, who are thought to be
opposed to the Revolution. Danton is confident of the support of the ordinary
people and tries to persuade Robespierre to curb the bloodletting. But Robespierre
and the Committee are afraid that the popularity of Danton will lead to them being
overthrown, and put Danton and his supporters on trial for being traitors. This was
the first French language film made by Andrzej Wajda after he had arrived in France
from Poland. His Polish film company was closed down by the government due to his
support for the Solidarity trade union, which had opposed the Polish government in
the late seventies and early eighties. His previous film "Man Of Iron" (1981) had
dealt with the Solidarity union and its leader Lech Walesa, and it is easy to draw
comparisons between the relationship of Walesa and the Polish leader General
Jaruselski, and that between Danton and Robespierre. Danton/Walesa are the voice of
reason opposed to Robespierre/Jaruselski who continue dictatorial rule despite
having lost the support of the people they claim to represent. The film is based on
the Polish play "The Danton Affair" written by Stanislawa Przybyszewska in the
1930s, and on its release the film was criticised by some for being static and
theatrical. But what the film does is to concentrate on the behind-the-scenes
meetings of the Committees and the scenes in the National Assembly and the
courtroom rather than the activities on the streets of Paris.
The movie takes place during the year 1940 and the French are about to loose the
war. The movie includes all genres: comedy, romantic, murder and
history. It is probable the historical part may be not as probable as the
rest. It is not, however, a big laugh movie but the occasional large
smile!
[Minor spoilers follow] Steve Allen opined that topical humor about
serious events might be found by many to be acceptable based on the formula:
Tragedy+Time=Comedy. 1939 before the German assault on Poland was hardly a fun
period and subsequent events, including the Blitzkrieg (following the Sitzkrieg)
which took Germany to the Channel, resulted in the heroic evacuation at Dunkirk and
gave the world the sickening spectacle of a supine France prostrating its honor
before the Nazi conqueror. The stuff of romance, comedy and a big dollop
of serious drama? Yep. Director Jean-Paul Rappeneau, with a well-matched and
outstanding cast, creates in "Bon voyage" a pastiche of events and scenes from
history and from imagination that is hugely entertaining. Viviane
Denvers (the sloe-eyed and beautiful Isabelle Adjani) is France's top actress as
war clouds gather over Europe (what an overused cliche, sorry). A veteran self-
venerating bedhopper with many affairs to her credit, her inner motivation seems to
be "Whatever is good for Viviane is good for...Viviane). Following a premiere of
her latest film after which a minister in the incompetent Reynaud administration,
Jean-Etienne Beaufort (Gerard Depardieu in an unusual role for him), signals his
interest in her, she goes home only to tiredly encounter an ex-lover who doesn't
understand the word "no." She decisively resolves that issue but then frantically
and histrionically enlists another former beau, the still besotted Frederic
(Gregory Derangere), to help deal with the mess in her flat. Frederic is a
novelist-in-expectation. A comic accident that once again highlights,
almost as a public service message, the importance of working windshield wipers
puts Frederic in jail on most serious charges. Fortunately the breakout of the
Germans from their static positions forces a wholesale transfer of prisoners to the
south of France but our boy escapes, making his way there privately rather than as
a ward of the state. The panic and fear in France as the Germans swept
to victory is well portrayed and a new twist enters the story. Who should Frederic
encounter but the truly gorgeous young research assistant, Camille (Virginie
Ledoyen) who is accompanying the obligatory Jewish refugee scientist, Professor
Kopolski (Jean-Marc Stehle). Kopolski has some bottles of "heavy water" he needs to
get to England. Of course the Germans musn't latch on to this vital ingredient for
you know what (this part is pure fiction-there was never any heavy water in France
in 1940-just Perrier). And Camille is so winsome as well as dedicated. What next? Peter Coyote as a supposed French journalist, Alex Winckler. Be tipped
off as to his name. He's really an officer in the Abwehr (German military
intelligence: a spy). And he used to bed Viviane too (and wants a reprise of their
affair). Apparently the kind Kopolski is the only major male character who doesn't
want to have it off with the actress. What follows is a series of
adventures and mishaps that are seamlessly integrated to produce a very fast-paced
and enjoyable film. Partly a tribute to and a bit of a spoof on "Casablanca," this
is is a remarkably funny movie (except for the heavy Nazi bits). Isabelle Adjani deserves kudos for the best portrayal I've seen in years of an
adorably cute total narcissist with few if any redeeming features. And Depardieu,
disloyal to Reynauld and ready to jump ship and join the traitor, Petain, is
convincing as a man whose ardor for Viviane exceeds his diluted sense of duty to
the Republic. As a human being in power at a critical moment in French history,
Beaufort is mundanely vile. Not shown in too many theaters, "Bon voyage"
should be available for purchase or rental soon. See it! 9/10
A terrific, fast-paced screwball-like comic strip/drama/farce set against France's
1939 implosion. Played with wide-eyed, straight-faced intensity by a talented cast
and chockablock with action, satire, social commentary and authentic period
details, from slick brillantined hairdos and marcelled hairdos to a fleet of
Citroen "Tractions," a rollicking soundtrack and brief but credible impersonations
of Charles de Gaulle and Marshal Petain. It's simply some of the best
entertainment recently shown on screen, devoid of presumption and "message." If
movies were trains (and there is a creative recreation of a trip on a steam-driven
train that works despite there being no steam locomotive --an expensive prop, no
doubt) this would be a TGV.
Bon Voyage is fun for the audience because it combines the requisite silliness of a
comedy with just enough sobriety to keep viewers actively engaged and invested in
the outcome. Most importantly though, the film is also historically instructive; it
captures the tension of the so-called "phony war" and, later, the French
aristocracy's flight from Paris ahead of the German onslaught. Yet Bon Voyage is
not a "war movie." It is a comedy about the lives of a handful of people set
against the backdrop of extraordinary times. Bon Voyage conveys the chaos,
confusion, and emotional bewilderment of a nation of the brink of collapse and the
wide spectrum of French reactions to the new political order. This film is a comedy
which entertains the audience, a romance which skillfully utilizes many clichés,
and a story of a handful of people whose nation is collapsing around them.
I found this DVD in the library and based on the jacket notes, it looked like it
might possibly be interesting: a black comedy set in 1940 France, just as the
Germans are marching in. ("Boy, that should have them rolling in the aisles") But
it does! This is a clever, original, suspenseful and funny film. I don't recall
seeing anything like it before foreign or U.S. That the writer/director can find
humor when we know part of the outcome (the Germans will occupy France for four
years) is remarkable. That he does it with such charm is part of the delight. What
starts off as black comedy and fluff even ends up having a couple of serious
moments including a race to spirit out a cache of "heavy water" (which was part
of the preliminary research for the A-bomb) and a quick History 101 intro to the
beginnings of the collaborationist Vichy Government that would govern Southern
France for much of the German occupation.* But don't let any of that that scare you
off: the movie itself is funny, charming and romantic and races ahead at steady
clip. One of the best things about it is the combination of actors we've
seen many times (Adjani and Depardieu) and others we've never heard of before.
Along the way, there are two star-making turns: Virginie Leydoyen and Grégori
Derangère. Both are impressive, but Mr. Derangère is especially so. According to
IMDb, he was in ten films before this one but he also won the Cesar as "Most
Promising Actor" for this role, so apparently he was not all that well known even
in France. He is a combination of romantic lead and comic actor and he makes it
all seem so effortless. You may be reminded of Cary Grant in "Bringing Up Baby" and
"Arsenic and Old Lace" it's hard to do comedy on film because the risks are
enormous that the actor can come off looking inept. But Grant pulled it off
charmingly, and this guy does also. I should think we're going to hear more about
him in the future. To be sure, this film won't please everyone there's
a little bit of violence, although nothing you don't see on TV every day. But if
you're up for something original, you may feel after you've seen this that you've
unearthed a cinematic gem. * The so-called "spoiler" in this comment.
I saw Bon voyage 2 days ago and I found it an excellent production. The film is
supposed to entertain, and it does! It emulates the style of the American screwball
comedies of the 30s, but Von voyage is more refined. Adjani and Depardieu are
simply excellent in their roles. The plot is simple. The film starts with people
involved in many situations that, apparently, should have nothing to do between
them. It is very funny how those situations become linked during the film. It is
good to see a French film with this kind of sense of humor. I find it, principally,
a film in which love is the main theme. Peter Coyote as the German spy in France
shows once more to be an excellent actor, too.
First, a word of caution. The DVD box describes this film as a comedy. I don't
think that was the intention of anyone connected with the film other than some
marketing morons. While light and a little bit funny in places, it is NOT a comedy
and if you expect that you will be disappointed. I had never even heard
of this film and had absolutely no expectations one way or the other. Considering
that the other two DVDs I picked up were big disappointments, I was so happy when I
saw this film. The acting, writing and direction were excellent. The story itself
definitely interested me, as you don't usually see films about the final month of
France before the Nazi takeover in 1940. It gave some insight into the parasites
that gave up so quickly and agreed to partitioning their beloved country. Along the
way, there are plots involving a selfish and weak actress played very well by
Isabelle Adjani--who looks marvelous after all these years. She kills an ex-lover
and then finds a poor sap to take the fall. This sap escapes from prison and finds
her--with another lover--a high government official and weasel played by Gerard
Depardieu. In addition, a subplot about a Jewish physicist trying to smuggle
deuterium out of the country is introduced and eventually this becomes the main
plot. The story has a lot of nice twists and turns, a light sense of humor (without
trying to be a comedy) and some genuine suspenseful moments. Together, they create
a nice package this is sure to please.
Over the years I seemed to have missed this picture of Ronald Reagan, and due to
his recent passing to the big screen in heaven, it was shown on TV recently. This
is a great low budget B&W film of the late 1930's, however, it is very interesting
to see how criminals used their talents to steal money from insurance companies
with false claims during this particular time frame. I was surprised at the role
Ronald Reagan,(Eric Gregg),"The Killer's,'64, played in this picture, along with a
great veteran film star, Sheila Bromley,(Nona Gregg),"Nightmare Circus",'73, who
was a great supporting actor. It was a great film that showed Ronald Reagan as a
very young man reaching for the stars in his career in Hollywood at the time. God
Bless HIM !
I think that the costumes were excellent, and the hairdressers also performed well.
It has the very authentic feeling for that period of time. I don't know
if it was the computer magic or if it was real. Some of the big scenes have
hundreds of extras in the background. I was especially impressed with the scene of
that bridge. the main character the actress also performed well, she
showed us a nervous, witty woman who knows how to use herself to seduce men to get
what she wants. some of the scenes were hilarious. Even though it was
about 2 hours long, but it was never boring. a very good entertaining movie.
Was in the mood for a French film and saw this at Blockbuster. What a little gem it
turned out to be! Not sure how I missed Gregori Derangere all these years, but he
is fantastic. Such innocence and grace! I love his face and the way he moves.
Isabelle Adjani was hilarious--reminded me of Nicole Kidman's over-the-top
performance in Moulin Rouge. She looks the same as 20 years ago...truly remarkable.
Gerard Depardieu has not held up nearly as well, but his acting continues to amaze.
He's perfect in this film. Will probably buy this one, I enjoyed it so much. If you
want to see another great French movie, rent Joyeux Noel. Stunning.
Even if it won't give one more than previous posts here (like Ruby Liang's very
good one) i wanted to share my own point of view. Hope my English is
understandable. Bon voyage is a rhythmic, light but deep presentation of
the French unorganized come-down, but also courage and charm. All along in a
brilliantly reconstituted 1940 France with many details (from Bordeaux luxurious
hotel occupied by Government HQ and attacked by useless high class French, to
Parisian coffees near Le Pantheon / rue Mouffetard and 1930s cars) Gérard Depardieu
and Yvan Attal give their second roles a brilliant taste;) Isabelle Adjani and
Virgnie Ledoyen are very credible in their drastically different roles, and Grégori
Derangère makes an bewitching performance:) Much lighter than average
(e.g. American) war times movies, and focused on the civilians, Bon voyage shows a
lot of things about french issues (even to a French guy like me), some of them
quite deep.
One comment said it wasn't a comedy...Mistake! It was a delightful comedy of a
period of history that doesn't lend itself easily to that genre. Very busy...and
active film from beginning to end. Often the shots out the window of the train, or
car, were just beautiful. An enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours in a theater.
All the French historical figures, like Charles de Gaulle and Petain and the some
of the people involved in the French Resistance were included in the script, which
might send those who are unfamiliar with the collapse of France under the German
invasion might want to research. The characters were engaging and the actors
portraying them were excellent. Recommend it, 9 out of 10.
More and more french cinema demonstrates that's the only one able to confront
Hollywood's, and to spend high amounts on money in their movies. If Bon Voyage had
been made in the USA no one would be surprised. Perfectly set in France, in the
40's, when the Nazi invasion, technically irreproachable, and with some of the most
international french actors (Depardieu, Adjani, Ledoyen...). Bon Voyage centerers
on two parallel stories: an scientific and his disciple (Ledoyen) who tries to hide
one of his discoveries (a kind of water that may work as an atomic bomb) from the
Nazis; and a poor guy in love with a well known actress (Adjani), which ends up in
prison accused of a crime he's not committed in order to protect her. Bon Voyage seems to have been made in the old style, without unnecessary camera
movements and effects. Without big turns in the plot. As I said before, regarding
to the production itself they've made a great job. But the main problem with this
movie is about the script. Is it a spy-movie? A romantic comedy? A spy comedy? A
comedy of intrigue? It's not clear. That makes Bon Voyage a little unbalanced. When
you think you're watching a comedy, suddenly changes to another story-line, a more
dramatic one, more slow... I think they should've focused in one of the lines of
argument (the one about the spy plot) and left the romantic parts in the
background. My rate: 6.5/10
An interesting pairing of stories, this little flick manages to bring together
seemingly different characters and story lines all in the backdrop of WWII and
succeeds in tying them together without losing the audience. I was impressed by the
depth portrayed by the different characters and also by how much I really felt I
understood them and their motivations, even though the time spent on the
development of each character was very limited. The outstanding acting abilities of
the individuals involved with this picture are easily noted. A fun, stylized movie
with a slew of comic moments and a bunch more head shaking events. 7/10
When I went to see Bon Voyage, I expected a good, skillful multidrama on the order
of Grand Hotel (1932) and Les Enfants de Paradis (1944). It was better than that.
With few exceptions, none of the characters were totally good or totally evil--just
as in real life. The acting was wonderful, especially those who played Frédéric,
Raoul, and Camille. The photography was amazing, as it recreated the period
perfectly and managed to be shot in/around Bordeaux during a time of new public
works but managed the "look" of June 1940. Costumes and make-up were accurate.
There is so much in this movie that it's worth a second viewing. It's exciting,
funny, and, ultimately, touching. N.B.--Be sure to see it in a theatre with good
quality projection. It's in wide-screen, and in the theater where I saw it (the
Clairmont in Montclair) the first 30 minutes had the subtitles at the bottom in
focus but the actors' faces slightly fuzzy! This was ultimately corrected but
detracted from the pleasure of the film.
On its surface, this is one of the most classically entertaining
action/comedy/romance films I've seen in a long time, reminding me of pleasurable
old "Saturday-afternoon" movies that had just the right balance of unexpected
twists, well-timed humor and integrated action. Beyond this, though, there is our
knowledge of this film's context. It has the same elements of "Casablanca," but is
set just before many of the characters would truly understand the seriousness of
what was happening to their country (and the world) and the consequences of some of
their own behavior. This adds a strong note of irony to the humor (we sense that
one of the female characters has a radical change of hairstyle in her future). This
is a film that you will not regret watching.
"Bon Voyage" has the fast pace that in some ways reminds me of the Indiana
Jones/Star Wars films -- it's as if you're on a fast train or roller coaster. It's billed as a romance, mystery, thriller, and farce; it's all of that
and more including candid observations on the reactions of French society during
the Nazi invasion at the start of WWII. And it's also an exhibition of juggling
that involves 7 main characters. The scenes all seemed historically accurate (to my
eyes) and gave an excellent feeling for the period. All of the actors
were well cast and gave great performances but IMO the most superb was that by
Isabelle Adjani who played the role of an opportunistic, self-centered French movie
star; not only did she quite convincingly play the role of a young actress perhaps
half her age but she also played her amorous wiles convincingly yet in such a way
that the audience sees she's only half serious and more complex as a person than
just a gold digger. Her character and energy propel the film through from beginning
to end. It wasn't until I read Roger Ebert's review that I discovered she was 48
years old at the time of the film. What beauty!! I appreciated the
ending -- it's satisfying but lets you write your own conclusion as to what happens
to the main characters. As another User Commenter observed -- do NOT
arrive late; you need to be there from the opening scene. Good advice. I
gave it 9 of 10.
Director and auteur Jean-Pierre Rappenau was 8 years old during the spring of 1940
as France's Third Republic disintegrated in a matter of a few weeks. It was a time,
he says, when "all the adults were a little bit insane." He and the production
staff have lovingly and meticulously recreated that world in a film where all the
characters are essentially fictional. The structure, a classic farce, is ideal for
the period as multiple plot lines zip and intersect only to come together in a
logical, satisfying conclusion. The peg for this plot is Frederic, played by
brilliant newcomer Gregory Derangere, who is fully up to playing opposite Adjani,
Depardieu and Ledoyen. The real strength of the film is in its supporting
performances. M. Rappeneau has cast the film exquisitely with actors who
volunteered ideas for both action and dialogue and who know and prove that it is
possible to fully realize a character with just two short sentences of dialogue.
Though not yet as widely influential as Renoir's 'Rules of the Game,' 'Bon Voyage'
richly deserves to be a companion piece to that classic. Though it demands a lot of
the audience, it gives much back. One of its demands is tolerance for a certain
coyness and misdirection as to the exact genre we are watching: a crime melodrama,
no, a spy thriller, ah, a romantic comedy. Recommend it to cinemaphile friends.
Just be sure to let them discover for themselves that it is a romantic comedy.
It would seem a given, but if a viewer forgets context, he risks missing an
opportunity of enjoyment. It is easy to carp, from the lofty heights of
the 21st century, at styles and prices of the Great Depression years; but the
intelligent viewer will remember that magic word, "context," and better understand
and, thus, enjoy "Accidents Will Happen." Among the actors, Ronald
Reagan again showed himself a good-looking and personable guy, and again gave a
right-on performance. A reviewer earlier said Gloria Blondell played the
nasty wife, but that was wrong: She plays the concession-stand clerk who has a
crush on the Reagan character, Eric Gregg, but keeps hands off as long as he is
married. Gloria was cute. Not as lushly beautiful as her sister, Joan,
she was still attractive and a good actress. Perhaps her looking somewhat like Joan
was a detriment to having a more successful career, and it is certainly our
loss. Sheila Bromley was Mrs. Gregg, and played it well. Other actors included Dick Purcell, and the great Earl Dwire got to play
something besides a villainous cowboy. Again, most of the players never
attained the "household-name" status many of them deserved, but they by gosh gave
good performances here, in a story that is still current.
In Paris, a few months before the Nazi invasion, the manipulative actress Viviane
Denvers (Isabelle Adjani) uses her former sweetheart Frédéric Auger (Grégori
Deràngere) to hide the body of a man killed by her. Frédéric hits the car, the dead
man is found and he is sent to prison. When the Germans invade France, Frédéric
escapes with another prisoner, Raoul (Yvan Attal), and they become friends. In the
runaway to Bordeaux, they meet in the train Camille (Virginie Ledoyen), the young
assistant of the physicist Professeur Kopolski (Jean-Marc Stehlé), who is trying to
leave France with his research of heavy water. Once in Bordeaux, the group meets
Viviane with her new lover, the minister of state Jean-Étienne Beaufort (Gérard
Depardieu), and is chased by a German spy, the journalist Alex Winckler (Peter
Coyote), while Paris is falling and the population is confused. What a
delightful and magnificent romantic adventure "Bon Voyage" is! The excellent and
complex screenplay has action, romance, war, comedy, espionage, drama and lots of
characters, played by a fantastic cast, indeed a constellation of stars; the
direction is stunning; the music score is wonderful. I really loved this marvelous
film, and I have to finish my review due to my limitation of adjectives to describe
such a gem. My vote is nine. Title (Brazil): "Viagem do Coração"
("Travel of the Heart")
It's wartime drama - WWII, with French and Jews and Germans, but this one is
somehow fun, earnestly so. Director Jean-Paul Rappeneau co-wrote the script to his
well-received film "Bon Voyage" (2003). Unlike director Bertrand Tavernier's "Safe
Conduct" aka "Laissez-passer" (2002), w-d Rolf Schubel's "Gloomy Sunday" (1999), or
w-d Claude Berri's "Lucie Aubrac" (1997), "Bon Voyage" is as chipper as its title
sounds - c'est la vie (whatever) - and we have the beautiful talented Isabelle
Adjani to thank for. It is her delightful performance throughout as the center of
attraction (and attention), the cause and effect of it all, that made the film so
enjoyable as it is. Hell, what's another derailment of her plan and expectations -
will worry about that another time. The backbone of the story does revolve around a
pair of young enthusiasts: Grégori Derangère as Frédéric and Virginie Ledoyen (from
Francois Ozon's "8 Women") as Camille. The incomparable Gérard Depardieu, the witty
Yvan Attal (of "My Wife is An Actress") and versatile Peter Coyote (juggling
French, English and German here) are some of the stellar cast involved. There are many characters coming and going in this plot of a movie, and how
it's all juggled is a skilful knack that requires no analysis - Rappeneau is simply
a genius. The story just builds upon itself, one episode after another, or even
with overlapping events, but never confusing - that's the delight of it all,
somehow every detail turns out right on the screen and we just lap it all up like a
tastily presented French dessert, literally so. There's thrills, trills, tender
hesitant moments and taut ominous escapes, all playing out in front of our eyes.
 From reading the Director's Note on the Sony Pictures Classics' Bon
Voyage official site, Rappeneau indicated this is his most personal and successful
work ever. Depicting Bordeaux 1940 from memories of his childhood years is very
much close to his heart and he "had worked and reworked the script for almost 3
years." This film is a labor of love all round, the cast and crew complementing the
director's passion and a formidable script by collaborative writers along with the
director and his son Julien - adaptation efforts by Gilles Marchand, Patrick
Modiano, and Jérôme Tonnerre. Music by Gabriel Yared (varied in tone
from his previous film scores like "The English Patient" or "Talented Mr. Ripley"),
who provided a befitting theme that kept the pace and rhythm of the plot going -
almost like a train going non-stop, reflecting Adjani's Viviane's vivacious energy
(even when she's tired), keeping her going as she meets whatever comes, walking on
with head held high and stylish attire always, no looking back, let alone time for
regrets. Ah, mustn't forget the wonderfully translated, skilful
subtitles by Ian Burley, who also did subtitles for films in Italian: "Bread and
Tulips" (2000) aka Pane e tulipani, "The Last Kiss" (2001) aka L'ultimo bacio, and
Tom Tykwer's "Heaven" (2002). If you find this much too light a wartime
relationship drama, try w-d Mäx Fäberböck's "Aimée and Jaguar" (1999, in German,
based on a true story) with brilliant performances from Juliane Köhler as Aimée and
Maria Schrader as Jaguar.
This movie travels farther on 8 gunshots, 2 kisses and 100 clichés than should be
possible. Yet it still works. Brilliant. As I was driving home from the
theater, I tried to figure out how it got away with movie staples like the pages of
a novel manuscript blowing across a beach or the impossible series of fortuitous
coincidences without the entire audience standing up and screaming, "I've seen that
a million times before! And you've pushed beyond the edge of believability!" But
the actors were so enchanting and the screen so filled with believable extras that
I forgot to care. A friend who saw it with me said it transported him to Paris so
perfectly that he was disappointed when we left the theater and realized we were
still in Indiana. Overall, a romantic-comedy-thriller with subtlety, wit
and elan.
Giant Robot was the most popular Japanese TV serial ever seen on Indian TV. It was
targeted to children and we saw a robot for the first time in our life. Many Indian children must have even seen a machine for the first time
outside the school textbooks. The serial also showed a child in an
adults organization fighting evil. No doubt, many of us who have seen Giant Robot
in our childhood long for our own robots and as a stopgap arrangement look upon our
computers in the same way. This show also portrayed ideal adults,
(referring at Jerry, Johnny's buddy friend and Unicorn chief Azuma). We grew to
respect Japanese progress and still view Japan as the ideal Asian nation. BTW, at that time, there were no satellite TV channels in India and the
govt owned broadcaster did not show much of Disney cartoons. I guess that was how
child serials like giant Robot got appreciated. Nowadays there is Pokemon etc but
they are no so fascinating or alluring as Giant robot.
I have noticed that people have asked if anyone has this show. I have all 26
episodes that aired in the U.S. and will be willing to share these with anyone
interested. All I require is that you supply the VHS tapes or Blank DVD's I have
them on both formats and pay for shipping. My email is creator67@pipinternet.net,
just send me an email and your request and I will notify you and we can make the
arrangements. The quality is very good and they are very enjoyable to watch
especially if you have not been able to see them since they aired in the 60's. It
was one of my favorite shows as a child and hold a very special place in my heart
because it brings back a lot of memories of my childhood as well as other shows
like Ultraman and Astroboy. Peter
I'm doing a thesis on blurring the boundaries: the female cross dresser and am
using Tipping the Velvet the book as my main text, any comments on gender and
sexual identity, gender and sexual confusion, gender as a performance, gender as a
fiction, gender imagery, cross-dressing as an erotic fantasy and as revolution, the
effect of the male costume etc etc would be much appreciated! But a bit off the
point has anyone seen Sergio Toledo's 1987 film Vera? Its about a young lesbian
possibly transsexual cross dresser..I'm dying to see it because I think it'd be
really helpful...Does anyone know where I might get a copy of it? I've tried amazon
and a few other sites but no luck...
This was recommended to me by a friend that said it was cute and cuddly for a
"lesbian sexuality Flick". Boy was he wrong. I guess he just didn't get it. Growing
up not understanding and then discovering yourself thru trial and tribulation is
more like it. The characters are full and vibrant and the story has
enough fun thrown in thru the theater performances to keep anyone interested. Rachael Stirling as "Nan" goes thru so many tries at finding the love she
desires only to find it was the one person she was scared to reveal all too, and
ran out on. Johdi May as "Flo" was remarkable. spent a couple hours trying to
recall where I've seen her before, only to discover she was The quiet sister
"Alice" in "Last of The Mohicans" Luckily,I was raised in a liberal family and had
no issues with trying a movie like this. So many people are missing out on flicks
like this. I'm glad I took my friend's advise and tried it. But, I'm sure I enjoyed
it more the he.
I have to say it is a sign that this film appeals to all ages if somebody by right
should be shielding themselves away from anything remotely homosexual absolutely
loves this thing. I thought every last bit of this film was amazing and
the casting was superb, but I have to say Anna Chancellor...where have YOU been all
my life. Having previously seen Anna in several other things I was
completely blown away by how magnificent she was. Diana Letherby may not
be the most lovable of the characters but she could certainly take me home if she
fancied...
This drama apparently caused a bit of a stir six years ago when it debuted on
television - not taking in much TV news myself, it passed under the radar; but
after having seen it, I'm not surprised that it did cause a stir. Not particularly
because of the content (although it is a bit more 'offbeat' than the usual TV
fodder) - it has more to do with the reactionary media in this country. Anyway,
this three part series is based on a book by Sarah Waters and puts its main focus
on lesbians - although the plot also has room to explore some other 'dark' sides of
sexuality. Our main character is an oyster girl named Nan (short for Nancy) from
Winchester. She is bewitched by female to male drag performer Kitty Butler after
seeing her at a theatre show and soon begins attending all of her shows -
eventually catching the eye of the performer and becoming her dresser. It's not
long before Kitty is offered a chance to play on bigger stages in London and having
become good friends with Nan, she invites her along for the ride. The act gets
bigger when Nan takes to the stage also and the pair becomes a stage duo...but
Kitty breaks Nan's heart, leading her into an odyssey within London's seedy
underbelly. I must admit that my DVD collection contains no shortage of
sleazy and sordid films so there wasn't anything in this one that was enough to
shock me. Despite being rather jaded to it, I have to say that I'm still surprised
at anyone who says this film went too far; naturally there is some lesbian sex and
other stuff, but it's never exploitative or overused and the film really couldn't
have been made without it. The main focus is always on the story; and the story is
really well done. The film is almost three hours long in total, but if anything
that isn't long enough to get everything across. Sarah Waters is obviously an
inventive writer, and the film remains interesting for the duration. The acting is
solid as you would expect, but I must admit that I found lead actress Rachael
Stirling awkward and hard to get on with at first; although she grows into her role
well as the film progresses. The execution is a little bit of a problem and
director Geoffrey Sax is a bit too gimmicky for my liking. The story does get a
little bit sappy towards the end also, which is a shame because this film is at
it's strongest during the dark moments (episode 2 being the high point of three for
me). There's not really a defined point to the film - or at least not one that I
could see. That's not important as far as I'm concerned; however, as Tipping the
Velvet tells a good story and more than surpassed my expectations. Worth checking
out, for people that like this sort of stuff.
This is a superb TV series, it's sympathetic and for once realistic! portrayal of
lesbian women is delicately handled and well done. On top of that the directing is
wonderful and the settings sumptuous and rich, a real treat. If you missed the
first one I advise you watch next weeks, 9PM, BBC 2
Once again I must play something of the contrarian. Most of the reviews for Ab Tak
Chappan have been extremely positive. Mine is positive, but only slightly. A 7 out
of 10 is equivalent to a "C" letter grade from me. It seems that a lot
of the praise is rooted in two factors: One, that Ab Tak Chappan is more realistic
than the typical Bollywood film, and two, that it is trying to do things
differently. The first point I couldn't care less about. I'm not looking
for realism in films, and so I do not score higher for a film that shows a story
and characters closer to how I believe the real world to be--I'm a big fan of
surrealism, fantasy, absurdism, and so on, although I do not dislike realist films
merely for the fact that they're realist. For the second point, I agree
that it is commendable to try to do things differently. However, I don't think
"originality" versus formulaicism makes for a better or worse film in itself. A
film can be "original" and poor, just like a film can be formulaic and excellent.
What matters are how well the film does whatever it sets out to do and how
enjoyable or aesthetically rewarding that is to the viewer. Ab Tak
Chappan is based on the true story of a Mumbai cop named Daya Naik. Naik was an
"encounter specialist". Encounter specialists, who could be said to be early
instantiations of real world "Judge Dredds", are trained to operate like the
criminals and gang members they pursue, and they're basically given a license to
kill--effectively acting as policeman, judge, jury and executioner in a matter of
moments. Ab Tak Chappan follows the story of Sadhu Agashe (Nana Patekar), the
encounter specialist based on Naik. We see him at work, interacting with his fellow
encounter specialists and engaging in violence. We see him at home, trying to live
a normal life in his less-than-luxurious surroundings. We see him trying to adjust
to a new "commissioner" halfway through the film. And we see his odd relationship
with a notorious Indian gangster, Don Zameer Zafar (Prasad Purandhare). All of this has the potential to make a fabulous, gritty film. I agree that it's
nice to forgo the typical Bollywood musical numbers and romances--not every film
needs that stuff; Ab Tak Chappan producer Ram Gopal Varma is famous for leaving
music and romances in the background or by the wayside in many films that he's
directed or produced. Additionally, Ab Tak Chappan has some good performances--
Patekar almost gives off a Death Wish (1974)-era Charles Bronson vibe. It also has
admirable cinematography--the hand-held stuff near the beginning of the film was
particularly effective, for example. It has a great score that mixes more of a
moody Hollywood-sounding action/crime score with traditional Indian instruments and
modalities. The violence is well done and gritty. There is also decent
exploration of subtexts, including the morality of (having) encounter specialists,
the idea of following orders, and so on. The encounter specialists are shown having
to largely divorce themselves from ideas of right and wrong. More poignantly, the
film questions the merit of blindly following orders. Parallels are drawn between
the encounter specialists following orders and, say, members of a country's
military, and we're shown what a corrupt situation this can lead to. But
(you just knew there was a "But" coming, didn't you?) director Shimit Amin and his
scriptwriters have created a story with far too many characters, far too much
sprawl, and that moves a bit too slow. All of these problems may be due to Amin and
crew looking at the Godfather films, which Ab Tak Chappan has some (at least
superficial) resemblances to, although from a policeman's perspective. Most of the encounter specialists we do not get to know very well--these are
shallowly drawn characters to say the least, except for Agashe and Jatin Shukla
(Nakul Vaid). For one, Narayan, I didn't know who he was until at least halfway
through the film. His name is mentioned a number of times, but I'd only get
glimpses of him until the scene would change. Then everyone would change clothes by
the time they appear again and I'd have to start all over figuring out who Narayan
was. The same thing happened with Agashe's first commissioner. The film
was already far into the new commissioner before I could figure out the
relationships. It seems like there are new characters in every scene. We never
learn the stories of most of them. While that might have some artistic merit in
that the encounter specialists are mostly killing people they do not know anything
about (because they're mostly doing so on orders), since we do not learn much about
most of the encounter specialists, either, it's difficult to find characters to
care about, and that doesn't exactly make for a gripping film. The
primary villain is Zameer. But until about halfway through the film, there's no
indication of this. He doesn't get much more screen time than the other villains
parading through the film, and he's literally "phoning his performance in"--he's in
another location (Dubai), communicating only by telephone for the majority of the
film. We don't actually see Zameer doing much. To an extent, the film depends on a
couple "twists" that necessitate not showing Zameer doing a number of things, but
we could see him do other things, and a lot of the other villains could have been
left out. That would have tightened up the film a bit, making it more
focused and about a half-hour shorter, both of which would have benefited its
impact. This is not an action-packed film by any means. For at least the first 45
minutes or so, I found myself admiring Ab Tak Chappan's considerable style, but
saying, "Okay, get on with the story already".
So far only the first episode has been shown, and a great fuss has been made about
the lesbian sex scenes. But for those who bother to look past that they will find
an incredibly beautiful love story and one that has in this episode ended in an
upsetting climax/cliffhanger. I have found the story so powerful that I have been
inspired to read the novel on which this fantastic series has been based.
The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The
characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and
Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the
imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there
could be a sequel!
This is one of the best lesbian films i have ever seen! This series brought joy and
sadness of true love. Being set in the 1800's was an amazing look at lesbian lives
and desires of lesbian women. The cast was beyond expectation! Rachael Stirling is
an amazing actress, i have never seen her other works but her portrayal of Nan made
me connect with her feeling her heartache and pains and love. The one thing i feel
most important is connecting with the characters in anything i watch. If anyone has
doubts on seeing this film...Think twice! This is a must see series. Well done
again to BBC! We need more lesbian films that portrays real love and hurts, like
this one. Living in Canada i had this DVD imported and i am so thrilled to have
purchased it.
The BBC surpassed themselves with the boundaries they crossed with Tipping the
Velvet. In the past they've been 'daring' with Dennis Potter's works but this mini-
series (as it was screened in the UK) is superb. Andrew Davies work is top notch -
I've not read the Sarah Water's novel but I can imagine he's done it real justice.
I comment on the bawdiness - most men have watched it for that - proved to be a
main talking and selling point when originally advertised. The fact is, it portays
the lesbian side of society in the 1800s - a time when most thought it was old men
and rent boys - well it was - lesbianism took place mainly behind closed and often
respectable doors. You can also look at Tipping The Velvet as a 'love
story' - it actually is - as well as 'self discovery' that many gay/bi and straight
people go through and comments on this occur and repeat all the time. If
you've not seen it yet - either repeated on TV or on DVD - get it - you'll be in
for a treat - and even the production and filming of it is perfect. Just try to
hide your blushes in parts - like I said - 'bawdy' is the order of the day - and
beware a 'phallus' or two! Enjoy!
This was one of the most emotional movies I have seen. Passion, Pleasure, Pain,
Despair, Sorrow, Healing, Cleansing and Love. The entire movie was
spellbinding. Everything was done so well; the adaptation from the book, the
actors, the sets, the camera shots. This movie touched me deeply in so
many ways. It reminded me of the despair that loosing your love can have, and the
time it takes to heal that wound. You may love again, but will always be risking
the pain that comes with separation. Is this not one of the most
important age-old questions? "Is it better to have love and lost? Than to never have loved before?" -Ascension
Over the weekend i watched the movie Tipping the Velvet and if I was to have to
score this movie out of 100 I would have to give it 100 no question asked. I am a
true believer in true love and this movie moved me in alot of different ways and
the actors fit the parts without a doult. But I have to say that the ending was not
so great for I did not see that spark in Nancys eyes when ever she looked into
Flo's eyes, as her eyes sparked each time she looked at Kitty, Kitty only had to be
in the room or in Nancy's thought and Nancy would just glow fron that spark. Kitty
told Nancy that she could not find her and that she looked for her, but could not
find her. Kitty was ready to give it all up to get Nancy back. In Kitty's eyes you
could see Kitty's pain. I believe that Nancy should have let Kitty see that thier
love is true and strong and that she would not let her go that easy. You need to
make a part two and have the two make it together, but you must not let anyone else
play the roles it has to be the real Kitty & Nancy or it'll never work. My mother
once told me that true love is just not real. I am no fool I know that we all have
a true love out someplace just waiting for each of us and I believe with my life
that Nancy's true love really is only Kitty and Kitty's true love is only Nancy.
Come on lets play the game the right way, the only way. Let Nancy's eyes shine
again.... Kitty lost her everything, by losing Nancy. And Kitty is not to be the
only one to blame. I am gay myself and being gay is not easy!! WAKE UP!!! in 1889
I'd not want to be gay, Kitty was lost deep inside herself and in 1889 maybe the
right thing to do was to be married to a man. Even though you love a woman. Kitty
needed Nancy to stand up to her needed Nancy to fight for her. Myself I remember
how deeply I loved this girl and I let her get away because I thought I was doing
something wrong and I went back to my ex-boyfriend. I thought I was doing the right
thing, but I know I was wrong to let go of her and I will pay for the rest of my
days,for like Kitty I could not find her anyplace. I heard that she is married to a
man in the U.S.A someplace. I even heard that he beats her. I guess in the end we
both lose. Give the two girls one more chance life can be very lonely if you are
not true to you and your loved one. Thank You, Kristen Ann
The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The
characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and
Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the
imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there
could be a sequel!
Both the book and the film are excellent in their own right. They do differ
slightly but that enhances and not detracts from what is an excellent script and
acting. The historical atmosphere, the young girl looking for love, the amazing
background of music hall and the voyage into the lesbian world of London early
twentieth century make this an exceptional movie. Andrew Davies as the scriptwriter
excels himself as he writes this lesbian love story with such sensitivity. Rachael
Sterling and Keeley Hawes are both excellent actresses and give these parts their
best. The rest of the cast are very good. If there was higher than 10 out of 10 I
would give it!
This BBC series is astonishingly good fun. I'd only seen a few minutes before I
knew I had to own it and watch it again with all my friends. I wouldn't recommend
this to anyone prudish, but almost anyone else is going to enjoy it--from the
cinema snob to the entertainment-hungry masses. The lead character is a lesbian,
but it's still worth watching if that's not your thing. Rachael Stirling
is incredible in a lead role that stretches her into a dazzling assortment of
emotions and situations, some of a bizarre nature. No one who saw this series would
ever say she can't act. She makes us laugh, cry, get turned on and slap our
foreheads in amazement. You can't really compare this story to anything
else. It's not a rehash of style or plot. It's entirely it's own beastpart comedy,
historical drama, erotica, coming-of-age tale, musical and more. Gotta
praise the BBC for making this story. I can't imagine anyone in the (overly prudish
and formulaic) U.S. ever doing it. So, stop reading about it and go buy it.
When I rented this movie, I half expected it to be a low budget, plot less Indy
film, but thought I'd give it a try. I started watching Part 1 and couldn't pull
myself away till it ended 3 hours later. It was by far one of my absolute favorite
films of all time. From the writing to the directing to the performances, I was
laughing, crying, and singing all the way through Nan Astley's rite of passage from
innocence to adulthood. Rachael Stirling is phenomenal in this film. I had never
heard of her before, but now I will forever remember the vulnerability and strength
I felt in her performance. She, Keeley Hawes, and Jodhi May are incredible as they
guide you through the emotional turmoils that most feel as they deal with an
alternate form of sexuality. The fact that the film is set in the 1890's not only
educates the audience about homosexuality in that time period, but makes a
statement about our society today. You must see this film and, probably like
myself, you'll be making a trip to the store to add it to your collection.
Ab Tak Chhappan is a fictitious story surrounding a police department in Mumbai,
India. Sadhu Agashe is a hard working, hard-edged cop heading up a plain clothed
crime squad who makes a name for himself by killing dangerous criminals in staged
police encounters rather than locking them up in prison. His loyal officers obey
him without question but a rift forms when one of his officers, Imtiaz, becomes
frustrated by Sadhu's high ranking status and is secretly competing with him for
criminal kills and status. A new recruit is also pushed into the fraternity and
Imtiaz is angry when Sadhu allows him to take the lead on his first case. Further
change comes in the form of a new police commissioner who disapproves of Sadhu's
tactics and everyone gets caught up in internal politics. I was
surprised to see such a well directed action thriller coming from India. The camera
work is excellent, the story is well told and the tension is high when the drama
unfolds. The acting, pace and political subterfuge convinces the viewer that they
are a fly on the wall witnessing the blood, sweat and tears from a close up and
personal view and that the events are based on reality which is no doubt why we are
told that it is not at the beginning of the film although it is likely that the
director, Shimit Amin, has taken liberties with factual accounts. Nevertheless, Ab
Tak Chhappan is an extremely polished piece of film-making.
I love this movie. I watched it over and over when i rented it from Netflix.It had
a lot of substance and meaning for me. I think many people will enjoy it.I have
read and seen quite a few lesbian stories over the years and am happy to say they
are getting better and better in how they are presented.They tend to have a more
positive feel for the life style and feeling's of gay women.Its nice to see two
women find themselves and be as happy as others in this society.I think it is
apparent that more and more movies with this theme will grace our theaters and TV
screens.Many producers and directors are realizing that Lesbians live very full and
wholesome lives and that we have wonderful stories that should and can be seen by
individuals as well as families without hesitation.
A young woman leaves her provincial life for a new one in the city and there she
meets another woman with whom she falls in love with. Their relationship turns
physical quickly and they both believe that they are soul-mates, until one day, the
provincial girl comes home to find a man in their bed. Her lover then reveals to
her that their relationship was just an experiment and she really likes men. Um,
kinda like the Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres thing. So, anyway, the provincial
girl, broken, torn and shattered by this discovery moves out and begins to discover
what the real world is all about as she falls into the hands of all sort of
vindictive and salacious people in 19th century England.
I loved this movie. Not because of the romantic story lines between women, but for
the visualization of human strength, despair, and liberation. This film is a must
see. Entertaining! Emotional! Captivating! All the characters are very well written
and portrayed by some very talented actors. This story is a story of self discovery
and sexual awakening. A journey of the mind, body and soul. You find yourself
identifying with the characters and at some points, even the storyline. I do have to say that I recommend watching the movie first, then read the
book. If you read the book first, you will be slightly disappointed. The screenplay
adaption cut out a lot and some things were changed. Some for the better and some
for the worst.
Tipping the Velvet (2002) (TV) was directed by Geoffrey Sax for BBC television. The
basic plot is a coming-of-age story for the protagonist, Nan Astley, played well by
Rachael Stirling. As a teenager, Nan works in her family-run oyster house. Everyone
expects her to stay at home, then marry an appropriate husband, and settle down to
family life. Nan expects this too. Everything changes when Nan meets
Kitty Butler (Keeley Hawes) a beautiful and talented performer who dresses in men's
clothes and captures the hearts of her audience. The audience includes Nan, who is
sexually attracted to Kitty in a way in which she's not attracted to her boyfriend.
 The remainder of the film follows Nan to London and through her ups
(sort of) and her downs (horrible) as a lesbian and sometimes male impersonator.
 As is typical for the BBC, every role, no matter how small, is
performed by an excellent actor. The BBC has a depth and breadth of performing
artists that is truly marvelous. None of the supporting actors stands out in my
mind--they were uniformly good. Both Stirling and Hawes are wonderful, and their
acting carries the film along. It's always sad to be reminded of how
difficult life can be for someone who doesn't fit society's mold for what is
normal. I know it isn't easy for lesbians even in the U.S., even today. Imagine the
obstacles to love and happiness for lesbians in Victorian England. We've come a
long way, but we still have a long way to travel.
As a lesbian, I am sick and tired of being portrayed in movies and on TV as a sad
person, forever vacillating between suicide and homicide, but never destined to
find happiness? If, like me, you are fed up with Hollywood's anti-
lesbian propaganda, you'll breathe a sigh of relief at this delightful offering
from the BBC. Nan Astley is the daughter of an Oyster-house restaurateur who
"wonders why she can't feel the way she should about Freddy" (one of the local lads
who has his eye set on her). She falls and falls hard for Kitty Butler, a male
impersonator with a visiting theatre troupe. Nan accompanies Kitty to London as her
dresser Not everything that happens to Nan is pleasant in this story,
and some of the things she does are not squeaky-clean either - but she will win
your heart, and her story of love triumphant will leave you with a beautiful lump
in your throat at the end. If you are a lesbo-hating macho man or a
homophobic housewife, or some brand of religious fundamentalist who believes that
homosexuals should die and go to hell, this series is not for you. But if you have
a heart, and you believe in love, you will cry at the end as much as I did!
"Tipping The Velvet" is one of the modern day television productions that prove
that some television can be just as good or even better(as this is) than what you
see at your local theater. If you want to read the plot, read this and
if you want other details skip down to the next paragraph. This is the
unforgettable portrait of an unconventional young girl named Nan who works as a
naive oyster girl,until she discovers her repressed homosexuality when she falls in
love with a successful woman named Kitty who dresses as a male for her stage
profession. The young girl soon joins the act as another male impersonator and they
are a major hit. Soon the both of them embark on a tender affair. Kitty eventually
becomes enveloped in a marriage of convenience and ravages young Nan's heart. From
then on, Nan works as male impersonated prostitute to men looking to have sex with
boys, then she becomes the private sex slave to the evil and sadomasochistic Diana
where Nan experiences severe emotional abuse. When that ends badly, Nan is on the
streets again where she recalls a young woman named Florence; a good-hearted
socialist who had the true potential of being a wonderful partner. That's where Nan
will discover the power of socialism and learn how to get back to fame. The region 1 transfer is of exceptional picture quality, there is a very
good scene selection, an eloquent photo gallery and a fun interview between
novelist Sara Waters and the film's writer Andrew Davies. The sets,
costumes, cinematography and music are gorgeous. The acting, writing and directing
are extremely strong and filled with realism, class and originality. I loved the
film and the novel. Section III in the film is much different in the film than in
the novel, because section III in the novel is great written down, but isn't screen
material. I will be brave and say that I love the films interpretation of it much
more. This breathtaking historical ingeniously combines Drama, Comedy,
Erotica and Romance to vibrant perfection in a way that is both deeply moving and
spiritually uplifting. For every mature and open-minded adult who has ever felt the
pleasures, pains and power of falling in love and living life to it's fullest. A
revolutionary production; an absolute must-see!
Out of the top 24 lesbian films in my library, I must rate this one as the number
one film of all times. This film will go down in history as the best in it's genre.
It is a story about a girl (Rachael Stirling) who goes from riches to rags and from
rags to riches, with her first love (Keeley Hawes) popping in and out of her life.
It is set against a Victorian background in the 1890's, which makes it an ideal
setting for some of the best entertainment in the industry. This film spared no
expense for music and costumes, and the make-up Rachael and Keeley wore while on
stage in the Halls only added to the film's diversity. No matter what
kind of films you favor, I can guarantee this film will not only amaze you, but
will keep your attention through all three episodes. This film will be played and
enjoyed for decades to come. The unrated DVD collector's version is a must for
anyone's library. Rachael Stirling and Keeley Hawes was the best choice for the
casting in these two roles, and they played them extremely well.
For every fan of coming of age tales, this 3 hour adaptation of the Sarah Waters novel is pure fun. Cinematic nods to Baz Luhrman's kinetic style, as well as to all those prim and proper period pieces ever present on the BBC (where you're likely to have seen almost every
prominent member of this cast). It's rather bawdy and over the top in
spots, but that's just what the novel called for. The cast is appealing
and, in the cases of Anna Chancellor and Hugh Bonneville, perfect. In
the case of Rachel Sterling, as our heroine Nan, you simply must
overlook the fact that she's far too pretty to ever be mistaken for a
boy and run with it. It's a fantasy, after all. Some fans of the novel
may be put out by the various changes in character (particularly that of
Jodhi May's character, Florence), but the changes all work toward the
greater good of this teleplay and provide an overall high quality
entertainment value.
I think Andrew Davies did an admirable job of taking a magnificent book which
emulated the pace and styling of a Victorian novel and turning it into a moving and
entertaining film. I'm glad I read (twice) the book first which is usually the case
for me. I know that one must view a novel and a film as different media and judge
them accordingly. But, still, it's often hard to read the original material after a
film gives away the best parts. I realize that Davies is a very good
adapter, but I wish the producers had chosen a woman to write the screenplay.
Davies, as he admits in the commentary that accompanies the film on DVD, wanted
particularly to emphasis the more scatological bits in the book. I certainly
enjoyed those, on film as in the book. But Davies missed a half-dozen moments that
are so excruciatingly, painfully tender which he could have incorporated if his
sensibility were more feminine. I also would take issue with his use of
the book's primary symbol, the rose. As the screenplay was plotted by
Davies, the denouement was inevitable and appropriate. But I really think that
author Waters' final nod to the rose symbol was much more interesting. And I
preferred way the novel let Nan "come of age" than the way Davies chose. One quick comment about the four actors who essay the primary roles. They
are all wonderfully talented -- well, except for the singing and dancing, perhaps
-- and, moreover, their physical presences are so much what the mind's eye sees
when reading the novel before seeing the film. I thought they were all terrific. I recommend that any lesbian and anyone who loves good fiction, add BOTH
the book and the DVD of TIPPING THE VELVET to their bookshelves.
It is surprising that a production like this gets made these days, especially for
television. Considering the strong sexual themes and explicit lovemaking scenes,
not to mention lesbianism, this has been given superb treatment and
direction. The sets and costumes are flawless, the direction is stylish
and the characters are likeable. There is a fair amount of humor but it has
surprisingly dark interludes. The protagonist is really a tragic figure, but not
devoid of happiness. Also, this production avoids the mistake most films/shows make
when dealing with homosexuality/lesbianism. The characters are very human. It seems
that to allow people to be comfortable with watching gays and lesbians on TV and
movies most shows fill it full of cliches and make the characters obsessed with
being gay. Not so with this. In Tipping the Velvet, the protagonist is hardly aware
of what being lesbian means! The BBC have made some wonderful
productions in the past, and this adventurous period piece only confirms their
standard of excellence on all fronts.
A really realistic, sensible movie by Ramgopal Verma . No stupidity like songs as
in other Hindi movies. Class acting by Nana Patekar. Much similarities
to real 'encounters'.
I have nothing but praise for this mini series. It's only about a year and a half
old but I have seen it twice already; with greater enjoyment the second time than
the first. I'm seriously thinking of watching it again soon since I find it
spiritually uplifting. It is a very tender romantic drama with such
beautiful performances, sets, costumes, music and scenes that it has a resonance
which places it almost in a league of its own among mini series. Some
others have commented on the difficulties of living as a lesbian in Britain in the
1890s. Nothing especially difficult about that; it was only male homosexuality that
was against the law as poor Oscar Wilde experienced to his great cost and as a
great loss to the literary world. Anyway, I digress. In my view, this is
essential television. It is perhaps one of the greatest tragic romantic dramas
since Romeo and Juliet, although not in the conventional sense. 10 out
of 10 from me. JMV
I'm glad I read the Sarah Waters novel first, since I had my own pictures of the
characters in my head at the time. The ones cast for this production, however, were
not at all disappointing - in fact, after I got used to Rachael Stirling as Nan, I
think Nina Gold did a damn fine job in the casting department. (Can Keeley Hawes be
more delicious?!) The BBC has done it again: this is a wonderful
production of a very good book, and they have done it up in style. If you can get
your hands on this (VHS, DVD) be sure to get the 181-minute version (the uncensored
one.) It is a marvelous journey, albeit a bit rocky at times, that you won't regret
taking.
This wonderful 3 part BBC production is one of the sweetest love stories that I
have seen in a while. The actresses display a very high level of talent, especially
Rachael Stirling as Nan Astley. She is funny, seductive and cute. The love making
scenes and the close up kisses are very erotic regardless of one's sexual
preference. The characters are well defined and very believable. I
guess this is a by-product of a good adaptation from a well written novel. A truly remarkable well paced drama that picks up speed quickly after a couple of
boring (but necessary) scenes in the beginning. My vote: 9/10
Tipping the Velvet has just three weeks ago been released in the UK and already I
watch as countless letters flood to the national papers and TV guides, claiming
that it possesses a thin plot, weak performances and an even weaker script. You find me incensed. This is heresy. I would really like to
dispel all doubt by first congratulating Andrew Davies on enabling Geoffrey Sax to
create this wonderful dramatization of Sarah Waters' novel by cushioning him with
such a fantastic script. Kudos. But I fear I must now change tack. I saw
one of the premiere TV guides here in the UK (which shall remain nameless)
relentlessly describing Tipping the Velvet as a "lesbian love story". If they are,
and I assume they are, trying to promote interest in the film, then this is
completely the wrong way to go about it (aside from the phrase being a
disappointingly inaccurate description). By saying such a thing, they are either a)
turning away those who would instinctively be repelled by "that" subject matter or
b) attracting a class of people who will only watch to see some "serious girl-on-
girl action". Buy a video! Through this display of serious inconsideration, this
and other magazines are cheapening what is a brilliant adaptation of one of recent
literature's greatest works. Tipping the Velvet is a story of love, of passion, of
moving on, of loss, and of heartbreak. It's not a lesbian love story. No
siree. The end result is a stylish affair, with excellent performances
all round (particularly from Stirling, Hawes, Chancellor and May). Direction-wise,
it's intoxicating and immersive - sometimes, fast-paced, sometimes not - but it
never ceases to be anything less than compelling. As a whole, it's polished and
well delivered, the sex is undertaken with tenderness and delicacy - and although
many will not class it as a real "film", it will remain among my favourites for
some time to come.
Labeling this film a "lesbian love story" is about as accurate as calling Pride &
Prejudice a "straight love story." There's just so much more to it than that. Yes, the main character is a lesbian, but her story is classic
bildungsroman, a journey from childhood to adulthood, from sexual innocence into
maturity, from personal blindness to self- discovery. There is a stylistic element
of camp to the film's direction, but it is not a hindrance; rather it serves to
underscore the staged and dramatic parts of the main character's life. Those who know Anna Chancellor from the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice will
certainly be amazed with her here. Rachael Stirling is stellar as the main
character Nan, and Keeley Hawes is all wide-eyed goodness as her lover Kitty
Butler. Chancellor might have the stand out role, that is aside from Sally Hawkins
who plays Zena Butler. This film is not for the faint of heart, but it's not a
piece of pro-gay advertising either. It's a real story, with real comedy and drama,
an engaging story with compelling characters, and well worth watching.
I started watching this expecting the worst, i was happy to find that the film
turned out to be enjoyable, slightly confusing in parts, like when they all justs
started singing. It gave me a chance to see Daniel Wu in action for the first time,
he is a better actor than i thought, at times he seemed a bit out of place. I
thought purple storm deserves its Hong kong legends release, as it is different to
most other HK films, it is about a mans emotional struggles when confronted with
memory loss, it may sound corny but when he eventually pieces out what and who he
actually is it really makes the film a lot more interesting. Once you get into the
film you will find it keeps you gripped to it, as if you miss one bit then a lot of
the film wil make sense, for example i missed a bit at the start and i recommend to
anyone that watches this that they do not miss any of it. So i can say that this
film was worth watching and a grateful surprise for me, that i enjoyed it.
Here we've got an intelligent mixture of typical hongkongmovieshootouts,
worlddestructionthemes and intelligent filmmaking. Not that the script has not its
big holes and a few specialeffects are a bit cheaplooking. But the cinematography
is a optical treat and the soundtrack is first rate. The blend of fast
actionsequences and colorful slow, sometimes nearly poetic parts, has no comparison
in its kind of movie, so a classification is rather hard. The closest genre is a
disaster or terroristmovie with deeper human and political notes than usual. Well
worth to be seen worldwide in cinemas. But i am hoping this for so many other
(mostly asian) movies before and nobody seems to believe me. Unfortunately.
This movie gives Daniel Wu his chance to do a great action movie, but I really find
Emil Chow's character really great, gutsy but determined to righting wrongs. Plus
the main terrorist, it gets me wondering his revolution, makes me wonder if he is
doing this for good or bad. A movie that tells us about Todd, an
amnesiac terrorist being tricked as an undercover until he learns who he really is.
The consequences that he makes from his terrorist family, gives him a the choice of
redemption. Purple Storm was one of the best ones that I have seen this
year. The movie really stands out when it is filled with tremendous action scenes
set-up by Stephen Tung Wai, which won the best action sequences in the Hong Kong
Awards. (9/10)
I found it charming! Nobody else but Kiarostami can do so little and, yet, get so
much. You might think I'm weird, but I was so charmed that I couldn't speak during
the movie. While during other movies I comment a lot. The short movie made by him
for Lumiere et Companie, the one with the eggs, that one is unbeatable in my heart,
but this is wonderful, too. I liked it better than Ten. Kiarostami is, maybe, the
best director in my opinion, because he can see things! He doesn't need to use a
lot of stuff "brought from home" to illustrate his images, he simply grabs a
camera. Not many can do that.. Maybe I don't know to much about movies but I don't
care about complicate stuff, all someone has to do is touch my soul. Kiarostami
does.
I learned a thing: you have to take this film like a funny period comedy, if you
don't want to be disappointed. The film's enjoyable because it's a delicious
comedy. I think the over-hype damaged it: the too much glorified Monica Bellucci
appears in few scenes and isn't so good as they wanted to let you believe. She
sounds unnatural, false: the best actress in this film is Sabrina Impacciatore, who
speaks with a perfect Tuscan accent and shines together with Massimo Ceccherini.
Elio Germano is very, very good: the most promising young Italian actor, according
to me. Daniel Auteuil looks like Napoleon, but I preferred other actors. So, the
most hyped performances were also the worst. Costumes and production
design are okay: sure, American period movies are more accurate about these things
because have bigger budgets, but the Italian ability rewards the lack of money. A
nice period comedy, in short, with a first-rate casting (except for Bellucci and
Auteuil).
This is by far one of the best films that India has ever made. Following are the
plus points of the film... Wonderful direction, cinematography and
editing, the editing is very smooth and the timing of changeovers is
excellent. Even though the film shows the life of Mumbai Policemen and
their hardships, it never gets boring or sympathetic. Mind-blowing
acting by lead actor Nana Patekar. One can surely hope that he gets nominated for
the Best actor for the academy awards. Controlled violence. The violence
is controlled and the film doesn't become a bloody mess. No stupid songs
as in usual Indian movies. 
Screened this morning for the press at Roma film festival, "N - io e Napoleone" is
easy to love. First of all it can count on great production values, as very few
Italian films nowadays can, with wonderful settings and costumes. The cast is great
too. Director Virzì constantly speaks of the young lead Elio Germano as "a young De
Niro". Now, of course he is going a way too far, but sure the boy can act. I loved
his performance, and he did a great job with the (tuscan) accent. Daniel Auteuil is
a great actor and did very well as Bonaparte. It's really great to see him acting
in Italian, I hope to see him working in Italy again very soon. The supporting cast
worked well too - people like Valerio Mastrandrea or Sabrina Impacciatore may seem
unlikely choices, but they all gave fine performances. Even Massimo Ceccherini,
best known for appearing in his own moronic films and in trashy TV reality shows,
fitted in well and was actually funny. The low point of the cast was the "Diva"
Monica Bellucci. Sure, she was slightly better than usual, but she managed to look
(and sound) utterly unnatural even in the part of baronessa Emilia, in which, with
a good dose of self irony, she used her own umbro accent. The script, by veteran
Furio Scarpelli and Virzì himself is clever, with lots of laugh out loud lines, and
a few very emotional moments too. Sure, the ending left me puzzled. The message is
kind of ambiguous: the whole film says that political ideals can bring you to blind
hate, but if you get closer you will learn that the object of your hate is after
all a little human being like everyone else, sometimes funny, sometimes sad,
sometimes pathetic, so that suddenly it's difficult to hate him; then, in the last
few minutes it says that after all it would have been better to shoot him in the
head at the beginning. Personally, I dislike very much this notion. "Io e
Napoleone" is still a pleasant film, the best presented at the Festival so far (the
other being Fur and the Hoax). My rating is 8/10
Martino, a young teacher in the island of Elba, has been formed by Maestro
Fontanelli, an excellent educator, to be his own man and to say whatever he thinks,
something that gets him in trouble at the school where we first meet him because he
is teaching revolutionary ideals. The island is in a frenzy because of the arrival
of one of the most influential men in European history of the 19th century.
Napoleon is coming to his exile, not exactly a high point in his life. With surprise, Martino is chosen to accompany Napoleon who is writing his memoirs
and is in need of help for his own project. The young man comes from a sea merchant
family. His brother and sister want him to go on an commercial expedition, but
Martino has decided his place belongs in Elba because he will try to assassinate
Napoleon. Little deters him after his mentor Fontanelli is tried for treason and
condemned to be shot by a firing squad. Martino finds his consolation
with the much older Baroness Emilia, a beautiful woman. In his own interaction with
the deposed emperor, a different kind of man emerges. Napoleon is seen as a more
human person who really enjoys the company of Martino, not suspecting with the
plans the young man's own plans for him. Unfortunately, Martino is not able to put
his design into action because Napoleon has other plans in mind. Paolo
Virzi, the director of "Caterina va in citta", shows why his early promise is still
there. Mr. Virzi also collaborated with the screenplay, which is based on a novel
by Ernesto Ferrero. The director shows he is as good in intimate drama as well as
with this type of spectacle. Alessandro Pesci, the cinematographer, does an
excellent job with the images he was able to get. Elio Germano, a young
Italian actor is the best thing in the movie. He is playing against more
experienced players, yet he manages to convince us he is the idealist youth trying
to get justice to what he perceives is a noble cause. The great Daniel Auteuil is a
more subdued Napoleon than one would expect from anyone's interpretation of this
larger than life man. Monica Belucci is the love interest of Martino, but she has
little to do. Omero Antonutti plays Fontanelli.
Would you like to know why French and Italians love/hate each others? Would you
like to have a glimpse of history that drives our lifetime? So, go to watch Virzi's
film (in original language, of course) and you can look at a wonderful Monica
Bellucci who finally speaks her native language from Città di Castello (Umbria,
just at the border with Tuscany). And the rest of the characters speaking Livornese
(lovely Sabrina Impacciatore and all the others). Daniel Auteuil definitely in his
shoes with Napoleon. A lot of fun, a real fresco of the Elba Island landscape, and
a picture about the political reasons to kill or leave alive a tyrant (good for all
times).
Debbie Vickers (Nell Schofield) and Sue Knight (Jad Capelja) want to become one of
the cool girls in their high school. Uncool and ugly girls had two options, be a
mole or a prude! Debbie and Sue imitate them by using their cheating practices in
an exam. Two of the cool boys, Garry (Goeff Rhoe) and Danny (Tony Hughes) ask them
for their answers and they all get busted. After a bawling out from the headmaster
(Bud Tingwell) the cool girls meet them outside in the playground and confronted
them about whether they "dobbed" on them all. As Debbie and Sue hadn't the cool
girls invited them to the "dunnies" for a smoke. They then start to hang with them
on weekends at the beach, watching all the boys surf. Sue ends up going out with
Danny and Debbie with Garry. A lot of usual teenage action takes place including
sex, drugs and rock and roll. Garry has an eventual overdose of heroin which makes
Debbie face the inequalities of life and she decides to learn to surf instead of
just watching the boys. They are not happy but watch her, calling names, and
eventually Debbie masters the board. A cool early 80s Aussie film.
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that this movie belongs to the 'Aussie
trash' pile, but it's fair to say that there are no Academy Award nominees here.
What must be considered is that most of the actors in this film weren't actually
actors as such, just kids with nothing better to do at the time. There were many
others that were offered roles in the film but turned them down to go surfing up
the coast; all things taken into account, it really wasn't a bad movie for its
time. In some respects it's really not unlike today's times, where peer pressure is
still alive and kicking, just without the mobile phones, computers and other
similar gadgets that kids lived without, unlike this generation. Anyway, I have to
rate this flick as an old fave that I watch once in a blue moon and never take too
seriously...
Movie about two Australian girls--Debbie (Nell Schofield) and Sue (Sue Knight)--and
what happens when they become girlfriends of two surfer guys. I caught
this at an art cinema here in America in 1981. Technically I was still a teenager
(I was 19) so I was interested in seeing how Australian teens acted. Script wise
there's nothing new here. It shows the usual teenage adventures dealing with
dating, sex, suicide etc etc. I always knew what was going to happen before it did
but I was never bored. What I found interesting was, despite the accent and a few
changes in clothes and hair, these teenagers aren't much different than American
teens. They had many of the same difficulties and hang-ups. Also this was based on
a book from a real surfer girl and her true life adventures and (I heard) it was a
faithful adaptation of it. The acting was just OK but the actors were attractive
and this was well-made and pretty interesting. So this is no unsung masterpiece but
a pretty accurate portrayal of what it's like being a teenager and trying to be
with the popular kids. I give it a 7.
I was actually satisfied when i played this game.The graphics were something
new.The missions were great.But yet,I felt i wanted more out of this game.For a
James Bond game its pretty good but not as good as his other games.It would be
great if they could make a 360Remake for it.It would be much better then.This may
just be cuz I'm into games as Resident evil,Dead rising and those kind of games.So
it could be better but it was OK to play.One thing i absolutely hated about this
game was Natalya!She was irritating dying all the time and she couldn't run
either.I recommend this game for those who like FPS games more than i do.7/10 STARS
The best bond game made of all systems. It was made of the best bond movie of all
time. If you don't have the game Goldeneye you should rent it and if you don't have
the movie Goldeneye you should rent it also to better understand the game. The best
bond game of all!!!
Two years after its initial release, Goldeneye still sits atop the field of first-
person shooters for the Nintendo 64. Even the Quake and Turok series have not had
the combination of graphic detail, sound quality, enemy intelligence, challenge and
overall fun that bring me back to this game over and over again. The missions each
have specific objectives that force you to think as Bond, not just to shoot up
every baddie that pops up on your screen, but also to avoid cameras, disable
security systems, rescue hostages, protect the Bond girl, and so on. Q gadgets
abound in this game, including the famous watch. The game is loosely based on the
movie storyline, including all the major characters and the best scenes of the
movie, from the dam bungee-jump to the prop-plane escape to the tank chase through
St. Petersburg. Even the layout is preserved where possible, so you'll recognize
various situations if you've seen the film. Other levels are added to challenge the
player and string together the scenes a little more. With each difficulty level the
mission objectives are more difficult, the enemies smarter and the bullets more
lethal. I still have not gotten through the 00-Agent levels. Cheats can be opened,
not by entering codes or pushing buttons, but by completing certain levels within a
certain time frame, and additional characters can be opened up for the multiplayer.
The multiplayer is still the best among the first-person shooters. It's not as
crisp as Turok but it doesn't slow down nearly as much... tons of options give your
friends reason to blow each other up over and over again, and one more time just
for kicks. There are better games for the N64, such as Zelda and all things Star
Wars, but Rare has continued their streak of outstanding games with a first-person
shooter that has not and will not be surpassed until they top themselves in 2000
with Perfect Dark.
This is a superb game for the N64 with superb graphics and a great one-player
story-line and even better multi-player game best played with 4 people. The many levels and options for weapons mean that this is one of the best games
around for years.
Satya was excellent.... Company was just as good but more polished, probably owing
to the money earned from previous movies. Ab Tak Chappan however is even more
entertaining. The dialogue is gritty, crude and at times hilarious. Nana Pataker
shines yet again in a role that only he can fulfill with authority but the
supporting cast are very talented. Direction is tight and the story evolves at a
satisfying pace with a very dramtic climax. As a depiction of reality it may be
over-dramatised but at the end of the day it's a movie so the balance is spot-on.
I've ordered my DVD and can't wait to see it again at home. As a lover of these
type of gangster flicks, this is very gratifying and comes highly recommended for
the refreshingly "non-Yash Raj" Bollywood gangster flick lovers out there.
This is my favorite game for the Nintendo 64 platform. I've played many different
first-person shooters, and I've never really liked any of them much, but this game
has a certain something that I can't put my finger on that makes it an amazing
amount of fun. Maybe it's the extraordinary detail put into the game. Maybe it's
the fluid movement of the characters. Maybe it's the gadgets and weapons. Maybe
it's the suave character of James Bond. Whatever it is, this game never seems to
get old no matter how many times I've played it.
definitely the best game for N64 ever. I most say i was farely disappointed with
tomorrow never dies, but the world is not enough promises to be better then
goldeneye (according to the website).I love goldeneye so much i find something to
do every time I play it. I have even made up my own missions for the levels. Multi
player is the best of any game out there, and the graphics are astounding even now.
The first day I got this I remember wishing that they would go back, and make all
of the bond movies into games. Can you imagine driving that speed boat in live and
let die and making those incredible jumps, or fighting off ninjas or fighting jaws
in the spy who loved me and moonraker. (i think fighting him in those games would
be more fun then in the aztec) what about chasing Sanchez in the gas trucks or
scalling St. Cerils in for your eyes only. oh well let me get back to the game at
hand. All of the levels are unique and make for very fun killing environments.
there are many places to hide so you can sneek up on people (especially statue
park) well this game is not worthy of renting you really need to buy it today.
This game is not exactly the best N64 game ever. Sure, it's good, but only when
there's 4 players. Without 4 players, the only fun thing to do is take remote mines
and see how many people you can kill. But half of this game are levels where you
have to save Natalya, so you'll have to limit your use of remote mines in those
levels, and that gets quite boring. The graphics don't exactly reach the level of
Super Mario 64 or even Mario Kart 64. And if you're talking a great multiplayer in
a 1st-person shooter, you'll have to go with Perfect Dark. At least you can play
"multiplayer" by yourself.
This game requires stealth, smart, and a steady hand. The gameplay is simply the
best; on top of that though are the interesting extras - bullet holes stay in the
walls, enemies react to specific points where they have been hit by bullets, there
are tons of motion captured animations that make the enemies seem very real (for
instance when looking through a window at a guard he will stand there swatting
flies away, sneezing, or scratching himself), the list goes on. This is the best
licensed/movie conversion ever and it puts you in the shoes of the suavest super
spy. This game is the best reason for owning an N64.
What can be said about one of the greatest N64 games ever? That the action is fast
enough to keep even a seasoned FPS veteran sweating bullets quite literally? That
the graphics are great, down to the explosions that everyone loves to see? That
nothing is quite as fun as playing multiplayer mode, and shooting your friends and
siblings in the back with submachine guns? Very little beats Goldeneye
007. About the only thing missing was voice acting, and a bit more intelligence in
the enemy soldiers. If you have an N64, and you like shooting people and things
crossed with espionage, get a copy of this.
Ever since I first played it in 1998, GoldenEye has been one of my favourite video
games. In fact, I recently bought an N64 purely so that I could own it and play it
more often! The game is pretty much near-perfect: the single-player mode does a
fantastic job of immersing yourself in Bond's shoes, with varied mission
objectives, convincing weapons, and great level design. Even though the enemies'
artificial intelligence is pretty basic by today's standards, that only adds to
GoldenEye's appeal. The method of obtaining cheats (completing levels within a
strict time limit) was also innovative when the title was released, and even now I
still haven't cracked some of them! The game comes with a wonderful
multiplayer mode for up to four players, and while this isn't as advanced as the
Combat Simulator in the game's sequel "Perfect Dark", it is still incredibly
satisfying to blast your opponents to smithereens with a barrage of RC-P90
fire! ;-)
This game has cartoon graphics, not much violence and really short levels - then
why do people say it is so brilliant?!? Because it always holds your attention, it
captivates you and refuses to let go! You will try for hours to try and find that
damn flight recorder, try to work out how to get into the room without alerting the
guards, etc! The levels are short only when you know what to do - until that, you
will spend hours trying to figure out where to find correspondences, where to find
helicopters and so on! And you'll have fun all the while you are doing it! Well
worth a rent!
In my personal opinion i think this is the greatest video game ever created! I
first played this game at my friends house years ago, the very next day I went out
and got my own. Since that day close to seven years ago I have not stopped playing
it. I can't help it I just can't get bored of it. I've been addicted to other games
on other, much newer systems but I keep coming back for more Goldeneye. Every
mission is amazingly fun and challenging, the multi-player mode was like none
other. I hope you can be as fortunate as I was to have played four player multi-
player mode because I had brothers and friends who would get together and play this
game all the time.
You wear only the best Italian suits from Armani, hand stitched and fitted to your
exact measurements. Your automobile is the finest that German engineering has to
offer, and is equipped with as many gadgets as horses under the hood. You're a
member of the finest polo clubs, frequently dine at restaurants such as Spago, and
are always accompanied by at least two of the most beautiful women in the world.
Your pocket watch doubles as a nuclear explosive, while your trusty pen can also be
used as a semi-automatic .22 caliber gun. You snow ski in the Alps, go deep sea
diving in the Caribbean, sky dive over the Andes, and all the while your hair is
never, ever, out of place. You are Bond, James Bond, the world's most renown spy,
favorite son of the good Queen, bad boy of the British SS, and perhaps the most
desired man in the world. The character of James Bond was created by Ian Fleming,
and is the movie industry's longest lasting icon, being the subject of over fifteen
films spanning over four decades. The latest man to play the role is Pierce
Brosnan, who took over the role of James Bond from Timothy Dalton in 1996, and made
his 007 debut in Goldeneye. This is the setting for the first major
title developed by a third party on the Nintendo 64. Goldeneye, developed by Rare
for Nintendo, has been on the market for some time. Its continued dominance in the
sales charts is just one testament to how good this game is, and no review library
would be complete without it. Let's face it -- most of the time movie-
licensed games are flops. Although the two seem like a good mix, the results, for
the most part, have been horrendous. Games like Cliffhanger, True Lies, Lethal
Weapon, and not to mention all the Star Trek flops, are ammunition enough against
this mix. And for the record I am not a fan of movie licensed games, especially if
I've seen the movie. At least that's how I used to think. In the case of Goldeneye,
I had more reservations than normal. While not a bad movie, Goldeneye the film
didn't have that much appeal to it, and I don't rank it in the top ten amongst Bond
movies. As a game, however, let's just say it's a completely different story. The game is a first-person shooter, and in order to be successful, you'll
need at least as much brains as brawn. For those who have seen the movie, which I
imagine is most of you reading this, the story is very consistent and follows the
path of the movie with little variation. A plot to control the world's most
dangerous satellite, Goldeneye, has begun in the USSR, and in the process a
beautiful woman has been captured. Your missions will be many, the danger extreme.
You will have to rely on your wits and experience to get you through the most
grueling missions the world has ever known. M will brief you as soon as you're
ready. Good day, James.
I first played this around 98' or 99' when I was with my friends.I thought the game
was really great,and loved it. The game is simple.On one player mode,you
go around as James Bond and complete missions in different places like an Arctic
wasteland or a city.My favorite was one with a tank.On two player mode,you and a
friend choose from any character you wish and go all out with a fight.Through out
the area you are in,you will find ammo and weapons to help.From hand guns to rifles
to lasers and even your fists work. Again with player two mode,there are
lots of places to go,and some to unlock.I find this game really fun,but also very
suspenseful.Because,you never really know where your opponent is,and it's
surprising to see them behind a door where you are going. This game gets
****(1/2) stars or of ***** Very good!Go play it sometime!
No music. No stupid masala. A reasonably realistic portrayal of the police system
in India and based on a real "encounter" specialist in India, Daya Nayak. That is
Ab Tak 56 (56 symbolises how many criminals the lead "Sadhu Agashe" has killed" -
well you already know that bit)Brilliance exudes Nan Patekar in the role as a
relaxed and calculating Indian cop. THe one liners are just hilarious. The plot
though slightly predictable on review, is intriguing all the same. Another one of
the films from Ram Gopal Vermas The Factory. Movies which are either decent or
really good, Ab Tak CHappan meanders close to very good. But yet remains one of the
Top 70 films released from India, commercial and artsy included. What is
great is the story telling is relaxed and showcases finally (in an Indian flick)
how the police network works. The cast is really damn good but seriously the one
liners are funny as hell (though i dont know if the subtitled version will appear
as funny) The producers are trying for a Cannes release, which is interesting. Made
by debut director Shamit Aman (i think thats his name). Again 55 y.o.
Nana Patekar is brilliant away from his silly shouting roles of the past, just
shows what a good director can do with a good actor. Really good stuff. If you are
interested in Indian movies and are disgusted by the nonsense some of our guys dish
out then this is definitely a relief. Again Patekar is the guy who
happilly carries the movie on his shoulders and epitomises the style of the movie-
relaxed, funny, intelligent and calculating. Good dialoges, good acting, nice
direction all in all Great stuff. Recommendations: Gangaajal, Ram Gopal Verma's
Company (both Indian flicks)
We've all played Halo and Socom and GTA and Resi etc. but none of them can stand up
to GE007. The game itself is great. I have literally burned out my N64 playing this
great game, along with Zelda OOT. This game along alone built the mold that is
essential for all modern shooters. on top of that the multi-player is great. The
Story mode itself is worth playing a hundred times over and more. Its a great game
for when your board and you want to just shoot up some people and there are endless
unlock ables. (cheats, Aztec, Egyptian, god knows how many Multiplayer charries,
and the three difficulties as well as the famous '007' difficulty Our modern games
are great but when you sit down and play this game you get a certain feeling that
few other games can give you. And with the Online capabilities of newer shooting
games we rarely see this old two on two death match style. and when we do its no
where near as good as this games. And when you get bored of the story, there are
endless mysteries, glitches and easter eggs to be found and taken advantage of. This is definitely one of the greatest shooting games of all time.
GoldenEye 007 is not only the best movie tie-in game of all time, but it is perhaps
the most influential first-person shooter ever to hit the gaming-console market. If
you aren't aware of the plot of this game that's not a problem, because essential
it is the same as the popular James Bond movie, GoldenEye, which was released in
1995- two years prior to this game's release. This is a game that is
filled with techniques and styles that would be mimicked in many future games to
come, and it gives the player a wide variety of objectives, and difficult
challenges. The A.I. is smart (especially on higher difficulty settings) and the
environments are complex enough to provide entertainment, as well as difficulty to
any gamer. The introduction of logical hit-points on your enemies is a
great feature. Even bosses in this game can be taken down with a well-aimed shot to
the head. It is this type of realism that really makes you feel like your James
Bond and that you can sneak in, sneak out, covertly taking out henchmen as you go,
or springing alarms and having to go through massive shootouts. Because of this
there are many ways to beat the game, and limitless possibilities for how you
accomplish your tasks. AKA: You can take easy ways or hard ways of beating
levels...and if you don't have a strategy guide you'll have to find out those paths
by yourself (which, I might add, is incredibly fun if you want to waste a day
away). This is one of those games that the more you play it the more
you're able to value its contributions to the gaming industry. Each time I play it
I notice aspects that have been replicated in many following FPS games. So if you
have a Nintendo 64 go ahead and dust that sucker and order a used copy of GoldenEye
007, because trust me, as a Bond fan, and a casual gamer I can say that this game
is highly recommended for all those who want to step into the shoes of James Bond,
or just have an awesome, intense gaming experience. (Also make sure to
look out for its sister game, Perfect Dark, which is also on the N64, following the
same controls, and very similar weapon uses.)
There isn't much that comes close to the perfect-paced storytelling and suspenseful
action-packed levels as "GoldenEye". When it came out, it was the greatest game of
all-time, and even today, it stays strong. I will admit that this game
did get boring after a few months of playing, and by not playing it again until two
years later, I was thrust back into its greatest, almost as if I was playing it for
the first time again. There are 20 action-packed levels, which is
probably the most of any James Bond game to date. Probably the most unforgettable
one is the Tank level, which was likely the most explosive video game sequence at
that time. And the first-person shooting as well as usage of Q gadgets is what
James Bond fans are always dying to use. Frankly, as a James Bond fan, I
look for aspects of a true James Bond experience, which are now showing up in the
PS2 games. So this game, while it has some great action and usable gadgets, I was
somewhat expecting a little more, even back in 1997. I also disliked that this game
didn't have Q or M or Moneypenny, or anyone from MI6. While watching the movies,
Bond interacts with these characters at least a few times throughout each movie,
but they are nowhere to be seen in this game. And vocal dialogue would have made
the game more lively rather than the text dialogue they wound up using. They had
the technology. They just didn't use it. Probably the most annoying
feature of this game is that in some ways it follows the story of the movie
precisely, and other ways it's incoherent. For example, there are two many levels
where you have to protect or save Natalya, even though in the movie she can take
care of herself. There are also some unnecessary levels, like the Boat level where
you have to disarm some bombs (which is not in the movie), which adds nothing to
the storyline whatsoever. There are even some levels where you rescue Natalya, but
at the beginning of the next level, she's captured again. How? Oh well.
Even those little things can't really put this game down. And while I do prefer the
newer games, this Bond experience is definitely one you won't forget. 8
out of 10
This is one of my favorite James bond in games because: The missions are fun to
play they have lots of action in them they can be hard that makes them fun to do
the weapons you use are good. The way James bond look in this James bond games is
pretty you can see pierce brosnan in him which is cool and all the other characters
in this game look like the actors that played them in the movie. There is no way
that you can't have a good time playing this game i loved it.Also the game follows
the movie pretty much maybe a few added thing but it pretty much follows the movie.
Also the this James bond game has pretty good graphics for Nintendo 64 and to bad
there was no voice over actors in this game but who care as long as the game is fun
to play. Overall score ******** out of **********
007's Goldeneye is one of the best N64 releases ever. Better than this
game? Well...Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Star Wars: Episode I-Racer and The Legend
of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are far better and superior games. But I still love
Goldeneye. This is the best adaptation from a movie second only to Star
Wars adaptations. The story is perfect. It's like you are in the movie
itself. The graphics are excellent. The movements are extremely
realistic. The enemies' artificial intelligence are the best part in this game. I
loved playing the stage in which James and Natalya break from the Janus base as the
Goldeneye prepares to burn it. Escaping without sounding an alarm was very
difficult. Eluding cameras and controlling your fire are great aspects in the
gameplay. It's also the toughest game I've ever played. N64 games are
usually very, very easy. Goldeneye is the one exception. I'm still trying to beat
the 00 Agent difficult level, but winning the easier levels was already a great
victory. I loved when Alec Trevelyan asked: "For England James?". I answered: "No,
for ME!" It happened just in the moment I blasted him to death. Just like in the
movie. I love accomplishing every objective. The multiplayer gaming is
even better. At first I got killed every holy second. Now, I know how to win. I
love forcing my playmates by playing at License to Kill. The music and
sound are astounding. Super Mario 64 looks like an Atari next to this. The only
thing I still wanted to hear was the Goldeneye theme song, that plays at the end of
the movie. After Zelda was released, I nearly forgot I still had this
game. It's still excellent, even if it's already surpassed. I hope other 007 games
are produced. Fantastic job Rareware! Nintendo was very smart to release
this game on the N64 exclusively. Magnificent job Nintendo!
Quite simply, Goldeneye is the single greatest N64 game to date. The learning curve
is just about perfect, and you'll still be playing it with your friends months on,
as the multiplayer mode is nothing short of exceptional. The system for
acquiring cheats for once requires some degree of skill, rather than simply knowing
which buttons to press, and the challenge of Aztec on 00 agent level is
astonishing. All in all - it's the best game I've ever played on the N64
Ever since I've been allowed to play Goldeneye once again, it's been impossible to
get my mind off it. I'm surprised I could have gone without it. It is, without a
doubt, one of the greatest games of all time. I have never played any other
shooting games, but I know that this one rules above all. Most people blame it for
too much violence, but I find that ridiculous. There may be a few graphic antics,
but there's far worse out there. Most importantly, it's fun. With an
awesome arsenal of weapons such as the RC-P90 and the classic Golden Gun, you'll go
through several challenging levels from the movie, completing crucial objectives
and fending off swarms of guards. There are tons of awesome cheats to get and even
two secret levels that you will only earn if you have the true skill. Goldeneye is
also one of the greatest multiplayer games ever as well. You can choose several
characters from the movie, classic villains from old 007 movies (Baron Samedi,
Oddjob, May Day, and Jaws), and guards in the game. Chances are you and your
partner(s) will be laughing so hard as you blow each other away that you'll look
like Bart and Lisa Simpson watching an episode of the Itchy and Scratchy show.
 So if you don't have the game, don't rent it: Just buy it. It's too
good to be true. For cool Goldeneye stuff, check out Detstar.com's Goldeneye
website. Every James Bond lover will dig this game big time.
GoldenEye is a masterpiece. The storyline is amazingly depicted, the characters
beautifully animated and the weapons are tyte. The storyline is so interesting,
even when you complete every single mission, to get more levels you have to beat
them on a higher difficulty. And the multiplayer mode is so tyte. You pick the
weapons you want to play with, then play. Me and the three of my friends, along
with my brother, always play Goldeneye. If you don't have this game, I suggest you
buy it.
This episode introduces us to the formal dress uniforms worn here by Captain
Picard, Commander Riker, and Lieutenant Tasha Yar. The plot of this episode deals
with 2 groups of separate alien delegates, The Anticans and the Selae who try to
capture and eat each other at every turn. The 2 sides really hate each other, and
it is up to Riker and Tasha to contain them and keep them out of trouble. Meanwhile a mysterious spacial anomaly goes around the ship injuring and
killing a few of the crew members. But at the end of the episode this same spacial
anomaly possesses a valuable member of the crowd. Will they be able to rescue him
so that they maybe able to continue on with their on going mission of space
exploration? Note: This episode marks Irish actor Colm Meaney's second
appearance on TNG after "Encounter at Farpoint." He portrays one of Tasha's
"yellow-shirted" security guards.
"Lonely among us" definitely is one of the best first season episodes. The
storyline, although somewhat confusing, creates a lot of suspense, supported by the
creepy synthesizer-driven soundtrack. This is a typically "alien body invasion"
scenario but finally turning out to no evil purpose (the death of assistant chief
engineer Singh to me was an accident). The two delegate species deliver an
entertaining frame (best make-up so far) finally adding a little black humor to the
series (the final scene). Patrick Stewart obviously enjoys stepping out a bit of
his Picard character and exploring some new terrain as does Data by posing as
Sherlock Holmes (another all time classic). The special effects are also convincing
and director Cliff Bole did his job well. He is the first one trying to compensate
Trois lack in acting ability by improving her looks. She does look beautiful in
some scenes and the neck of her dress improves her appearance a lot. Picard's
"lightning-scene" on the bridge gives him a slight air of the emperor of Star Wars
"Return of the Jedi" (which is a personal impression but made me smile). There's also some playing with the lighting of the corridors (simulating
night aboard) and the first moving camera, pulling back from Picard when he's
entering the transporter room to beam into the cloud... Nice work. The clever
cutting, creating continuing dialog through different scenes (Troi's hypnosis
report) rounds up the impression of a really well crafted TNG episode. The first
one, where even Wesley Crusher seemed almost tolerable... The ending
however is a bit confusing, just as if the producers were running out of time. "P
for Picard" is a little far fetched and his return far too easy but that can be
left aside regarding the many strong moments this episode has to offer...
I love the way he experiments. Ab Tak Chappan was a thrill to watch just as much
Satya and company was. Jatin the new comer also lived up to his role and Nana
Patekar was at his best. Suchak was really irritating but I think he fit the
character he was playing - he had really ugly teeth. The story has a great progress
and no songs in the movie makes it better. I only wish he signs up Urmila for his
other up coming movies. I think they are the best director and actress combination
I have seen. I have not seen Naach as yet but I am looking forward for it. I for
some reason don't find Antra Maali that exciting to watch on the screen - unlike
Urmila.
The movie is really about choices. In the oppressed state of affairs as seen in
Fire, where good women had to be obedient and do what was correct in the eyes of
tradition, there seemed few options for Radha and Sita. However, granted that it
was not their only option. What is life without desire, Radha questions Ashok. Yes,
it's true that life provides us with a number of options but how many we can take
depends on a number of external factors. When your world is confined to a small
Indian household, being a dutiful daughter-in-law to a silent but observant still
powerful matriarch, a dutiful wife of 13 years to a man who has taken a vow of
celibacy due to your not being able to have a child, a man who only wants you lying
next to him to prove his strength in eliminating his desires. I felt the ladies had
little choice but to find solace in each other's company. I guess the fact that so
many women applauded Ms Mehta's work, was because it provided them with an option
to think for themselves. An option to do what was perhaps unacceptable. The lesbian
scenes I felt was merely to put that point across. Every scene in the movie from
the first at the Taj Mahal to the last at the Mosque, is etched in my mind. How
frustrating to be a prisoner of your feelings and desires. To feel that you had to
forgo the human touch to be a dutiful wife just because it is expected of you. To
have to suppress any desire you might have and to crave for the human touch. What
then is the meaning of our existence one wonders. In the scene where Sita is crying
alone in the room and Radha comes in to comfort her, their lips accidentally brush
against each others and it awakens a feeling in them. Something they have both been
deprived of. Bravo to Ms Mehta in translating her vision so clearly. I
especially like the flashbacks to the young Radha trying to 'see' for the ocean. It
is a metaphor for freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to transport ourselves to
places we would normally be unable to reach. In those scenes, it is gently told to
us that her sense of duty has also been passed down from her mother who I assume
lives within the rich Indian traditions of duty in marriage. The movie is
beautifully filmed and enhanced by the musical score by A.R. Rahman. Since the
film, I have become ardent fans of the two lead actresses and the director. I look
forward to more of Ms Deepa's future productions.
This is halfway to being a top movie. The opening section, which spoofs Hollywood
"social message" films is absolutely brilliant. It is a riot from start to
finish. The second section, which introduces us to the main characters
of the story is really great too. We get a lot of great comic setups, top notch
performances, and the dialog is really dynamic. (Spoiler warning!) The one think that really annoyed me about this film though is the ending,
which I think contradicts everything that went before. My interpretation was that
this film was taking the mickey out all the silly prejudices and innuendo of small
town gossip and national tabloid sensationalism. I loved that the film was
championing the cause that a person's sexuality is NOT determined by their hobbies,
idiosyncrasies, fashion sense or whatever. And then the ending goes and re-enforces
all the gossip and stereotypes that the movie successfully lampooned in the first
place. It turns out everyone was 100% right!!! (godamit!) This was very
disappointing to what was actually a great story.
Paul Rudnick (Jeffrey, Addams Family Values) wrote this frothy tale of a mild
mannered school teacher (Kevin Kline) who is outted on the Academy Awards by a
former student-turned-actor (Matt Dillon). The rest of the film deals with the
absurdities revolving around this setup -the effect on the town, his fiancee (Joan
Cusack), himself- and climaxes with an everybody-loves-everybody finale. If you're an angry gay rights activist or a naive youth looking for an
accurate portrayal of a man's struggle to come out or a 'true' depiction of gay
life, then save yourself the trouble and rent something else (maybe Beautiful
Thing) or read a book (Giovanni's Room). If you are able to understand that this
film was inspired by the piousness of Tom Hanks's speech on the Academy Awards when
he won for Philadelphia and pokes fun at Hollywood culture and small town ignorance
and you have a fondness for '30's screwball comedy (Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, The
Palm Beach Story) then enjoy! Far from being a biting satire, the film tries for
the exuberance of a Preston Sturges farce and comes damn close. No, it's not 'deep'
or 'powerful' -neither were Romy & Michelle, 9 to 5, or Young Frankenstein- and it
doesn't pretend to be; it keeps it's tongue-firmly-in-cheek. It gets too preachy
and maudlin for its own good toward the end and sure some of the jokes are a bit
stale (there's also a locker room scene that could have been cut) but after sitting
through countless comedies that misfire, it's like a breath of fresh air. Kevin Kline and Tom Selleck are wonderfully game while Debbie Reynolds and
Wilford Brimley add fine support. The excellent Joan Cusack's award winning
performance is stellar and the great Bob Newhart is, well, Bob Newhart. The fact that many have been offended by In & Out is as absurd as the
mentality of the townsfolk it pokes fun at; personally, I was more offended by
Philadelphia. I'll take harmless fluff over sanctimoniousness anytime.
After reading the comment made about this movie, and currently watching it, I can
understand how the person felt about it. The decisions made were after listening to
common sense. When the movie came out, I had heard the information as to how it
came about. The storyline was made from an actual event. During an award show, an
actor, thanking the li'l people, attributed the award to a former school teacher,
unexpectedly outing the person. Of course, many people come 'out' of the
closet most every day. Each outing is different for each person. In real life, the
outcome of any individual is gonna be different as well. And a willingness to
accept who they are is the most important thing in life to reach personal
happiness. For those around them, the joy and honest acceptance can make life much
more fuller. For the movie, the outcome of how Howard is out'ed is a lot more
comical than real life. And the acceptance of the community showed the others that
Howard was himself and nothing else. Overall, the performances were
crazy. The memorable quotes and use of music add to the stereo-types out there in
the world, but taken with tongue and cheek humour. It's a movie. Sit down, watch
with an open mind, and laugh your head off.
IN & OUT, in my opinion, is a very hilarious movie. I thought that Cameron (Matt
Dillon) was wrong to say that Howard (Kevin Kline) was gay. The part I liked most
was Howard's bachelor party. This was because they were cracking jokes about a lot
of things, including Barbra Streisand films. I also thought that Emily (Joan
Cusack) looked very beautiful in her wedding dress and that Howard looked good in
his tuxedo. My favorite quote of IN & OUT is, "Is everybody gay? Is this 'THE
TWILIGHT ZONE'?" That was absolutely hilarious! The one character I couldn't stand
was Sonya (Shalom Harlow). This was because she was VERY conceited and snobby. In
conclusion, I recommend this movie to all you Kevin Kline fans who have not seen
it. Be prepared to laugh HARD and have a good time when you see it.
Kevin Kline offers a brilliant comic turn in the 1997 comedy IN & OUT. Kline plays
Howard Brackett, a small town history teacher who excitedly sits down to watch the
Academy Awards this year because one of his former students (Matt Dillon) is a
nominee. He is nominated for his performance in a film where he plays a gay soldier
and when he wins, he thanks Howard in his speech for inspiring him because Howard
is gay. Now this floors Howard because he as no clue why thus guy would say this on
international television. Howard is even engaged to be married (to Joan Cusack, in
an Oscar-nominated performance)so he has no idea where Dillon;s Cameron Drake got
the idea that he is gay and finds he has to defend himself to everyone at school
but is shocked that no one seemed terribly shocked by what Cameron said on the
Oscars. Howard has a birthday party where he is given birthday presents like the
soundtrack to YENTL and ends up explaining to his guests why Barbra Streisand had
to make FUNNY LADY. His parents (Wilford Brimley, Debbie Reynolds) are shocked but
promise to support their son, even if he is gay. He also gets a visit from an out
of town reporter (Tom Selleck) who wants to do an article about him because he's
gay too. The moment when Selleck plants a big kiss right on Kline's lips is a
classic. But all of these little things have Howard actually questioning his
sexuality and wondering if he really is gay...much to the aggravation and
frustration of his fiancée, Cusack, who is beyond confused. The scene where she
leaves a bar in her wedding gown and stands in the middle of street screaming about
the lack of single straight men in the world is a classic. But what I like about
this movie is the way Kline fully invests in the role and was not afraid to look
foolish or look gay. There is a fabulous scene, probably the most famous from the
film, where he buys a record, on how to be macho, and the guy on the record is
talking about how real men don't dance and a disco tune comes on (I WILL SURVIVE if
memory serves)and the narrator on the record says no matter what you do, don't
dance, but Howard can't help himself and he ends up shaking his groove thing all
over the room. It's hysterically funny and Kline plays it with sincerity and gusto.
The film is not pro or anti gay...it's just a deft and amusing character study
about a man trying to figure out exactly who he is. Wonderful film.
this movie is extremely funny and enjoyable,with suitable, funny and experienced
casts. I find this movie enjoyable not only by the elements of humor but also the
music in various scenes. Kevin Kline, a good comedian has done a good job at being
funny in many parts of the film along with Tom Selleck who is amazingly different
from many of his other films. The humor within this film are goofy which makes
various exaggerations within many scenes, especially the beginning bits. Joan
Cusack is also remarkably funny and exaggerated; and the same goes for all the
other casts. This film has many elements of goofy humor and is enjoyable if you
want to laugh.
Joan Cusack steals the show! The premise is good, the plot line interesting and the
screenplay was OK. A tad too simplistic in that a coming-out story of a gay man was
so positive when it is usually not quite-so-positive. Then again, it IS fiction. :)
All in all an entertaining romp. One thing I noticed was the "inside-
joke" aspect. Since the target-audience probably was straight, they may not get the
gay "stuff" in context with the story. Kevin Kline showed a facet of
his acting prowess that screenwriters sometimes don't take in consideration when
suggesting Kline for a part. This one hit the mark.
This is truly a funny movie. His dance scene done with the tape is one of the
funniest scenes I can recall. I thought the "I am gay" scene at the high school
graduation ceremony a bit surrealistic, though it was funny. While watching it for
the third time, I started to pick up on a little small segments that I had missed.
One was when Matt Dillon's girl friend, a classic ditz, tried to use a dial phone
which she had never used before. Kevin Klein made this film successful along Tom
Selleck. This was also the first time I could appreciate Debbie Reynolds; she
proved that she can be funny. She confirmed this in the TV series 'Will and Grace.'
One discovery that I found after the third viewing is Lauren Ambrose of '6 Feet
Under' fame. She sticks out with her red bangs, but it is obvious that this is one
of her first films. Bob Newhart is also very funny at the high school principle.
The first, and far better, of Kevin Kline's two gay roles. (The second is the
dreary "De-Lovely" in which he played Cole Porter.) Inspired by Tom Hanks'
emotional acceptance speech for "Philadelphia" in which he outed his high school
drama teacher, the nominated film in this version was obviously more "Forrest Gump"
than "Philadelphia". Here the Hanks character is played by Matt Dillon. The reaction scenes in most of the film are very funny and, as has been often
pointed out, are especially effective as done by Kevin himself, Debbie Reynolds,
Tom Selleck (a brave move since he was himself the target of such rumors, which he
denied!), Bob Newhart and Joan Cusack as the eventually jilted bride-to-be. Tom Hanks' actual teacher criticized the graduation scene saying people
don't act that way in real life. But this is a farce and not real life. That being
said, it is not as effective as it might be and the misdirection of the final
"wedding scene" which makes it look like Tom and Kevin are about to get hitched I
found rather pointless, annoying and a cop out. The highlight of the
film for me is, of course, Kevin's scene with the how-to-be-a-real-man audio tape
and it is hilarious but certainly not at all realistic when the tape reacts to
Kevin's actions. On the whole, a hoot!
I remember seeing this a long while ago, and I knew most of the concept, but no
detail, so I'm glad I watched it again, from director Frank Oz (The Muppets Take
Manhattan, Bowfinger). Basically new star Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon) has just won
the Academy Award for his latest, where he plays a gay soldier, and he does the
usual "thank yous", he even mentions his past school English teacher Howard
Brackett (Golden Globe nominated Kevin Kline), and he outs him as gay! Howard is
determined to clear his name, and get out of the media spotlight as a denying gay
man, especially as his marriage to Emily Montgomery (Oscar and Golden Globe
nominated Joan Cusack) is on the way. So it comes to the wedding day, and when it
comes to Howard saying yes or no, that is when he outs himself, and admits to
himself and everyone, that he is gay. This of course gets him fired as a teacher,
but everyone stands at the graduation day to out themselves (in support), and
Cameron even shows up to clear things up, so that everyone, especially school head
Tom Halliwell (Elf's Bob Newhart) knows it's okay to be gay. Also starring Tom
Selleck as Peter Malloy, Debbie Reynolds as Berniece Brackett, Wilford Brimley as
Frank Brackett, Gregory Jbara as Walter Brackett, Glenn Close, Whoopi Goldberg and
Jay Leno. The highlight of the film has to be when Kline can't help dancing to
Diana Ross's version of "I Will Survive", that must have been what convinced him of
his sexuality. Kline is always good, Cusack is a surprise Oscar nominee, and all
supporting cast members do their bit too in this very funny comedy. Very good!
I almost stopped watching Hindi movies because of the mediocre quality and story
lines. One exception for this is Ramgopal Verma movies. This is a nice movie with
great performances from the star cast. This is must see movie for those who are
sick of watching stupid dancing and love stories. The adaptation of the story and
characterization was exceptional good.You should watch this movie for Nana Patekar.
based on the life of Mumbai cop Daya Naik this movie deals in a more realistic way.
The film delves into the life of the common man, which he has apart from being an
encounter specialist. I rate this as one of the best movie of the year
Howard (Kevin Kline) teaches English at the high school in a small Indiana city. He
is finally getting married to Emily (Joan Cusack), much to his parents delight. The
town is abuzz, too, because one of its own, Cameron (Matt Dillon) has been
nominated for an acting Oscar. Everyone, including Howard and Emily, is watching
the Academy Awards on television as Cameron is declared the winner! In his
acceptance speech, Cameron announces that he was able to fulfill his role as a gay
military man, in part, because of lessons he learned from a gay teacher he had in
high school. You guessed it, its Howard! But, Howard has never "come out"; in fact,
he believes he is straight! With the whole town, and members of the media, waiting
and observing the happenings, will Howard and Emily go ahead and get married? Or,
is Howard truly gay and realize he can not go through with the ceremony? This is a
wonderful, funny, and humane film about a gay man and his situation. As the man-
who-did-not-realize-he-was-gay, Kline is excellent and touching. The rest of the
cast is equally fine, with Cusack a stitch as the mixed-up fiancé and Dillon, Bob
Newhart, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck, and others on hand to delight the audience
as well. The costumes are very nice and the setting in the lovely Indiana heartland
is beautiful. Then, too, the script, the direction, and the production are very,
very nice. But, the insightful, humorous, and the thoughtful look at the gay
population is the film's best asset, no doubt. For those who would be offended by a
gay-themed film, yes, just skip over this one. But, for everyone who wants to laugh
heartily, and gain a better understanding of the gay situation at the same time,
this is definitely the best film out there.
While amiable and amusing for gay audiences, Frank Oz's film "In and Out," about a
closeted gay teacher who has been outed on national television by a former student,
has been sanitized and deodorized to appeal to the larger and more profitable
straight viewers that patronized "The Bird Cage." Although audiences likely patted
themselves on the back for being tolerant and liberal enough to see the film, the
movie revolves around Kevin Kline's Howard Brackett, who is a grossly stereotyped
gay man. The movie asserts that a tendency to dance to disco music, revel in Barbra
Streisand movies, and dress well indicates one's sexual orientation. Like "Queer
Eye," the film actually takes a backhanded slap at straight men and stereotypes
them as slovenly, dim witted, and lacking in taste and culture. OK, so "In and Out"
is only a comedy, but even comedies send messages that can hurt. Unfortunately, at the center of the film's humor lies a somewhat pathetic
character. Howard is middle aged, deeply closeted or in self-denial, and evidently
has never had a sex life. A three-year engagement to a female teacher in the school
where he works is described as a series of sunsets, long talks, and watching "Funny
Lady." Fortunately, Joan Cusack plays Howard's intended, Emily Montgomery, and she
steals the show throughout. Most of the film's funniest moments belong to her,
although Kline's attempts to resist dancing during an instruction tape on macho
behavior are hilarious. He is a gifted physical performer, but the film gives him
only few moments to shine. Matt Dillon also stands out as the student turned actor,
and the clip from his Oscar-nominated film about a gay soldier is hysterical.
However, despite the movie's gay theme, there is no boy-meets-boy romance, and only
one male-to-male kiss, and that smooch is about as erotic as the one between
Michael and Fredo Corleone in "Godfather II." Although well
intentioned, "In and Out" fails to address the injustices and prejudices that it
illustrates. Howard is fired from his teaching job despite his outstanding
performance and credentials, yet little outrage is expressed. Most of the
characters are more upset about the cancelled wedding than about Howard's self-
realization, which seems to take place overnight, and his abrupt and unjust
dismissal. Not surprisingly, Howard's parents, endearingly portrayed by Debbie
Reynolds and Wilford Brimley, and his students rise to support him. However, the
sugary finale is as embarrassing to the audience as it evidently was to Howard
Brackett in the film. The movie would have been more refreshing if it had revolved
around a gay man who dressed like a slob, was a rabid fan of football, drove a
station wagon, listened to country music, and lived on fast food. Despite some good
performances and funny situations, "In and Out" perpetuates stereotypes and,
whether they be positive or negative, stereotypes should be consigned to the
dustbin of social history.
A beautifully constructed and brilliantly acted comedy. There is not a person in
the cast who does not acquit himself (or herself) with hilarious distinction.
However, the real star of the film is the unseen director, Frank Oz, who brings all
the madcap sensibility and wit to this farce that he brought to Miss Piggy's
encounters with Kermit the frog. This is a not -to-be-missed film.
The funniest performance was by Shalom Harlow, as Matt Dillon's supermodel
girlfriend. She was more interesting to me than all the lead actors. This movie got
it all wrong; even the most dependable actress of the century, Joan Cusask, was not
able to rise about the ridiculousness of the plot. I did enjoy hearing "Macho Man"
by the Village People over the closing credits. The rest of the movie might have
been tolerable if it were to rise to that level of energy.
Hollywood movies since the 1930s have treated gays as lepers. In condemning
homosexuality, the film industry has reflected only what the repressive society of
its day espoused as an ideology. For example, in the 1962 Otto Preminger melodrama
"Advise and Consent," straight actor Don Murray was cast as a queer congressman who
commits suicide rather than confess his alternative lifestyle. Gay movie characters
have covered a lot of ground since "Advise and Consent." In the 1997 movie "In &
Out," (**1/2 out of ****), heterosexual actor Kevin Kline is cast as a homosexual
teacher who comes out of the closet on his wedding day. While the conservative
Hollywood of yesteryear stipulated that the congressional queer in "Advise and
Consent" had to commit suicide, the liberal Hollywood of today dictates that the
gay English teacher should be embraced rather than maced. Basically, "In
& Out" preaches good citizenship in the garb of a politically correct comedy.
Director Frank Oz and scenarist Scott Rudnick endorse honesty as the best policy
because honesty always ensures happiness. High school teacher Howard Brackett
(Kevin Kline of "The Big Chill") will be happy only after he comes out of the
closet, just as his once-fat-but-now-thin fiancée Emily (Joan Cusack) will only
feel happy when she can ditch her diet. Ultimately, the movie contends that
straight society will accept gays when homosexuals can act with greater honesty and
candor about themselves. The happily outed gay tabloid reporter played by straight
actor Tom Selleck here effectively dramatizes this open-minded commentary. Rudnick's lightweight script embellishes the true life incident that occurred at
the Oscars when Tom Hanks paid tribute to a high school teacher. In "In & Out,"
Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon), a blond, Brad Pitt style bimbo type actor, wins the
Oscar for impersonating a fruity foot soldier. Drake honors his mentor Howard
Brackett during his acceptance speech. Not contend to stop there, the candid
Cameron reveals to a live, television audience that Howard is gay! Suspicion,
paranoia, and horror set in as the media descend upon the sleepy town of Green
Leaf, Indiana. (When would a no-name high school English teacher's sexual deviance
spark such massive media concern?) Among those reporters lurks Peter Malloy (Tom
Selleck of "High Road to China"), and he wants to do a week-long exclusive one on
Howard. Howard, however, wants nothing to do with the witch-hunting media,
especially the pesky Peter Malloy. Howard denies Drake's gay charges to everybody,
including his fiancée and his mom. Malloy lingers because he smells a scoop. The
revelation has turned Green Leaf upside down. High school principal Tom Halliwell
(Bob Newhart) squirms nervously with all the media coverage. Halliwell warns Howard
that were his marriage not imminent, he'd have to give him a pink slip. Meanwhile,
Peter bets Howard that his marriage to Emily will fall through at the last moment
and he'll be there to record the result on camera. Howard resorts to
audio tapes about macho men. He struggles to reform himself. But Howard's efforts
are futile. Guilt swells up inside him. And then there is Peter Malloy, who rags
him to come clean about his homosexuality. Finally, at the altar in the sight of
God, Howard bursts. Of course, bride-to-be Emily Montgomery is floored by Howard's
gay confession. Predictably, the school fires Howard, but he shows up for
graduation. Drake shows up, too, and rushes to Brackett's defense. Not only has the
school stripped Howard of his job, but they've also given his teacher-of-the-year
award to somebody else. Drake appeals to the principal and wins Howard the
unanimous support of the community. The biggest defect in Rudnick's
contrived script is Howard himself. Rudnick has created a character too chaste to
be true, either by gray or straight standards. Howard Brackett looms as more of a
saint than a sinner. He helps one student gain admission to college, and he coaches
the track team. How often do you hear of an English teacher doubling as a coach,
too? Everybody at his high school adores Howard. He doesn't have a mean bone in his
body. Further, Rudnick and Oz ask us to believe that nobody else in Green Leaf is
gay. Where are Howard's gay friends? Are they too scared to come to his defense?
No, "In & Out" is not targeted strictly at homosexual audiences. Oz, whose screen
credits include cute comedies like "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" and "House Sitter," as
well as Rudnick teeter on a politically correct tightrope. "In & Out" is not a gay
recruiting movie. The filmmakers show no interest in what prompted either Howard or
Peter Malloy to prefer the gay lifestyle. Instead, Oz and Rudnick are only
interested in shoring up a thin premise: Is he or isn't he gay? They flesh it out
to involve the community response to the answer. Finally, when Howard admits that
he is gay, the filmmakers devote the rest of the movies to showing how a
conservative, Norman Rockwell-like town can accept him despite his
difference. The most shocking scenes in "In & Out" is probably when
tabloid reporter Malloy does a lip lock on Howard. Straight guys kissing each other
in a movie about a gay identity crisis are as hilarious as they are phony. Kline
and Selleck grind their faces together in what appears as more of a head-on
collision than a closed-mouth kiss. Nothing at all like the controversial 1994
British movie "Priest," "In & Out" emerges as an engaging but labored piece of
social propaganda with its okay-to-be-act message. If "Ellen" weren't the TV
equivalent, "In & Out" would probably be heading toward TV as a new sitcom.
Watching "In & Out" is not so much about dealing with the issue of gay or straight,
but how to be a decent person in the last days of the 20th century. What makes "In
& Out" a tolerable comedy about sexual intolerance is its equal opportunity cheers
and jeers about queers and steers.
I have seen this movie many times and i never get sick of it. it is about a man
coming out of the closet, that he doesn't know he is in. Kevin Kline's character is
a teacher and when one of his former students announces Kline's character is gay
the people in his town start to speculate whether he is straight or gay. Kline's
character starts to wonder if he is straight or gay too. The acting is absolutely
fabulous and hilarious by all the cast. I found the movie very funny and heart-
warming. i love this movie, it makes you laugh and makes you feel good while
watching it. i recommend this movie to everyone, you will have a great time
watching it.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I loved the set-up and consistently laughed
throughout the entire movie. The acting was great, with my favorite part being
Howard's (Kevin Kline) attempts to be a "manly man". The fiance and parents did a
great job as a supporting cast. Spoiler Warning: The acting of his conservative
family's acceptance and attempts to be polite were heartwarming and believable. My
only problem with the end was the fact that Howard was actually gay. The movie is
set-up as a "be who you want to be", but the movie actually does the opposite.
Howard's logic behind his "discovery" is the fact that he loves Barbra Streisand's
movies and enjoys dancing to music. His mannerisms and tastes appear to be gay, and
it isn't until it is pointed out to him that he realizes it. Rather than setting
Howard free, it pigeon holes him. Oh, he likes to dance to music, than he must be
gay. His confession at the marriage felt like a bending down to society's wishes.
In the end, the movie becomes a gay rights movie, which was not the original
course. It almost becomes bland with the rest. I believe the movie would had been
ultimately better had Howard been straight. It would have been truer to the
message.
I watched this again after having not seen it since it first came out (in '97), and
it still made me laugh out loud. It's skillfully written, Kevin Kline and Joan
Cusack are both perfect in their roles, and if you can look at Bob Newhart in this
movie and not chuckle, you're more of a man than I. For that matter, I
think the scenes where Tom Selleck kisses Kevin Kline, where Kevin Kline listens to
the "How to be a Man" cassette, and the post-(almost-)wedding scenes w/ Joan Cusack
are three of the funniest scenes in any movie. Sure, the last scene is a
bit of an excuse for a happy ending, but...few movies are perfect.
I saw this because my cousin is an extra in one of the wedding scenes. I read
somewhere that Oz and Rudnick wanted to poke fun at liberal message movies, but the
climax ends up being right out of one of those movies. Also, some of the humor is a
bit on the cloying side, Joan Cusack was too over-the-top for me, and someone has a
strange timeline re the Oscars. Still, there were more than enough funny moments,
like the kiss scene, the wedding that isn't, and the scene with the principal, to
enjoy this. Kline as always is good, but for me, the real surprise was Selleck,
whom I'm not a big fan of, but pokes fun at himself nicely here.
In & Out was a funny comedy with good performances by Joan Cusack, Tom Selleck,
Matt Dillon, and Kevin Kline. The thought of Kevin Kline being gay was very funny.
If I was him, I would hate to say I'm gay at his own wedding with his family,
friends, and his going to be wife there. Very seldom would that ever happen. I also
loved when he was dancing around when the voice on the radio was talking to him.
I'd say that In & Out was a silly comedy with a lot of laughs and giggles. This is
a recommended comedy and Kevin Kline had a great performance as a gay guy. Trust me
you'll like this movie. 7/10
Nana Patekar once again proves that he is the best actor working in Bombay without
a doubt. His recent movies involved shouting his lines that does not bode well for
the theater trained thespian. One wonders why he is always not given his accolades
during awards season. "Shakti-The Power" was one of his flicks that was
an utter disapointment along with Kohram (a missed oppurtunity to create screen
magic with Amitabh Bachchan). But Patekar exudes a cool calm in this
film playing a cop on a sort of social justice journey. Ridding the streets of
Bombay of underworld dons in fake encounters, Patekars character takes control of
the screen (and the viewers attention) and never lets go. The editing is tightly
paced and there are no annoying songs to distract from the story. Along
the same lines as the modern day cult classic "Company", the movie is well acted,
directed and should have a long shelf life on DVD. The final ten minutes
that see Nana and the main villain talk at his offshore haven are bound to be part
of Hindi cinema classics. Won't be dissapointed with this cops and robbers flick.
In & Out is a comedy with a simple premise. It admirably succeeds in the mission of
being funny and entertaining. The comedy in this film ranges from the
ridiculous to the sublime, physical comedy exists alongside dry humor, with a nice
veteran turn by Bob Newhart. Kevin Kline is predictably in excellent form in this
film, alongside Tom Selleck not playing to his expected "square jawed" leading man
type. Mr. Selleck plays his humor well and displays a nice sense of comedic timing.
The cast makes this film successful. Not all films with homosexual
themes are made to advance some sort of sinister, hidden Hollywood liberal agenda,
in point of fact this film was simply made to entertain, and if any part of this
films makes the viewer think, then it was a byproduct of the well-acted work by a
terrific cast of professionals. Frequently tongue-in-cheek, I found myself laughing
at the right moments. A solid "B."
Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is a teacher who is about to get married. Then, one
of his former students wins an Oscar for a film in which he plays a gay soldier and
thanks Howard in his acceptance speech, outing him as being gay too! This film
follows the aftermath as reporters descend on Howard's village and he tries to
convince everyone that he is straight. I love this movie! Kevin Kline is
wonderful, it has some really hilarious moments and it always leaves me feeling
great with an enormous grin on my face. Consequently, it's one film that I enjoy
watching as often as possible. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out!
Some movies want to make us think, some want to excite us, some want to exhilarate
us. But sometimes, a movie wants only to make us laugh, and "In & Out" certainly
succeeds in this department. Indiana high-school teacher Howard Brackett
(Kevin Kline) is going to be married to fellow teacher Emily Montgomery (Joan
Cusack) in three days, but the whole town is more excited about the Oscar
nomination of former resident Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon). But when Cameron wins an
Oscar for playing a gay soldier, he thanks his gay teacher, Howard, for
inspiration. What follows is Howard denying it in an hilarious set of mishaps in a
truly screwball fashion. Kevin Kline is great, exuding gay stereotypes.
Joan Cusack really has a knack for screwball antics. Debbie Reynolds is utterly
hilarious as Howard's mother. And Bob Newhart is also a hoot as the homophobic
principal. Gay screenwriter Paul Rudnick really achieves a delicate
balance here. He knows the stereotypes and exploits them in a way that's mostly
tolerable to conservative Midwesterners and yet mostly inoffensive to the gay
audience. It's not exactly progressive, but it's funny and inoffensive, and
definitely a step up from the previous year's "The Birdcage."
i guess if they are not brother this film will became very common. how long were
they can keep this ? if we were part,what should they do?so natural feelings,so
plain and barren words.But I almost cried last night blood relationship brotherhood
love knot film.in another word,the elder brother is very cute.if they are not
brothers,they won't have so many forbidden factors，from the
family、society、friends、even hearts of their own at the very beginning.The elder
brother is doubtful of whether he is coming out or not at the beginning .maybe the
little brother being so long time with his brother and even can't got any praise
from his father，this made him very upset and even sad,maybe this is a key blasting
fuse let him feel there were no one in the world loving him except his beloved
brother. and i want to say ,this is a so human-natural feeling ,there is nothing to
be shamed,you may fell in love your mother、brother、sister.Just a frail heart
looking for backbone to rely on
First and foremost I would like to say, that before i watched this film i
considered myself an accepting individual. Someone that cared about others,
appreciated others, found no/barely any judgment against other people, and this
film has (i think) changed my life or viewpoint dramatically. When i watched it, I
didn't know particularly what it was about, i knew it was about some type of
forbidden relationship, but other then that I was clueless, and as I began to see
what was taking place between these two wonderfully depicted characters, i was in
shock, disbelief, confusion and surprise. The first time i watched it, i was blind.
Blind to their love, to their intimacy, to their connection, to their pureness as
human beings, to their relationship. I watched it a second time, because i finally
figured out how hypocritical I was being, saying to myself and others, "Oh i accept
all types of people, and try not to judge them" while still judging this wonderful
and amazingly insightful story, because of my fear I suppose. The second time I
watched this film, I opened those eyes of mine that had stayed closed the first
time, and really looked, not at the type of taboo relationship part that I'd heard
about all my life, but simply at two human beings in love. And I loved it, i loved
the storyline, i loved the slightly broken yet strong individual people in the
film, i loved the sharing of feelings, and i loved the strong bonds created. It is
a really eye opening, beautifully done film that made me cry at times, and I hope
that people who read this and are going to watch the film eventually, remember that
everyone deserves love, no matter what shape or form it is presented in....
I've just seen this movie, and it made me cry. It's a beautiful drama about two
brothers falling in love, and i think it's a good idea, especially for the closed-
minded, to watch this one. I have come to love the short-film genre after just
having seen a couple, because they have to make an impression on you so fast, and i
have to say that this one definitely sat it's mark. It described some things, that
i haven't ever really thought about that way, incest for one. I have to
admit that i did not care too much for the ending. Just once i would like to watch
a gay-themed movie without wanting to kill myself after wards. They seem to pretty
much always end in tragedy. It was 'cute' though, how that they had to be together,
even if it was in death. I gave it eight stars, and i recommend it too
everyone, cause i think it gives an 'inside-look' in the world, that this movie
make you enter. Thanks for listening, enjoy.
I've watched many short films in my day. Often I find them either too compressed
(throwing too much information at the viewer in the short amount of time they have
to run), too "artsy", or lacking a clear-cut vision. I can say none of these things
about Starcrossed. In this review, I'll do my best to avoid any dramatic spoilers,
but I'll also assume that the reader understands that the theme of this film is
brotherly incest. As with any short film, the story is fairly simple,
straightforward and easy to digest. It's clear that the film attempts to shine a
light one one of modern society's most deeply held taboos. This film succeeds in
every respect. In the fifteen minutes of running time, I found myself feeling a
gamut of emotions. With only a little dialog, the viewer is rapidly pulled into the
most personal moments and thoughts of these star-crossed brothers. From
the opening scene set in their early childhood, one can see the very close
relationship the brothers have. When the film progresses to the present day in the
next scene, the excellent acting and honest, heartfelt performances remind the
viewer that love can come in the most unexpected and harsh way. As the relationship
progresses, any disgust the viewer may initially feel is quickly replaced by
sympathy and emotional distress as the viewer suddenly realizes that there can be
only one possible resolution. And the aftermath of that resolution is heart-
rending. Anyone with an open mind would do well to watch this film and
absorb its message. If nothing else, it boldly and honestly challenges the viewer
to reexamine some of our deepest beliefs on the shame-filled and secretive taboo of
incest. Though the film is only fifteen minutes long, it resonates in the viewer
long after the credits roll. This is perhaps my favorite short film I've ever seen.
I can't recommend it highly enough.
I just watched this short at the PlanetOut Movies. Starcrossed was a
very sweet, sad, little movie about two brothers that are in love. There is some
great, subtle acting from both the male leads. Often times movies with this subject
matter seem to get too caught up in the controversy and shock value of the plot
that they forget that there is an actual story. Luckily writer director James
Burkhammer does not do this, and instead lets the story play out with honesty. The
sequences of the two boys first falling in love are very sweet.
I had the pleasure of seeing this short film at the Miami film festival this past
Saturday and let me just say I was astounded. It was the only film out of the whole
program that I loved. It is beautifully shot, composed, edited, acted and written.
After the screening I saw the director at a party and asked him what he was doing
next. He said that he was working on finding financing for the feature version of
the short. He described some scenes to me. It sounded like the kind of first film
that launches the greats into the industry. If you ever get a chance to see this
short I highly recommend taking it. Hats off to star crossed.
I just saw "Eagle´s wing". I do not really know why this movie was made. What is
the message of this story? Nevertheless I liked it. There are some exciting scenes
in it. I appreciate a strong performance by Martin Sheen. Harvey Keitel is less
convincing.
I still remember watching Satya for the first time. I was completely blown away.
Here was a movie that was very different so from the other Gangster films that I
had seen. So realistic, so Mumbaiyya and so believable. Despite "Company" (which
was a very good effort) and "Vaastav" (more focused on the journey of the
protagonist) which came close, no underworld movie could ever live up to
Satya. When I watched Ab Tak 56 for the first time, I said to myself
"Indian Cops have their own 'Satya' now". The quote by Nietzsche in the beginning
itself tells you that this is no ordinary film. What strikes you about the
"encounter" at the start of the film is the relaxed manner in which it is carried
out. There is a cold and scary feel to it cos you realize that it is part of their
routine. Ab Tak 56 is not the story of an honest cop or a corrupt cop
but of a cop who is ready to do what it takes to get rid of the criminals when all
lawful means are exhausted. With simple shots and camera angles, director Shimit
Amin manages to capture the essence of the characters and gives a realistic and
rough feel to the movie. Editing seems non-existent and hence effective. The music
is also impressive and haunting and stays with you long after you've left the movie
hall. But for me, what really takes the cake are the dialogues and the
superlative acting from each and every character. Sandeep Srivastava has done a
brilliant job as the dialogue writer. If I start listing my favourite dialogues,
I'm afraid I'll end up re-writing the entire script of the movie. The
movie boasts of some stellar performances. Yashpal Sharma is detestable as Sub-
Inspector Imtiaz Siddiqui and so is Jeeva as Joint Commissioner Suchak. Revathi,
Hrishita Bhatt, Mohan Agashe and Kunal Vijaykar have small roles which they play to
perfection. Nakul Vaid as the rookie Jatin Shukla was a revelation. The scene where
he has to hesitantly shoot the wounded gangster Oh My God! He learns under the
tutelage of Sadhu Aghashe and firmly believes in him. Prasad Purandhare
as Zameer Zafar is impressive. His conversations with Sadhu are real jewels of
dialogue writing. Never before in Indian cinema has any film brought out such a
beautiful relation between a cop and a gangster. Not that I have not
been a fan of Nana Patekar before this film but this film pushed me from a fan to a
devotee. Nana as Inspector Sadhu Agashe gives the performance of a lifetime and one
of the best I've ever seen in Hindi cinema. From the way he talks to his
expressions, from the way he taps his cigarette to the way sips his tea it's
almost as if Nana can do no wrong. He is at his best in each and every scene
especially when he's teaching Jatin about how the police force functions. His cool
and composed manner of doing things is scary at times. His dialogue delivery and
body language had me convinced that he is one of the finest actors in the country.
It's a shame that he did not win any popular awards for this one. Last
but in no way the least, Shimit Amin does a brilliant job of bringing all this
talent together and exploiting them to the fullest to come up with a modern
masterpiece of Indian cinema. In an industry that is sickeningly accustomed to
lifting stories from here and there, Amin takes an original script and brings it to
life with a beautiful treatment. I just hope that he continues the great work and
doesn't give in to Bollywood-isation! If he can do that, I'm sure he'll be a force
to reckon with in the coming years.
The mere presence of Sam Waterston as an Indian, is enough to put this movie in the
must-see category. He is both beautiful and very subtle, with no lines whatsoever.
He is tender with his kidnappee, and yet we can see he is among the proudest of all
young Indian Men. Martin Sheen is just a dumb cluck who decides to challenge
Waterston (White Bull) for a gorgeous white horse. Other sub-plots are really
unnecessary. I don't understand the part played by Caroline Langrishe, as the poor
girl who White Bull kidnaps...I don't know how she keeps her hands off this
beautiful Indian man! It's a lot of fun, though; especially if you're a Waterston
fan. Man, he looks GOOD in this one!!! Harvey Keitel's role isn't even worth
mentioning, to tell the truth! But, rent it and enjoy! Actually, I do believe that
if the music score was better, it would've been a more dramatic film...the music is
so bad, it's distracting. Still - there's Mr. Waterston!
I have just read what I believe to be an analysis of this film by a lyrical
Irishman. Lovely to read. However, a concise analysis of this film is
that it is a interweaving of the seven deadly sins with the four types of
justice. Envy, greed, pride, sloth, anger, etc. and justice in the forms
of retributive, distributive, blind, and divine. I could demonstrate
three examples of each, one for each of the three protagonists; however, it is much
more fun to note them for oneself. This is an excellent film. Don't miss it.
"Eagle's Wing" is a pleasant surprise of a movie, & keeps the viewer interested. I
didn't know anything about it being made by the British until I read the other
viewer comments. I can understand why it won an award for cinematography, for it
was brilliantly presented & must have looked magnificent on a vast theatre
screen. It seemed to be a lot more realistic than most westerns, in
portraying how the West was more truly won. As well as the complexities of the
characters it presents. The Indian-Sam Waterson character is particularly
intriguing. He seems to be brutal in the savage environment he is conditioned to,
but displays remarkable respect for the frailties he witnesses in the white men &
women he encounters. He is not friendly or sensitive to these intruders in his
lands, but he has a limit to his sense of vengeance, even a compassion when he is
in a position of power & observing the wilting white man bent on revenge, as well
as the girl he kidnaps after capturing a stagecoach. As such, his character seems
complex but congruous to the harsh lands he lived in & which were threatened by
these intruders he is not heartless in his dealings with. The
magnificent horse he rides is a critical link & it is interesting to note how this
Indian handles it, compared with the Martin Sheen-character who has it in his
possession & power for a time. "Eagle's Wing" is an unusual Western, a genre I am
not drawn to, but I really appreciated this excellent offering, which I would rate
second only to "A Man Called Horse".
8 points for take on probably what really kinda maybe more what it was like back
then. American Indians probably stole more than killed. Who really knows? Nice
slower odd pursuit means it has a pace and... interesting and unique. Thankfully
not another mindless shoot em up. I thought this would suck at first, I wound up
getting wrapped up... nice treasure... good job! I have hopes nobody dissects this
film. When the entire movie unfolds you have many unique twists, impossible to
determine what will be next. The characters are human and have either honor or
not... passion or not... forgiveness or not. Wound up loving the White Horse, the
Indian, Sheen even the damned desert. All good.
On first viewing this movie seems to be some kind of fairy tale about a beautiful
and significantly white horse once seen never forgotten. However viewed strictly
within the context of the story the implication is that to survive in the immediate
post-Civil War America, one had to have a horse, and not any old horse but a truly
great one. And Eagle's Wing is such a horse. But for a man to be worthy of such a
horse is another matter. Who should own it? The Native American or the AWOL
soldier? The story throughout pits primitivism against civilisation. As has been
said by other commentators it is ironic that it took an English director to
perceive this fact, and then develop this simple theme into a western like no other
you're ever likely to see again. The film is basically about this beast and the
savage harshness of the environment and the people who scrape a living from it. The
photography and the soundtrack are exquisite. Martin Sheen's performance is a
revelation. This film, released in the same year as Sheen's other great performance
as Willard in 'Apocalypse Now', hints at his abilities which somehow were never
given such a free rein again. More's the pity. A comparison of the two stories
throws up the surprising similarities between them - not least that both films
chart a man's journey into his soul in order to find redemption. Whereas Willard is
redeemed I will leave it to the viewer to decide if Pike is eventually. The ending
is fabulous in the true sense of the word, and very moving; be warned. Altogether
this is an extraordinary film.
An unusual, revisionist western, well worth watching. Despite a slow start, the
film builds with scarcely any dialogue and no subtitles an increasingly
involving and intense, almost existential portrait of life in the harsh environment
of the Western desert. The growth of the lead characters is worth waiting for, and
the strong central cast bring a real sense of desperation to the struggle for
ownership of the all-important horse. How interesting that this was made by a
British director. I hope he's smiling now: I get the impression the film was
largely ignored by contemporaries; but time works its usual alchemy, and hidden
gold shines out as it inevitably must. One note jarred for me: the revisionism is
only carried so far. Sam Waterston as an Indian? - granted he plays his part with
real emotion and intensity, but really, couldn't one American Indian actor be found
to do the job? But his scenes with Caroline Langrishe have an intimacy which
contrasts nicely with the immense landscape around them. Forget big,
bankrupt Hollywood versions of the past, men with big chins and swirling music;
this one is all about a primeval struggle between protagonists who, stripped of all
the trappings of 'ordinary' life, come to understand what is worth fighting for.
Impressive.
There must have been some interesting conversations on the set of Eagle's Wing,
with Martin Sheen straight off Apocalypse Now co-starred with the actor he replaced
on Coppola's film, Harvey Keitel. A real unloved child of a movie, dating back to
the last major batch of Westerns in 1979-80, it was much reviled at the time for
being made by a British studio and director (conveniently ignoring the fact that
many of the classic American westerns were directed by European émigrés), which
seems a bit of an over-reaction. The plot is simplicity itself, as
Martin Sheen's inexperienced trapper finds himself fighting with Sam Waterston's
nonosyllabic Kiowa warrior over the possession of a beautiful white horse, the
Eagle's Wing, across a harsh and primitive landscape in a time "before the legends
began." Aside from Caroline Langrishe's captive Irish governess, the supporting
cast have little to do (Stephane Audran never even gets to open her mouth) and it
is a little slow, but Anthony Harvey's film does boast terrific Scope photography
from Billy Williams and a good score from Marc Wilkinson.
This splicing of THE SEARCHERS is one of the weirdest films I've ever seen, filmed
by a Briton in a strange, unfamiliar Mexico. It's often said that the best films
about America are made by foreigners, who can approach the familiar with an
outsider's eye. But this crackpot film is something else. Though set ostensibly in
post-Civil War America, this isn't an America recognisable from myth, cinema, TV
etc. The film has an air of timeless fable about it, while dealing specifically
with Western mythology. Director Harvey uses the title horse as a focus
for interconnecting stories, all dealing with the traditional Western clash of the
primitive and civilisation. The former seems to have the upper hand. The vast scrub
and desert of the film's landscape is unbroken, ripe for allegories of the mind.
The only brief sites of civilisation are a stagecoach of missionaries and
landowners, and their hacienda, from both of which derive behaviour that is
anything but civilised. The basic story intercuts three stories. In one,
an aimless deserter, Pike, having lost his trading partner, steals a miraculous
horse, Eagle's Wing, so-called because of its grace and speed. In the second, an
Indian, White Bull, owner of this horse, waylays a stagecoach, and kidnaps one of
its female occupants. In the third, the Spanish men sent to find her ignore this
quest in favour of a murderous, plundering spree. Although a revisionist
Western, the treatment of the Indian is problematic. Unlike Pike, his character is
never explained, forever inscrutable, denied a voice, except for an excruciating
snatch of song. When he's not a strange Other, he's a symbol, whose role isn't
entirely worked out - at one point a savage brute, at another he epitomises nature
and freedom. But Pike notes at the beginning that the film will attend
to the period of primitivism before civilisation. In many ways the film resembles
2001 - A SPACE ODYSSEY, especially its opening sequence. Part of the film's power
lies in the connections made between the three disparate characters, forcing us to
view the mythic struggles and quests in a different light. Indian culture and
Catholicism is linked by superstition, ritual, greed and murder. Both Pike and
White Bull are musical and alcoholic. White Bull is demonised by both Pike and the
abductee as a 'bastard', unwittingly revealing the tactic of illegitimacy used by
colonising whites who infantilised the natives, becoming themselves 'necessary'
fathers. Unlike a traditional Western, concerned with making history,
civilisation, and progress, this film is a double detective story, interrogating
the past, tracks, remains. What gives this film its remarkable
uniqueness, I think, is, despite Maltin's racism, its Britishness. The climactic
stand-off is more like an Arthurian joust. The film itself bravely eschews dialogue
for the most part, creating the kind of visual and aural tapestry Malick missed in
THE THIN RED LINE, and something few Hollywood directors would have dared. The
existential doubling and quest motifs are more European myth than American
(resembling another British Harvey Keitel movie, THE DUELLISTS). Most
astonishing is the use of nature. Most Westerns use landscape as an awe-inspiring
backdrop: there is little sense of actually living in the West. In many ways,
EAGLE'S WING is like a Powell and Pressberger film, with nature a powerful,
pantheistic character in its own right - alive, dangerous, hostile, beautiful.
There is a sublime scene reminiscent of A CANTERBURY TALE, when jewellery left as a
trap by White Bull in the trees is suddenly blown in the wind: there is a haunting,
tingling, magical, thrilling effect more reminiscent of the Arabian Nights than a
horse opera. Heartstopping.
I enjoyed this movie okay, it just could have been so much better. I was expecting
more action than what I got...which was more of a comedy than anything else.
Granted, it was serious in parts and it had a good fight scene here and there for
the most part it was more romance and comedy with some action and no horror at all.
Which is hard to do with a vampire movie. A vampire hunter loses his partner and
must train another, his sister is going through a difficult break up, but she is
being pursued by a vampire of all things. Granted, this vampire is rather nice and
not into sucking blood. So that is all there is really to it except for a plot of
another vampire after certain royal vampires so he can gain ultimate power. Some of
the problems with this movie is that its plot went here and there and the movie had
a very uneven flow to it, that and it seemed to shift genres a bit much too. One
minute action, the next pure comedy. However, the girls were cute, there is good
action, the comedy was worthy of a chuckle or two and Jackie Chan makes a rather
energetic appearance or two. This movie probably just needed more development in
some areas such as the villain who is basically not really explored at all. So for
a movie with a few good fights and a chuckle or two this is rather good...though
why was it rated R? I have seen stuff we have made that is PG-13 that is a lot
worse than this.
I watch a lot of Vampire movies. I KNOW vampire movies. Hammer Films have always
been my favorites. Christopher Lee will always be the best Dracula. Vampire Effect is a fun movie from the beginning to the end. The dubbing is not
great, but I also like Godzilla movies, so I am used to badly dubbed movies.
Anyway, I liked this movie very much. The SFX are great. Even though Jackie Chans
part in the movie has nothing to do with the plot and seems to be added to sell the
movie, he is enjoyable in it. The Fang work is excellent. The acting is not great,
but this could have something to do with the bad dubbing. Maybe the actual language
would sound better with the movie if I could understand it. I am sure the movie
Gone With The Wind sounds worse in another language. I own this on DVD
and would not part with. I have it sitting on my bookshelf next to my Hammer Films
DVDs.
It is by far the most definitive film on the police force which I have seen.
Although not directed by Ram Gopal Varma, it has all the elements of an RGV film.
Dead straight dialogues, blunt treatment of the subject, brilliant direction, and
superb performances (even by those with little job to do in the movie). The
chemistry between Nana and the Don, even if they are professional rivals, is
amazing. And so are the small events like an insider not giving information to
Imtiaz even while he is being bashed up in the locker, but only to Nana when he is
out. The change in working conditions with the change of the senior is dealt
wonderfully. The first half keeps one absolutely engrossed, moving like a
documentary with Nana acting like a mentor to Jatin explaining to him the
intricacies and philosophy of the work. Overall one of the most
brilliant films on cops in Indian cinema. Definitely not to be missed.
The twins effect is a vampire martial arts movie available in Cantonese with
English subtitles. It is a Jackie Chan production and he does make a special guest
appearance, although it is not for those that liked Shanghai Noon/Knights and the
other recent Hollywood flicks he has become known for, this film is a lot more
special than that. It was originally called The Vampire Effect but as a
very popular Chinese female pop duo called The Twins (Charlene Choi and Gillian
Chung) took the two leading roles the title was changed to cash in on their
fame. The film will appeal to three types of audience: those who love
martial arts films, those who love vampire films and those who loath the rubbish
films Hollywood generally churns out. The premise for the film is that
vampires are about and a secret society seeks to hunt them down before we all
become snacks for the undead. This bloody work is carried out by some martial
artists who drink a little vampire blood to give them the edge they need, well it
must be thirsty work! Things are going pretty much for the course until a
particularly nasty European vamp finds out that he if he obtains a set of keys held
by all the vampire princes then he can walk around in sunlight etc and generally
eat when ever he wants to. To say anymore on the plot would spoil the enjoyment of
watching the film. The twins consist of one assigned vampire slayer
(Chung) and the sister (Choi) of another. It is the twins that really make the
film; with some of the freshest and funniest acting going. The fight scenes they
carry out are fast and furious and well choreographed with a mix of genuine
athleticism and wire work. To add the cherry on the cake the twins are both quite
lovely to watch too. The direction is crisp and the script is sharp.
There are only 3 things that let this film down: the make-up for the vampires is
quite poor, Jackie Chan seems to be in the film just for the hell of it and adds
nothing to its content, and some of the slapstick comedy attempted by the male
vampire hunter is quite lame. Thankfully the twins save the day bringing an
originality to the film normally only found in European films. The best scene for
me was one of them (Choi) communicating only by screaming, her ability to convey
her thoughts through this medium was a comic delight. Their are many
other touches of originality in this film - I particularly liked the coffin
complete with surround sound stereo and TV screen! And it is the films' many
original touches and acting that stops this from being a tired old flop and turns
it into a must see movie.
The Twins Effect - Chinese Action/Comedy - (Charlene Choi, Gillian Chung) This vampire action comedy is one of my favorites for the very fact that I
was thoroughly entertained throughout the entire movie. First of all, the
characters are memorable, contributing a myriad of classic scenes. Charlene and
Gillian are naturally cute, charismatic, and humorous. This movie was my first
exposure to them, and all I wanted to do was reach through my television screen and
give them a REALLY BIG HUG. The remaining cast did well in their supporting roles,
including Jackie Chan, Karen Mok, "The Duke", Josie Ho, Edison Chen, Anthony Wong,
and the vampire bad guys (one of which looks eerily familiar to Will Ferrell). Even
the abominably horrible Ekin Cheng was good in this one. Good characters are
important, of course, because they avoid the feeling of boredom by keeping things
interesting between action sequences. And speaking of action, this film
has plenty of it. More importantly, there is an emphasis of quality in the fight
choreography. One aspect that helped in this regard is the featured weapon of the
protagonists a sword with a retractable spear-ended rope. This weapon, in and of
itself, opened up a variety of moves that would have been otherwise impossible.
Josie Ho and Gillian Chung, in particular, perform some wicked aerial maneuvers
using these devices. In addition, the swordplay is superb, and is
highlighted by two great sword fights one taking place during the opening train
station sequence and the other occurring in the church finale. In fact, the blade-
wielding maneuvers showcased in this film put some other highly overrated fan
favorites to great shame, and I truly feel sorry for those who would cite the
horribly choreographed garbage seen in Ashes of Time, Storm Riders, or A Man Called
Hero with the well-planned, precisely executed sequences seen in The Twins Effect.
It's not even close. I can't understand why this film gets so much
criticism. I'm sure die-hard apologists for the Hong Kong "Golden Age" will hate
this because it doesn't fit into their narrow-minded view of what Hong Kong action
should be. We should learn from the downfall of John Woo - a one trick pony who
never learned how to re-invent himself. We don't need another clone. We need
something different. The Twins Effect is one good example. This film was
so good that it actually set me up for being disappointed at other Chinese movies
with the same actors and actresses. This especially applies to Ekin Cheng, whose
other films almost always suck and yes, this includes the obscenely overrated and
exploitative wuxia crap mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even The Twins have
never been able to match the value of this movie when both were lead actresses in a
film, although they have managed to hit some good films when either one or the
other takes the leading role (e.g., Beyond Our Ken, Good Times Bed Times, House of
Fury) or when one or both are in supporting roles (e.g., Colour of the Truth, New
Police Story, Just One Look). The Twins Effect 2 should have been a direct sequel,
instead of a family fantasy. I am still yearning to see Charlene and Gillian team
up and kick some butt in another movie, but the fact remains that The Twins Effect
hits on all cylinders, optimizing their charisma while avoiding a descent into
annoyance (as in Protégé de la Rose Noire). All in all, this film has
everything one needs to be entertained. And may I remind the reader that it is
precisely this ENTERTAINMENT that judges the greatness of a movie, more so than
artsy dramatic elements or meaningless awards from established academies of critics
who usually have no idea what they are talking about. In the end, the
Twins Effect is a CLASSIC not to be missed. Rating = 5/5 stars P.S. The Hollywood execs decided to slaughter this film when it was released in
the U.S. by renaming it The Vampire Effect and cutting out 20 minutes of footage,
which includes parts of the action scenes. However, the final fight of the U.S.
version does have a better soundtrack than the original version. Therefore, I
purchased both versions, which allows me to first watch the original until about
the 1:20 mark, and then swap discs to watch the final fight on the U.S. version.
Fun mix of vampires and martial arts is a bit of a mess plot-wise and the acting of
those who dubbed the voices is almost universally bad, but the premise is engaging,
the fight scenes are fast and flashy and the movie is often quite amusing. It's a
shame the story is such a wreck. There are a couple of places where I had no idea
what just happened, it was almost as though five minutes had just been cut out and
you were suddenly at the next scene without knowing how you'd got there. The movie
is poor at explaining things and some things don't make a lot of sense, but the
movie moves along breezily so its flaws barely register. Not a great movie by any
means, but definitely a fun one.
I think that there was too much action in the end? Don't you think that too? There
was romance, adventure that just like told me to put 9 to this movie but action
place was too long. I liked Reeve a bit. I didn't understand why did he have to
die. I thought that one of the girls gonna die too but my lucky! No one else who I
liked didn't die! How about you? What did you liked? I saw the movie twice
actually. And after that I bought that too. It was worth it! Who did you liked best
(person)?. The book was really, really, really cool. And the actresses and actors
too. Everything was perfect....... What was the song name in the end? Will someone
answer my questions too... PLEASE, please please?
Well don't expect anything deep an meaningful. Most of the fight scenes are pretty
decent. The two leading ladies are quite endearing but their lack of HK action
background shows at times. The ending maybe lacks something but I quite enjoyed it
none the less. The cheesy humour isn't probably going to appeal to anyone who
hasn't watched a bunch of HK films but if your down with that sort of thing and
have a couple of hours to fill with something meaningless you could do a lot worse
than this. (OK so you could do better but.......) Certainly on a par
with most of the Hollywood blockbuster action drivel. 7/10
With a film starring the Twins, Ekin Cheng and Edison Chen, nobody should expect a
masterpiece of cinema. What you do get, however, is a fun film which is easy on the
eye and the brain. There are loads of Hollywood-style vampires (no hopping Chinese
bloodsuckers here), cute girls, handsome heroes and the occasionally very funny
moment. And Jackie Chan. Sure, the kung-fu relies heavily on wire work
and CGI. Sure, the script reminds you of Blade. And sure, the whole affair is
instantly forgettable. But for a truly enjoyable piece of cinematic
fluff, you would be hard pushed to find better.
This movie, as my Chinese girlfriend informed me, features two well-known Hong Kong
pop stars. While this may make the movie a mere marketing stunt, I found the acting
acceptable, and they're both cute. The story is pretty poor overall. The
vampiric traits and weaknesses are, however, used in humorous ways, and created
some uniquely entertaining bits. The quarreling between the two girls made me
chuckle, and this gave a fine balance together with the well-executed action scenes
to create an entertaining movie.
If you go into the Twins Effect looking for a pure Hong Kong movie experience you
will be disappointed. This is not to say it is bad, but it is NOT a traditional
Hong Kong action movie, running in a similar vein to Shaolin Soccer and Kung Fu
Hustle. It's resolutely silly and juvenile, so if you want a good bit of serious
Hong Kong action, look to a John Woo or Yuen Woo Ping movie. This movie's got a lot
of flak for it's silliness and I thought the first thing I should do would be to
explain what you're getting into, as it's disappointed a lot of purists. For the non-purists and those with more forgiving tastes though, Twins
Effect is a delightfully silly kung-fu comedy. I liked it a lot for a variety of
reasons, not least it's wonderful female leads who spark off each other in a
thoroughly entertaining comedy double act. I believe this is the first movie of
it's type they've been in, but they hop, kick and fly about like seasoned
pros. The patently ridiculous plot is handled with a great deal of care
and attention, and the movie is quite knowingly written, making a lot of the movie
laugh out loud. The comedy really is the most prominent thing here, and it's a
subtle, gentle comedy as reliant on words as inanimate objects going flying a la
Stephen Chow. It has to be said the slapstick is immense fun too. The sequence with
the disco-dancing vampires is a total classic. The action is a blend of
two genres really. It falls between the 'period drama' wire-and-sword fighting
(which comes in more toward the end) and the comedy fighting style of Jackie Chan,
coming out with a blend that though a little derivative at times is always exciting
to watch and occasionally throws up some genuinely innovative encounters. All this is great, and the movie is tremendous fun all the way through.
Despite this, it does have a few sticking points. For instance, Twins Effect is in
many ways much more westernised than kung-fu fans are perhaps used to, the
inevitable comparison to the Blade series is definitely sound as an example, though
Twins Effect is honestly much better than Blade ever managed, especially for
fighting action. Personally, it was also a bit of a shame to see the excellent
Anthony Wong (the hissable villain from John Woo's classic Hard Boiled) so
underused, but the younger audience this is aimed at are unlikely to notice this or
indeed know about Hard Boiled or his other movies, so this is only really a
personal gripe. If you watch this with an open mind, you'll probably
enjoy it greatly like I did, but you must be firmly aware it is a COMEDY, not a
balls to the wall kung-fu movie. Keep that in mind and you'll be fine.
Like a very expensive Buffy episode peppered with plenty of humor. Lots of wire and
stunt kung fu. The Twins Effect goes on the list of classic must see HK films. The
vampires have a cool blend of hopping ghost type and the pretty boy European style.
If you get the opportunity to see this one in the theatre it is worth a 30 minute
drive, otherwise buy the import DVD before someone screws it up by giving it a bad
dub.
I'm not sure what version of the film I saw, but it was very entertaining. I did not know who the "Twins" were (Gillian Chung and Charlene Choi) before
seeing this movie and I think the English translation of the title is somewhat
misleading. The martial arts are very nicely done. I especially liked
them, because there was a lot of judo/grappling that was filmed very nicely. Donnie
Yen (see him in Hero, great performance) as a director is great as he knows how to
shoot these scenes. Everything seemed to flow for me, except there is
one scene where the girls are on the rooftop fighting with bamboo poles. It has
really nothing to do with the plot, but it's still entertaining. Overall, this is one of the better (modern) HK action flicks I've seen in a
while. Although cheesy in some respects, it still pulls it off. Definitely a 9/10
One should not be too critical about the director's second feature. I
really like the camera work of Madiba. As Mr. Shawn pointed out, he had a unique
way of looking at things. However, howcome a 14 year old boy shoot such
beautiful images? Remember he has not got any education of any sort. I don't think
english is the common tongue in Cape Town ghettos. Worse still, Madiba looks even
smaller than his supposed age of 14. Any way, if you overcome above-
mentioned peculiarities, you can watch the film and still enjoy it because of nice
camera work.
Lotsa action, cheesy love story, unexpected actors and overall great fun. The
special effect are acceptable/decent, some of the fighting is kinda neat with some
interesting acrobatic moves. The overall story moves along, and is cheesy enough to
keep you wondering when the inevitable is going to happen, although there is a bit
of a twist (just a small one). The overall naivety of the movie make it quite
whimsical at times. Cute enough chicks too what more could you want. PS. if you're
gonna review a movie like this, try to review it in terms of the category the movie
would fall (not necessarily where it was intended to fall). ie don't bomb out good
cheesy movies!
A vampire prince falls for a human girl, unaware that her brother is a famous
vampire hunter. That's the underlying theme of this martial arts romp which borrows
ideas from "Underworld" and "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" but manages to maintain a
style of its own. I was bemused by the UK and Hong Kong title "The Twins Effect" as
there are no twins involved in the story. It turns out that the two main female
characters are played by Hong Kong pop stars who perform as "The Twins". Don't let
this put you off. These girls can act (at least well enough for this type of film)
and add a lot of charm to the proceedings. Jackie Chan turns up for a couple of
cameo appearances adding a dash of his own brand of slapstick mayhem to the
proceedings. All in all this is great fun for those who like their vampires served
up with a helping of tongue-in-cheek humour.
Twins Effect, starring some of HK's most popular stars provides one of the most
enjoyable film experiences to come out of HK in sometime. It has something for
everyone, action, comedy, horror, romance, and some drama. This film can't be taken
too seriously, otherwise you'd go in dissapointed, but if you leave your brain at
the door, and just watch the film for some fun, you're bound to enjoy it. Great special effects, excellent action, cute Twins, cool HK actors, FUN
film! I'd recommend it to anyone!
slow moving but smart. passes you by as if you lived it. filled with thought
provoking Ideas art Race and being cool. that one thing hit me hard was the ideas
about the rock n' roll lifestyles. all the performances were improvised
i will say it again ALL THE PERFORMANCES WERE IMPROVISED sounds like a gimmick but
its not it makes these characters real and like some one you would hang with. this
also an amazing thing when you think about how strong the character are in this
film. right from the beginning in the title sequence it immediately establish Ben
as an outcast by the way he moves though the crowd Okay it breaks down
like this if your a person who lives the jazz/rocker lifestyle of cool you will
like it if your smart and understand great cinema from total crap you will love it
and if your both then it might be you fav but if your none of these then
you will probably think its boring and say it doesn't follow "one line" and write a
crap review like Ben_Cheshire
12/17/01 All I can do with this film is improvise on my impressions. I wasn't given
the "changes," don't know the "score," and am not schooled in the genre. I always
had problems following chord changes anyway (trumpet player, y'know), so I was
pretty well limited to doing the basic "keep the tune in mind" and ad lib around
that. What jammed me up about this incredibly moody black and white blues piece was
the knot it gave me in my head and heart in trying to figure out whether to go with
the ensemble or pick out a path along the tune (story.) I guess I went with the
tune as usual; I kept getting lost on the changes--too deep, extensive, over my
head, probably. Still, it was a gas to try to keep pace. I admired the actors'
playing to the theme and story line. I didn't see some things or heare things
others seem to: I didn't feel the light skin gal was "trying to pass" as much as
she was either oblivious to the color issue or was trying to ignore it--at first:
later she came back fighting. The brooding light skin young man (his trumpet
noodling mas ludicrous) was ambiguous, ambivalent, and --perhaps his best feature--
remote. What, I thought after the shadow-curtain closed on this provocative piece--
is the foundation of a thing like this? Is it a way of finding "reality" by setting
up a stage, peopling it with expressive characters and giving them a melody and
theme? Is it any more real or truthful than a well-crafted script--without the
benefit of editing and revising? Is improvisation heroic, "artier"?--moreso than
crafted work? Where is there greater or clearer truth: in retrospective art/craft
or in fabrication and reformation? Well, I am still lost in this question. I loved
the film; it got me lost in a cool blue foggy evening, where I just had to go home
and get out my horn. Guess what? I broke out in a twelve-bar blues riff, tried and
true--couldn't make myself stray from the tune. Reality is just too scary. jaime
says give them a 7 and more. I'm on break.
Improvisation was used to a groundbreaking degree in this film, but it only
functions as a novelty. No greater truth about the situation is got by asking the
actors to improvise. The performances are not improved by improvisation, because
the actors now have twice as much to worry about: not only whether they're
delivering the line well, but whether the line itself is any good. So that's why
the performances in many Robert Altman films are often really hestitant - because
the actors aren't really confident saying lines which they've made up, and
therefore aren't sure are any good. And, quite honestly, often its not
very good. Often the dialogue doesn't really follow from one line to another, or
fit the surroundings. It crackles with an unpredictable, youthful energy
- but honestly, i found it hard to follow and concentrate on it meanders so
badly. Nevertheless, a fascinating raw piece of film, and commendable
100% for taking the power over the green light into the street. There
are some generally great things in it. This joke, for example: I'm a
dancer. What sort of a dancer, like a ballet dancer? Oh no... exotic. And the whole party scene its in, the following trip to the park, and the scene
where the boys go looking at statues. 2/5. I wouldn't say they're worth
2 hours of your time, though.
Hey; Belmondo! Look there's Anna Karina! Great American improvised New Wave (or
Independent you want to call it that), not as good as Godard or Truffaut, and not
flawless, but hey such realism, style, warmth and humor. I love that NY accent;
"you don't know nothing!"; "forget about it". Just like the French New Wave, it's
about young people; partying, falling in love or just hanging around. Lelia Goldoni
is so cute; she's adorable; wonderful. Ben Carruthers' also good, reminds me of
Belmondo. A film you won't forget. A steady 26.5 out of 31 ;-)
It should be noted that this movie was not "improvised" (as you're probably
thinking of it), despite what the title at the end suggests. The movie was heavily
scripted and rehearsed - Cassavetes didn't have enough money to support the
inevitably high production costs of an "improvisational" sort of movie, even if he
had wanted to produce such a thing. The "improvisation" of the movie is contained
in the actors' performances, and the emotions that they draw out of the
lines. That said, allow me to say that this is a stunning work that I'm
sure I'll come back to again and again. The depths of emotion that Cassavetes is
able to draw out of the smallest gestures and interactions is incredible. I have no
idea how he was able to direct such amazing performances out of the actors,
especially under the conditions he worked. This is truly a magnificent landmark of
film that I would recommend to anyone interested in exploring beyond the Hollywood
mold.
Seven months since a revelatory viewing of Faces, I finally found a rentable DVD
copy of Cassavetes' first feature. Shot on a shoestring in Manhattan and in his
acting workshop on ad hoc sets, Shadows was the culmination of months of
improvisational rehearsals, in which the (mostly amateur) actors developed bonds
with one another, invented their characters, and polished their techniques to give
their filmed performances just the right tenor of spontaneous familiarity. This
intimate approach led to some incredibly daring work in Facesi.e., Seymour Cassel
cramming his hands down Lynn Carlin's throat in an attempt to revive her from an
overdosejust as the actors' utter conviction here yields blisteringly honest
moments like Lelia and Tony's post-coital assessment of their relationship and
Ben's revulsion at a black woman's touch as a manifestation of his racial confusion
and self-loathing. A homemade production in the best sense, the out-of-sync dubbing
and sound recording, and the granular cinematography and up-close camera setups,
build an immersive atmosphere that perfectly suits Cassavetes' nuanced vision of
human relationships as perpetual works in progress, marked by desperate emotional
fluctuations and wistful attempts at communication and understanding. Charles
Mingus's largely improvised jazz score is an ideal complement to the film's vision
of living by the moment, a mantra by which Cassavetes worked and seemingly lived.
Shadows breathes the smell of New York's streets like no film before it. This kick
off of Cassavetes' directorial work is as atmospheric as political and the initial
spark for a renewal in American cinema. Maybe it solicits for watching
Cassavetes' first work in a double feature with another debut, Godard's À bout de
soufflé. Both films shaped the cinematic production of their countries beyond
decades and both breathe a peculiar lightness and jauntiness which was later rarely
achieved by those filmmakers in their career. Shadows tells from three
Afro-American siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers), Lelia (Lelia Goldoni) and Hugh (Hugh
Hurd). The story is set in the New York jazz milieu and the driving rhythms on the
soundtrack play a main part for the feverish, sometimes almost dreamlike atmosphere
which draws through the entire film. There's not much happening in the plot. The
everyday life of the three siblings is defined by problems in love relationship or
in their jobs, but on both levels normality deceives. Without moralizing gestus,
Cassavetes simply describes the mechanism of racial exclusion, in public and in
private life. It was, regarding to the cinematic depiction of racism, a
breakthrough film in the US. This film owes also a lot to the
performances of the three leading actors which were all almost completely unknown
before. Especially Ben Carruthers established with his energetic portrayal the
image of a new self-conception of young, urban blacks in America, an image which
characterizes Spike Lee's films of the 80s and 90s. Revealingly, none of those
three doubtlessly extremely talented actors was able to start a big career
afterwards. Hollywood wasn't and isn't ready to ethnically expand its star system,
and that is why Goldoni, Hurd and Carruthers only found small artistic niches in TV
and independent films later on. Perhaps Shadows is one of the less
"beautiful" films ever shot, and one of the most beautiful ones at the same time; a
film of shades and spaces, with a camera that merely watches the stream of life in
the crowded street corners, bars, hotel lobbies, apartments, inducing an intriguing
ramble through New York's vibrant streets.
This film is amazing, while not perfect by Hollywood standards it encompasses a
gentle look at the wide divide between rich and poor, black and white that is true
in many parts of the world. It handles the audience with kid gloves while
delivering a truthful look at societal problems. The children are beautiful, take
special note of the young man who plays Sipho. The friendships that develop are
universally true, anyone can relate to the choices these young people have to make.
The influence of adults is interesting - it appears to be taken from real life
experiences as there are snip-its of conversations and interactions-much like a
child would remember experiencing. I would highly recommend this film.
"Shadows" is often acclaimed as the film that was the breakthrough for American
independent cinema. Whether thats true or not, it is an undeniably important film,
one whose influence can be traced all the way to today's Sundance fodder. Here is a
film which tackles controversial topics of the day (namely racism), and refuses to
give easy answers and show them in a manipulative fashion. Also, it deals with sex
in a frank manner that Hollywood wouldn't even discuss until "The Graduate". Still, the question remains is it as powerful today as when it was
originally released? The answer is yes. While many important films are hard to
watch and dated nowadays, "Shadows" retains every ounce of emotional resonance when
viewed now. It deals with racism as a personal issue and not a political one, so
its still relevant. Plus, it works as a great time capsule, capturing the 1950s
beat generation and New York art scene in a way possibly no other film has. On a technical level, its admittedly uneven. Cassavetes had yet to gain
full confidence as a director and the choppy editing reflects the film's low
budget. Still, the film's story is remains powerful. Plus, the acting, considering
the inexperience of the cast and improvisational nature, is phenomenal. All around,
the actors create realistic characters, ones who remain sympathetic despite their
often less than admirable actions. "Shadows" is absolutely mandatory viewing for
film buffs. (9/10)
Watching John Cassavetes debut film is a strange experience, even if you've seen
improvisational films before. The first thing you notice is it's
roughness. Right off, it's obvious some of the characters are screwing up their
lines. But then you step back from the situation, as you sink deeper into these
people's intimate exchanges and you ask yourself: "Do I ever stumble over MY
words?" The answer of course, is sure, we all do. It's unfortunate that most of the
gaffes in this respect come early in the picture, because, by about twenty minutes,
you've sunk so deep in you wouldn't know it if a bomb went off behind you. The next thing you notice...or maybe you notice it hours or days after the film
ends, is that you never saw any substantial plot, yet the themes and the poetry of
the dialog and characters never leave you. In fact, the treatment of the role race
plays in the everyday lives of these characters is always there, but it's so
ephemeral that even they aren't aware of how it's informing their opinions of
themselves, their self-consciousness, their perceived status, or the fate of their
relationships. The title is appropriate because you get a full spectrum
of blacks, whites, and grays...and not just in the skin pigmentation of the
characters. Leila Goldoni (truly remarkable here) is an afro-American/Caucasian,
her two brothers are white and dark afro-American. The irony is that they exist in
what is undoubtedly the "hippest" most tolerant atmosphere of the time...beat-
driven upper east-west Manhatten...and there are still conflicts within and around
themselves. I don't think I've ever seen a movie with such a subtle
delivery or technique. It's a lot like absorbing a really great piece of gallery
art and then just nodding off in bliss as you think back to the images it evoked
days later. Great mastering and extras on the Criterion disc. Arguably
the first truly experimental independent film ever made.
What is there to say about an anti-establishment film that was produced in a time
of such colourless void, social indifference and authoritarian contentment.
Cassevettes first major independent film was not an instant box office success and
still has not received the critical attention it deserves. I draw comparisons to
this wave of American independent projects consisting of such 'Beat' filmmakers as
Robert Frank and Harry Smith with the burgeoning scene emerging in Paris in the
late 1950's known as the French new wave. They discussed poetry and
philosophy and vulnerability at a time when the rest of the culture was obsessed
with rediscovering American cultural supremacy; even at this stage this peculiar,
highly spontaneous brand of filmmaking fought against the establishment of such
political lexicons and bigots that held the development of the arts in check in the
mid twentieth century. Cassevettes film examines race relations and
portrays man as weak in the face of love because we, as a culture, are blinded by
our own race bias and prejudice. The great element to most of Cassevettes work is
that his films have almost a reversal minimalist effect; a mental reaction is
evoked through subtle character relations, not so much imagery. This is why his
work seems to linger because he takes a more intimate approach to defining
charcters that rely less heavily on explicit actions and more upon
interpretation. Although my favourite Cassevettes film is 'Husbands',
this one is his most important.
In the end credits of "Shadows", after we read 'directed by John Cassavetes', some
white letters on the screen can be seen: "The film you have just seen is
improvised", they say. I am always pursuing the fact that words are so important in
movies since filmmakers started using them because, basically, there's no film
without a screenplay and many other reasons. Cassavetes pursued the same
goal, and he believed in the freedom of words; "Shadows" is the perfect example.
It's a film with no real main characters, with no real main plot lines; it's mostly
people in different situations, talking. Yes, some of the situations are connected
but Cassavetes, apparently always in a rush to get to the talking, uses a fast
forward technique when the characters are going somewhere or escaping from someone
and are not speaking. Appearances are everything in this movie. For
example, there's a brilliant score, full of jazz influences and a lot of fantastic
solos, and there's one character that says he's a jazz musician and plays the
trumpet (Ben, all the characters' names are the same names the actors'). However,
we never see him play the trumpet or jam with a band; he doesn't even talk about
music and just wanders with his friends around the city. They do talk, a lot, and
about anything that's in their minds; going from how intelligent each of them are
to the hilarious analysis of a sculpture. "Shadows" is funny in its
intellectual references in parts like the one above, because these friends are not
cultured. The only important female character in the film (Lelia), though, wants to
be an intellectual. But again, she has one very interesting conversation with an
older man at a party, about a book she's trying to write, and about how to confront
reality; but nothing to do with being intellectual. At that same party, a woman is
actually making an intellectual statement, full of complexity, and asks a guy
beside her: "Do you agree?". "Yes", he says, but you can tell he doesn't know what
she's talking about. Another character, a singer (Hugh), talks about his
glory days in occasions, and we see him perform only once; but no references to the
musical industry there. The focus of Cassavetes is the singer's relationship with
his manager (Rupert), which most of the time involves chats about trivial stuff and
not real 'musical' talks. So the trumpet player's important deal in "Shadows" is
the time he spends with his friends; the intellectual wannabe girl's is her way of
handling romantic relationships (one of the movie's strong points) and the singer's
is the bond with his managerAppearances. The reason why performances
are not important in this movie is simple. Cassavetes needed people who could
master improvisation, without mattering if they were actually good. I believe some
of them aren't, but they surely know how to improvise in a scene, and you can
notice how well they do it. "Shadows" is not about performers; it's about a way of
making cinema, based on the magic of conversation; and there you could say that
performances mean something. That's why in every conversation the camera
is like a stalker, constantly on the eyes of every character, constantly looking
for the expressions that come with natural speech. There's a scene where the
trumpet player and his friends are trying to pick up some girls. They are three, so
each of them sits beside one girl (the girls are three two) in three different
tables. They all talk at the same time and the camera shoots through the table, and
sometimes the friends look at each other, while they say whatever they are saying
It's natural.
In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes
is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio
director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes
sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot
is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was
figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally.
Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in
the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his
films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it. One
can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm
hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with
Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film.
The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling
Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh
Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both.
The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and
his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in
an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a
white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even
after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a
misogynist. In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned
Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class
nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New
York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue
deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him
sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him
gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least
important of the three arcs. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin
Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another
tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant
moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not
naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve,
especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is
a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the
history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film.
Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout
sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very
sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the
rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first
film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because
Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his
later working style. The National Film Registry has rightly declared
this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in
keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this
quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and
blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen
people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen
people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution,
behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can
understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have
problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film
is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its
being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two
definitions where great art truly thrives.
1st watched 8/26/2001 - 8 out of 10 (Dir-John Cassavetes): Well-done early
independent film by Cassavetes introduced a style that was much different than what
Hollywood shows it's audience. This movie also introduced some very taboo subjects,
especially the actual racism that probably was prevalent all over the country but
was not displayed by the mostly white controlled filmmakers of the time. About the
only black actors that had much respect at this time were the ones that acted and
displayed personality like whites(aka. Sidney Poitier). Besides this, the idea of
ending a film without truly concluding the relationships that began leaves many
moviegoers dumbfounded but actually makes the viewers realize that life is like
this(it goes on...). I prefer this kind of an ending because it makes you think
more about the characters and what may happen next and the conclusions are not just
laid out for you. The movie follows the lives of people(particulary a couple of
people who have a brief relationship and happen to be opposite skin colors) then we
watch what happens when the white man realizes what he's done. This is done very
well and makes the movie very special. The acting is supposedly done
improvisationally which makes the movie even more amazing. I guess you can say I
liked this movie, if you can't tell. If you can find it check out this classic
early independent film.
It ends with the declaration that "the film you have just seen was an
improvisation"-at once making you feel like an idiot for thinking an improvisation
was an good movie, and astounded at Cassavetes' genius...once again. Of course,
Cassavetes told some guy it wasn't really an improvisation per se, on his deathbed,
so...it's the story about a light-skinned black woman, Lelia, who passes for white,
and her family: another passing-for-white brother named Ben, and a black-black
brother named Hughie. When she falls in love with a white jerk named Tony, he is
unpleasantly surprised when he finds out she's black, and from there it goes on
about the three main characters' individual aspirations and shortcomings. Hughie is
a jazz singer in the process of becoming a failure, Lelia's still hopelessly
depressed over Tony, and Ben is angsty and violent in general, in desperate need of
something to shock him out of his stale patterns of existence. Overall, I suppose
it's really about stasis vs. change in human life. I suspect that Cassavetes had
the plot organized enough, and it was just the dialogue that was improvised. The
dialogue itself is very uneven - sometimes somebody will say something very
memorable, other times it's memorably awkward. What's amazing is the extent of the
amateur actors' embodiment of their characters. Cassavetes went through the acting
class he was teaching at the time he decided to do Shadows, whispered in the ears
of the ten best students, and this was the result...the guys playing Ben and Hughie
are very good. At first I didn't like Lelia, but as the film progressed you see
more and more she's one of those actors who gets better as the tension and drama
builds - not necessarily the best with small talk. Shadows is hailed by many as the
forerunner of the indie film movement (made in 1959) and it's definitely
recommended.
John Cassavette's decided as his first film, obviously as one shot on a shoestring
in New York, to not even have a script with dialog, and delivers a 1959 feature
equivalent of Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm- all the actors know what to do
and say and even have the right look in their eyes when they talk. In other words,
it's one of the most realistic looks at the beat generation, jazzed sweetly in it's
score and telling a tale of racial tensions. A group of black siblings are the
center-point, with one trying to get better gigs than the average strip-club, and
has a sister, much more light-skinned than him, who gets entwined with a white man
in a relationship, which shatters both sides. The film, however, isn't exclusively
about that; Cassavettes likes to have his characters wander around New York City
(which not many films did in 1959/1960) and his style of storytelling is like that
of the improvisational jazz artists of the day. Dated, to be sure, but worth a
glance for film buffs; Martin Scorsese named this as one of his heaviest
influences.
I had never seen a film by John Cassavetes up until two years ago, when I first saw
THE KILLING OF A Chinese BOOKIE in a Berlin cinema, which I found interesting, to
put it diplomatically, but not so special, I instantly wanted to see more of his
work. Since then, I tried - with an emphasis on tried - watching his other work,
SHADOWS in particular. I must admit, it took me a a while before I actually enjoyed
the film. At first the unpolished, raw and improvised way Cassavetes it was shot,
put me off somewhat and I thought of it as an original - absolutely - but flawed
and dated experiment. But now, upon reviewing, these little imperfections make it
look so fresh, even today. Shot on a minimal budget of $40,000 with a
skeleton six person crew, SHADOWS offers an observation of the tensions and lives
of three siblings in an African-American family in which two of the three siblings,
Ben (Ben Carruthers) and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni), are light-skinned and able to pass
for white. Cassavetes demanded that the actors retain their real names to reflect
the actual conflicts within the group but saw the film as being concerned with
human problems as opposed imply to racial ones. Cassavetes shot the film in ten
minute takes and jagged editing, a reaction against 'seamless' Hollywood production
values. Cassavetes main inspiration - at least in the cinematic style the film was
shot - were the Italian neo-realists whilst also professing admiration for Welles'
pioneering spirit. The use of amateurs and improvisation might resemble some of the
Italian neo-realist directors, but with his bebop score by Charles Mingus ans Shafi
Hadi, the film feels very different, very American, unlike anything made before
really. The song with the feathered girls, "I feel like a lolly-pop"
(or something) feels like light years back to me, ancient history. But no matter
how dated it might look, it still makes a delightful time capsule of late Fifties
New York today. I think it's this is one of the first films made aspiring
filmmakers realize they could shoot an independent film, without Hollywood,
improvised and without a real budget. Seymour Cassel, who acted and was involved in
SHADOWS, claims it was Jules Dassin's THE NAKED CITY (1948) that was the first and
inspired them all, but I think this was the one that really opened the eyes of
aspiring independent American filmmakers. Camera Obscura --- 8/10
The remarkable, sometimes infuriating, often brilliant films of John Cassavetes
occupy a unique position in American cinema Low-budget, partly improvised,
inspired by cinéma verité documentary, and related to underground film, they have
nevertheless frequently managed to reach a wide and profoundly appreciative
audience After drama studies, the young Cassavetes quickly made his
name as an unusually unrefined, intense actor, often appearing in films about
disaffected, rebellious youth such as "Crime in the Streets" and "Edge of the
City." Setting up an actors' workshop, he worked to transform an
improvisational experiment into his feature debut The result, "Shadows," taking
three years to complete and partly financed by his performances in TV's Johnny
Staccato, was a breakthrough in American cinema About the effect of racism on an
already fraught relationship between two black men and their sister, two of whom
pass for white, the film is impressive for its irregular, seemingly formless style
and naturalistic performances Plot was minimal, mood and emotional apparent truth
were everything
I enjoyed very much the movie wooden camera. I think it's a little bit influenced
by the Brazilian movie "City of God", but maybe this parallelism between the two
tracks possible to follow (crime and art) in social neighborhood are a reality. I think the films made by Madiba are really beautiful. I don't think it's
unreal that he shoot such good films, because there's a lot of artists that don't
have any type of education and can be really genius. I enjoyed very
much the soundtrack. It's adjusted to the pictures. See the movie...it's
good to show how can be a life in a social neighborhood.
1959 was a landmark in the world of film. Several great directors of the classic
era were releasing career capping classics that ranked among their best. Just a
look at the titles is instructive, Hitchcock's North By Northwest, Billy Wilder's
Some Like It Hot, Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo, Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life. Add a
couple from the previous year, Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, Hitch's Vertigo, and
Nick Ray's Wind Across the Everglades, and you've got a pretty good summing up of
what was possible within the classic Hollywood style. At the same time,
two films appeared that hinted at a whole new way of making films. One was Jean-Luc
Godard's Breathless, the other was John Cassavetes Shadows. The two films had
certain things in common, largely improvised acting by non stars, handheld cameras,
low budgets, and a certain youthful, jazzy swagger. In certain ways, though, they
couldn't be farther apart. Godard was still a believer in the director as arbiter
of style. He knew more about film than most Hollywood producers, and Breathless was
filled with the iconography of the classic crime film. Cassavetes, on the other
hand, was an actor, and a refugee from New York's underground theater scene. His
first film shows him little impressed with the cinema, and a big believer in
actors. Godard's film constantly references it's own artifice, whereas Shadows aims
for a certain kind of naturalism. It doesn't reach it, mainly because
naturalism is a myth, particularly in cinema. But it feels powerful, kinetic but
lilting like the cool jazz on the score, certainly the main inspiration for the
filmmaking style on display here. It ultimately doesn't hold together, mainly
because Cassavetes' actors here are amateurish beatniks, where Cassavetes style
requires strong, imaginative actors. His later work with Gena Rowlands, Ben
Gazarra, and Peter Falk blows this out of the water. Due to the director's
technical inexperience, some bits of dialogue had to be redubbed later, which
defeats the freshness of the improvisation. Still it's fascinating to watch, both
for the great moments (like the scene where Leila Goldoni talks about her
dissapointment with losing her virginity) and to watch a groundbreaking artist
finding his way.
This was really a pleasure to see; the dialogue was - for the most part -
absolutely outstanding (I thought the women's roles were a little better written,
which is a nice surprise). The performances were uniformly very good, too. Frank
Gorshin overdoes it a little when he goes into his various cons, but this might be
his overcompensating for what I see as weaknesses in how the character is written;
he's VERY good otherwise. Harry Groener does similarly well with a slightly
underwritten character (Tony), overdoing some of the character's angrier scenes
slightly. Ursula Burton is excellent as Sister Theresa, really carrying the film
through some of its weaknesses. Seymour Cassel and Louise Fletcher are a little
underused here, though I liked their work as always. Shirley Jones, Wendie Malick,
Jill Eikenberry and Faye Grant are very good also (I couldn't help thinking Grant
reminded me a little of Catherine O'Hara here); Cloris Leachman rather tears into
her role, with reasonably good results. I wish there had been more of a
sure hand behind the camera, though. Sometimes the framing or staging seemed a bit
off, or awkward. The closeups seemed overused (or erratically used) to me. And we
don't always go from scene to scene as smoothly as we'd like. Some of the "tough
guy" approach to the federal agent (music, costuming) was too over the top for me
as well. And the few fantasy sequences didn't really work. But there are things
that were VERY well done; the opening sequence set in Buffalo around 1970, for
example. And, frankly, all of the scenes regarding Theresa's church work (I suspect
the writer and actress liked the character a lot, which helps). The scenes between
Malick and Eikenberry are VERY good. The plot is probably a bit
overcontrived - there seem to be a few too many schemes going on at once to keep
them all straight at times, and the coincidences got to be a little too much. And I
was a little bothered by the ending (should we REALLY be rooting for their biggest
con yet to succeed?), but the ride along the way is very enjoyable. It would be
nice to see more independent movies like this one made. 7 of 10
MANNA FROM HEAVEN is a terrific film that is both predictable and unpredictable at
the same time. You know that the characters after finding out that the so-called
"Gift From God" was actually a loan, will pay back the money and that everyone will
be happy at the end, but how they get there is not as obvious. The scenes are often
funny and occasionally touching as the characters evaluate their lives and where
they are going. The cast of veteran actors are more than just a nostalgia trip.
Frank Gorshin, Shirley Jones, and Cloris Leachman prove that they are capable of
more than playing the Riddler, Mother Partridge, or Mary's friend Phyllis while
Jill Eikenberry and Wendie Malick play characters different than we have seen on
their TV series. Ursula Burton's portrayal of the nun is both touching and funny at
the same time with out making fun of nuns or the church. If you are looking for a
movie with a terrific cast, some good music(including a Shirley Jones rendition of
"The Way You Look Tonight"), and an uplifting ending, give this one a try. I don't
think you will be disappointed.
Really enjoyed Manna From Heaven. If you liked My Big Fat Greek Wedding you will
like this too! Once the story line is set it begins to keep you guessing the
outcome. I think we'll be hearing more from Five Sisters Productions. I know I'll
be watching for their next movie.
No bullets, no secret agents, a story that is entertaining, funny, and believable.
Met some of the producers/actors in this film at the theater. They seemed as
interesting in person as their characters on screen. You may not hear about this
movie on TV with high-dollar ad spots, but it is definitely worth checking out. I
have spent $8 for a movie ticket on a lot of other movies that weren't this
entertaining. Looking forward to future projects by this production company.
This was a great movie, and safe for the entire family (which one doesn't see much
of anymore. My wife and I and 15 year-old son loved it. Even though you had an
inkling of how it would end, it continued to be a fun journey, and the final ending
surprised us. There should be more movies like this!!!
Manna From Heaven is a light comedy that uses exaggeration of human foibles to
entertain the audience. Throughout the film there is the expectation that goodness
will surface in each situation. The result is that the movie goer finds
himself/herself sitting with this silly grin on his/her face, peace in his/her
heart, and high expectations for human kind. Watching this movie was a most
pleasant experience. (I would venture to say uplifting experience, but some would
say that sounds corny!!)
Its a feel-good movie that made me feel good. Some in this genre can be sickly
sweet, but this script is restrained. The movie is funny and fun. The acting is
great. If this were a musical, I would have left the theater humming the
tunes.
I thoroughly enjoyed Manna from Heaven. The hopes and dreams and perspectives of
each of the characters is endearing and we, the audience, get to know each and
every one of them, warts and all. And the ending was a great, wonderful and
uplifting surprise! Thanks for the experience; I'll be looking forward to more.
Saw the movie last night w/o knowing anything about it (nothing else out seemed
interesting and I had a Buffalo connection to this movie - UB grad). It was a very
enjoyable movie. Liked the pace (it picks up after a slow beginning) and story.
Well written plot and good character development and relationships. Highly
recommend it to anyone who likes to see movies that have interesting stories. Found
myself talking about this movie afterwards over a few beers - most discussions
don't last more than a few minutes.
Yes, maybe there are parts of this film which require suspending belief a little
but that doesn't take anything away from the film's charm and wonder. It was shown
as part of our town's youth film festival and was the organising committee's
favourite. Which is not surprising. The subject matter - coming together in a race-
torn, though post-apartheid South Africa is highly topical and the treatment of the
theme is inspirational. Of course, as the previous comment mentions the film does
have its shortcomings, but the realism of the setting and the way the director
treats his subject matter belies these shortcomings. I saw this with my wife and we
returned the same evening with the children. A film to watch, meditate, discuss and
act upon.
Inspired casting, charming and witty throughout. Much like the currency in the
opening moments of the film, the story floats along magically until you are
emotionally "invested" in its outcome. The city of Buffalo has never looked better!
Kudos to the Burton Sisters and the entire cast for a job well done.
Witticisms, colorful characters, family relationships, coping with hardships,
living with fun and humor. This film has it all and more. What a great 'every man
(and woman)' story, with a top notch plot and script. It offers just clean fun,
lots of laughter, many smiles and pure entertainment for the whole family. Other
reviewers describe the story some. I'll just offer this comparison teaser it's
part "Best of Show," "Grumpy Old Men," "Millions," and some other comedy and life
flicks rolled into one. This gem of a film most likely had limited
release and is probably not very available to rent. But, it's now out on DVD and I
highly recommend it for purchase. If you like good old-fashioned fun and
entertaining films for the family, you can't miss with "Manna from Heaven." This
film is a sure fire cure for the blues or to chase the gloom away on nasty weather
days or rough times.
At a time when Hollywood thinks that louder, faster, and bloodier are better, Manna
From Heaven is comedic and touching look at something we've all thought about: What
would I do if a load of money fell from the sky. Interestingly, it took
the characters many years to realize that the money hadn't made a single difference
in their lives. They all become what they were destined to be. Unfortunately, in
most cases, what they became was unhappy, in spite of their good fortune all those
years ago. While Manna offers the familiar Hollywood storyline of Good
vs. Evil, or in the case, Generosity vs Greed, what sets this film apart is that
Good wins out by converting Evil, not by crushing it. I think the
important message of this film is that you can change the world... even if you do
it one person at a time.
If Hollywood had the wellbeing of the audience at heart we would see 20 films a
year with the kind of wholesome fortitude that is behind this film. There are
several experiences of personal growth in this movie and while the characters ARE
still very human even the lessons learned are not that greed will profit you, or
do-unto-others-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you-are-okay-with-it, no, this is what
our sad, desensitized lives need, more sense... more love... more do-unto-others-
as-you-would-have-done-unto-you... more HOPE. (thanks Ursula!) This movie has an
intelligent wit, not "yo' mama" cracks that run rampant in the so-called comedies.
People need to feel good. This movie will make you feel good and possibly inspire
you to better your life, and the lives of others. sidenote Every person counts in
ticket sales. This is a truly independent film. If you want more quality films you
have to support them.
I didn't know much about this movie going in- my roommate kind of dragged me into
it. I was so pleasantly surprised! The plot really grabbed my attention and held
it, and the characters are well-drawn and realistic. The screenplay is very clever
and funny, and the cast does great things with it. And the best part is that it
managed to be entertaining without any explicit sex or violence! If this movie
comes anywhere into your area you really should go see it- stand up for this little
film, it is worth it!
My wife and I struggle to find movies like this that are clean and yet enjoyable
for adults. If you can't find a cinema that is playing it, call your cinema and
request it. Bravo, Five Sisters Productions for courage, tenacity and creative
endeavor!
Two things can happen when an ensemble cast is brought together. Either you are
left walking out of the theater asking, "Why?' or you receive MANNA FROM HEAVEN, a
delightful comedy from the Burton Sisters, whose mother not only provided
inspiration but the screenplay itself. Ursula Burton, plays Theresa, a nun whose
friend's and family had always believed she was touched by G-d. When money falls
from the sky the clan use young Theresa's faith that the money was gift from the
heavens to allow all their dreams to come true. Years pass and we find Theresa
returned home to her native Buffalo. She comes to the realization that the gift
needs to be repaid and calls together her friends and family, (Academy Award
winners Shirley Jones, Louise Fletcher and Cloris Leachman) to return the debt
before Easter Sunday. The money has long since been spent and all the characters
find themselves in financial difficulties. Shirley Jones and Frank Gorshin, are a
husband and wife con team that teach the all important lesson's in life, of how to
dress for winter in Buffalo and my personal favorite, "they expect you to take the
silverware," when visiting a restaurant. The audience can only hope that if Theresa
does reach her goal that that someone won't run off with the money. The movie
teaches us that it is not money, but ourselves that make our and other's dreams
come true. Every action has an outcome not just for you, but the community around
you. When looking into the mirror we see ourselves as we'd like to be, MANNA FROM
HEAVEN, answers the question of how other's can see the image we'd most like to
reflect. The Burtons have done a superb job directing the cast to break out of
their shells and create new and inventive characters. In the day of multi-million
dollar budgets, this low budget Indy proves it is not the cash in hand, but true
talent that will draw the biggest laughs. Wendie Malick (The American President,
Just Shoot Me) adds a special flavor to this already talented cast.
Manna from Heaven is heavenly. This is a movie for the family -- teens and
grandparents can enjoy it together. But it isn't syrupy sweet or silly. The
characters really are "characters". The plot is somewhat complex and you have to
pay attention, but it's like putting a puzzle together as it all falls into place
bit by bit. The period beginning is like watching an old photo album, or
remembering back when. It's extremely well done with very accurate hairstyles and
costumes. The story moves along quickly with twists, turns and lots of fun. A special treat is to watch the large cast of familiar faces, many of whom
we haven't seen in much too long a time. Part of the fun is to recognize and name
them mentally as they appear, though this can be distracting. Cloris Leachman by
the end of the film looks as if she's had a make-over on "Oprah". I had never seen
Faye Grant in a movie -- only knew her as Grace's mother in the TV series "Saving
Grace". She was great, even minus the southern accent. And I didn't even recognize
Shelly Duvall. The five sisters who created this very lovely film are a very
talented quintet and Sister Theresa is a heavenly treasure.
What a great cast for this movie. The timing was excellent and there were so many
clever lines-several times I was still laughing minutes after they were delivered.
I found Manna From Heaven to have some surprising moments and while there were
things I was thinking would happen, the way they came together was anything but
predictable. This movie is about hope and righting wrongs. I left the theater
feeling inspired to do the right thing. Bravo to the Five Sisters.
I found this move beautiful, enjoyable, and uplifting. Initially the local sites in
the film, which was filmed here in Buffalo, intrigued me. Later I found myself lost
in the power of the film. How do you repay a gift from God? The ability of
characters to rise above their base natures and respond to the touch from God
warmed my heart. The entire audience applauded at the conclusion of the film. I
left the theater with a lilt in my step, joy in my heart and hope for the human
race. What more can any film do? Hollywood, I hope your paying attention. America
does like positive, upbeat films.
This was a random rental at the video store. But I was impressed from the start.
Wooden Camera is a gem of a 2nd feature by an engaging director. The film captures
deeply insightful moments and several often times frustrating and complicated
social interactions young interracial friends would experience in a modern post
apartheid South Africa. The young actors are quite good and well directed in their
approach to the core material and the dialogue is natural and interesting. The film
is very rich in visuals providing a frame by frame study of deeper understanding
and fulfillment without falling into iconic stereotypes and clichés. The musical
score to the film adds body to the film without being obtrusive. After watching it
the second time, I tracked down the DVD on amazon and have been happy ever since.
Being from the Buffalo area I was well aware of the movie having read many articles
in local publications. I was most impressed with the movie, especially its clever
plot, the acting and the local scenes. Nice to see so many older, quality stars in
the various roles. I feel that especially those of us over 50 will find the movie
excellent and you can leave the theater feeling that your time was well spent.
As a native of the city where the story takes place, Buffalo, NY, it's fun to see
the local sites but the story line is so local and fun, too! The small
scale promoting of this film requires strong word of mouth to accomplish the wide
viewing it deserves. Please make this film the success the Big, Fat Greek Wedding
was.
`Manna From Heaven' is a delightfully compelling film. Within the
shifting paradox of values in middle-class Americans from 40 years ago to the
present day, the plot tweaks the concerns and hopes of an interesting range of
`Damon Runyonesque' characters. Their struggles with moral dilemmas,
dotting on `what might have been,' hopes to yet fulfill youthful dreams, romantic
yearnings, and `hit it big' combine to make a most entertaining film. Rather than
relying upon ìn-your- face' sexual explicitness, the burgeoning relationship
between Inez and Mac/Bake is classically subtle but clear. His untying the knot in
her shoelace at the Art Gallery and their heat in their poker game is
outstanding The script's crisp writing is skillfully interpreted by an
outstanding star and supporting cast. One of the few films I have ever fone to see
twice in its opening run, `Manna From Heaven' definitely warrants national
distribution. Conrad F. Toepfer
In the wasteland that Hollywood Productions have become of late, this movie - in
and of itself - is truly "MANNA FROM HEAVEN"!!! In what could best be
described as a "cute" movie, approximately 350 years of movie acting experience
(allright - give or take 100 years!) joyously lights up the screen to tell a tale
of deceit, remorse, and redemption about a Catholic Family in Buffalo, NY. Truly well-positioned to take its place in the "feel-good" movie genre, this
quiet little independent film by the Burton Sisters' FIVE SISTERS PRODUCTIONS
COMPANY will leave a smile on your face and joy in your heart, all while renewing
your faith in mankind. From the spectacular opening scene shots of
Buffalo, NY to the final credits, the film manages to tell a tale that could have
been told of any family, anywhere. Yet, somehow this particular gathering of family
and "family by association" in a small, non-descript house in Buffalo more than
fits the bill. If you've never been to Buffalo, you'll leave the theater with
thoughts of "shuffling off" for a visit! Shots of the city landmarks and
surroundings help to bring a quaint, down to earth tone to the film - which suits
it just fine. The quiet beauty of the "Queen City of the Great Lakes" compliments,
rather than detracts from the tale that is being told. If only more movies would
take advantage of the natural beauty of this country's "second cities" instead of
running off to a soundstage somewhere, the end results would be so much more
believable. Great performances by Shirley Jones, Frank Gorshin, Wendy
Malick, Jill Eickenberry, and the rest of the ensemble cast prove again that true
talent outlasts Hollywood's "flavor of the week" any time! GO SEE THIS
MOVIE! You've wandered in Hollywood's desert for too long!
We went to see Manna from Heaven, my husband, two friends, and I and we all enjoyed
the film. The characters are funny, the story is amusing and so much like real
life. I think that is what I liked most, just seeing something believable, no
murders, no sci-fi, just good, clean fun. It is something you could take your
children or elderly parents to and not worry. How many of those are around
anymore!!
I thoroughly enjoyed Gabrielle Burton's story of a mysterious gift and how it
effects it recipients in the past and present. The talented Burton family of five
film-making sisters, an author mother, and dancing dad offer a charming plot,
respectfully edited for clarity , memorably chosen songs, and a beautifully filmed
piece that made me laugh and cry as the characters' vulnerablility invited me into
their predicamant. There was a farce-like attitude about this work with touching
undertones of innocent wonder. Fanatastic
I would recommend this film to anyone who is searching for a relaxing, fun-filled,
thought-provoking movie. The absence of sex, vulgarities and violence made for a
most pleasant evening. I especially enjoyed the Buffalo scene, but that's probably
because I live a short distance from there. Even so, this film could have been
produced in any city; it's the theme that's so important here. I'm just grateful
that Manna From Heaven dropped down on us. Try it...you'll like it!
This film is not your typical Hollywood fare, though the pickings are so bad I
often tend to stay away from movies rather than be disappointed. However, this
little low-budget gem is thoroughly loveable and enjoyable and definitely a keeper.
The actors are as varied as the characters they portray, the Buffalo setting is
charming (what a pretty city), and the story sparkles. The lack of gratuitous
violence, sex and the "f" word doesn't detract in the least! Take the kids, take
grandma, take a break from Hollywood! I give it an 11 out of 10!
When I first saw the movie, I thought it was sweet - a family movie. For the rest
of the night and over the next couple of days, though, clever moments and funny
lines kept creeping back into my thoughts and our conversation... There's a lot
going on, classic elements of farce, good character acting, and Wendie Malick's
story line is just hysterical. Labelling it a "feel-good movie" belies the wit and
fun - it's smarter than it seems, just like "It's a Wonderful Life" is.
The Squire of Gothos is one of the "sillier" episodes of Star Trek, and therefore
one of the most entertaining ones. The entertainment factor is, generally speaking,
fueled by the stand-off between William Shatner and the episode's hilarious guest
star, William Campbell. During an unspecified routine mission, Sulu
suddenly vanishes into thin air, and Kirk follows soon after-wards. Spock
immediately begins looking for his missing colleagues (and, though he'd hate to
admit it, friends), while the two stranded crewmen must deal with the mysterious,
all-powerful, flamboyant Trelane (Campbell), the self-proclaimed Squire of Gothos,
a being capable of creating or destroying anything he wants through the sheer power
of his mind. At first sight, the plot may seem recycled from previous
episodes (honestly, are there any sci-fi shows that didn't feature at least one
God-like character), but that feeling vanishes pretty quickly thanks to the
script's winning use of exaggerated humor, all conveyed through Campbell's
deliberately camp performance: his Trelane is essentially the Trek version of a
spoiled child in the body of an adult, while his ignorance-fueled curiosity for the
human race (his knowledge is quite limited) probably served as inspiration for Gene
Roddenberry when he came up with the character of Q for the Next Generation pilot,
some two decades after this episode aired. In short, the key to
appreciating The Squire of Gothos is this: "silly" doesn't necessarily equal "bad".
This was a nice film. It had a interesting storyline, that was executed pretty well
in the later part of the film. The storyline kinda reminded me of The City of God.
But this one is done in a more nicer way in comparison. It had what i really
loved:a tinge of surrealism. Some pretty interesting cinematography (thru the
wooden camera) I'm not sure if it was culturally correct, but it definitely widens
you're view of south Africa. The actors were good (for 1st timers, most of them
anyway), i especially liked Estelle character, which made this movie pretty
enjoyable. What is interesting though, was that it makes you ask about your own
life. Are you really doing what you really love? Or do you consent to the norm, the
conventionalism around you. Definitely worth a watch.
The theme is controversial and the depiction of the hypocritical and sexually
starved india is excellent.Nothing more to this film.There is a lack of good
dialogues(why was the movie in english??). There was lack of continuity and lack of
passion/emotion in the acting.
If you had asked me how the movie was throughout the film, I would have told you it
was great! However, I left the theatre feeling unsatisfied. After thinking a little
about it, I believe the problem was the pace of the ending. I feel that the
majority of the movie moved kind of slow, and then the ending developed very fast.
So, I would say the ending left me disappointed. I thought that the
characters were well developed. Costner and Kutcher both portrayed their roles very
well. Yes! Ashton Kutcher can act! Also, the different relationships between the
characters seemed very real. Furthermore,I thought that the different plot lines
were well developed. Overall, it was a good movie and I would recommend seeing
it. In conclusion: Good Characters, Great Plot, Poorly Written/Edited
Ending. Still, Go See It!!!
General Trelayne is a super-being who wants to play a little game with the crew of
the Enterprise. A lot of extremely unlikely and nonsensical stuff seems to be
happening, and Trelayne seems obsessed with the human practices of warfare and
murder. He seems to need to experience what he imagines to be a thrill and has
created a human environment (though a few hundred years out of date) in which to
play out his fantasies. The environment is subtly inauthentic, and the crew
immediately begins to spot the inconsistencies. Pretty soon it becomes clear that
Trelayne is not just an immature god, but a very fallible one. Regardless of how
you feel about this one, stick around for the Twilight Zone-like ending. It is well
worth it. As many have pointed out, Trelayne's character inspired the
more developed and amusing on-going character Q - and you can see in John
DeLancie's construction of that personality more than just shades of Campbell's
Trelayne. It is fun to compare how the four captains we have seen coping with Q all
deal with him so radically differently.
I did enjoy watching Squire Trelane jerk around the crew in this episode, though
after a while the whole thing just seemed a little too long. Sure, the histrionics
were kind of funny for a while, and the ending was a pretty good way to wrap the
whole thing together. I think the problem was that I enjoyed seeing Trelane when he
was full of bravado and fun, the fun seemed to vanish when Trelane became
vindictive and nasty. Talk about a mood killer--going from the obnoxious but
affable host to the guy sentencing Kirk to death! But, despite this, the episode
was enjoyable and worth my time. For die-hard Trekkies, this is a must-see, for
others it's just a pretty run of the mill one.
In "The Squire of Gothos", Kirk and his crew encounter a powerful super-being, who
keeps the Captain, "Bones" and a few crewmembers captive for no apparent reason. I
could be wrong, but I think this is the first Star Trek episode I ever saw and the
program that made me hungry for more. It is not one of the best episodes, but the
rock-solid premise of an alien being who putting the Enterprise's crew in a corner,
is the kind of situation that makes the show so much fun to watch. In a way, the
super-humanoid anticipates one of Star Trek's most famous characters, Next
Generation's enigmatic "Q". This episode is also memorable for creating a unique
situation: it is the first time Uhura is part of the action and the story allows
the viewer to see what an endearing character Uhuara can be when the story allows
her. Too bad the show never fully explored this iconic figure.
An apt description by Spock of an all-powerful fop into whose clutches fall the
crew of the Enterprise. This was one sector of space our starship should have
avoided: first Sulu & Kirk simply disappear off the bridge; a landing party follows
them to the surface of an unknown planet and encounter Trelane, a seemingly
aristocratic man dressed in attire from an Earth of many centuries past. But he
demonstrates abilities of someone or something far beyond human and doesn't
register on McCoy's medical tricorder. The officers manage to escape back to the
ship but, like some bad cosmic penny, Trelane keeps popping up. He brings them all
back, including some female companionship, to continue his games. The dilemma now
takes on elements of 'The Most Dangerous Game' out in space and there's an
exasperating, even infuriating aspect to the crew's utter helplessness before such
unbridled power. What really makes this a great episode is the memorable
performance by guest star Campbell as the overpowering but not all-knowing alien.
His character is obviously an early version of Q, who was introduced 20 years later
in the pilot for the TNG series. Trelane's confrontation scene with Spock stands
out among all the strange drama which unfolds. As usual, Kirk quickly begins to
look for possible weaknesses in his new nemesis, despite being quite outmatched.
The answers to exactly what or who Trelane is are right in front of us the whole
time so, when we do learn the truth, it makes complete sense in view of Campbell's
pitch-perfect acting. He indulges himself constantly, preening before some unknown
audience, remarking on things with a flair which is infectious but not quite right
- we can't quite pin it down at first, but there's something missing here. Every
few minutes, his tone becomes sinister and the crew now appears to be in serious
danger. In a way, you can't take your eyes off him, always waiting to see what he
does next. Actor John de Lancie captured that similar tone as Q on the Next
Generation series.
This is a beautifully filmed movie that questions the future of all indigenous
peoples, especially nomadic tribesmen. Focusing on the Saltmen of Tibet, the film
moves at pace that may make some western viewers uncomfortable. For some peoples,
life still proceeds at the same pace which it has for thousands of years. This film
follows a group of tribesmen on their annual two month quest to get salt. Their
tribe lives its life in a traditional manner (slowly by modern standards) and
always accounting to their many gods. This is a remarkable film, one which will
preserve a piece of what may, unfortunately, become history. Well worth the time.
Don't be in a rush when you see it.
I think Gerard's comments on the doc hit the nail on the head. Interesting film,
but very long. It's definitely the antithesis to the new school of flashy, sexy,
Moore-style docs. There is no narrator, no facts or side info interlaced, and no
other gimmicks. What you see is what you get - a glimpse into the vanishing world
of the Saltmen of Tibet. As a huge doc fan, I was surprised how much I lost
attention with this film, namely due to the length and lack of dialogue. In the end
though I would recommend it if the subject matter sounds interesting to you. It's
beautifully shot, informative, and presents a valuable (and closing) window into
the way of life of the Tibetan saltmen (and women :) - all important attributes of
a good doc. But do put on a big pot of coffee, it'll help.
A documentary about a nomadic tribe in Tibet going out to a dry lake to get salt
does not sound very appealing. But this is not a popcorn movie but a visual
cultural feast whereby you partake of a rapidly vanishing morsel of humanity. The
superstitions, the epic songs and poetry, the faith of a people who truly believe
in following their own unique patterns of life are something the West had in the
times of Homer but that is now, unfortunately, completely foreign to most of us in
the "developed" world. We have lost the spiritual serenity that comes from
following well established patterns of life, often with dire mental consequences in
our increasingly soulless society. The film makers have woven us intimately into
the fabric of these materially poor but spiritually rich and scrappy saltmen. And
made us see that there was more to life than the shopping mall and pop culture. So
disconnect your land lines, turn off your cells, turn off the driveway lights and
sit back and ease yourself into a timeless adventure.
_Saltmen_ is a long film for its genre, and quite often the pace is much slower
than that expected by Western audiences. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly
both in terms of interesting subject matter and the magnificent images this film
contains. Some of the scenery is truly breathtaking, and there is enough of
interest that most should be able survive _Saltmen_ with minimal use of the fast-
forward. 
Yes!!!! Fassbinder and Ballhaus are at the top of their game, back in 1973! It's
about the same subject, but in my opinion it's a much better movie than THE MATRIX
(1999), at least it was 200 times cheaper! Very nice camera work by Michael
Ballhaus and the wonderful "Albatross" by Fleetwood Mac at the end. Fassbinder is
creating a very moody tone for the whole film. It's a shame this movie was never
released on DVD. But now after 37 Years they finally came to the conclusion, that
this TV-Movie, is not only one of the best Fassbinder films (altough there are
quiet a lot best Fassbinder films), it's a brilliant example for a science-fiction
movie, done without much money. Buy it!! Watch it!!
It is an interesting fact that metaphysics by Platon and Aristoteles, formal logic
and abstract ontology form about those sciences that most people are not interested
in. But then, around one thousand years after Aristoteles, the computer began to
usurp the human thinking, and the humans who were refusing to reflect questions of
being other than biological, physical and chemical ones, suddenly felt paralyzed
because they could not cope with the consequences that this computers would bring
"over night". R.W. Fassbinder's "Welt Am Draht", together with Tarkovsky's
"Solaris" and Godard's "Alphaville", is probably the first movie who took the
philosophical questions of emerging computer science as a basis of a story to be
told in a movie. The confusing questions about identities and realities are
cleverly built into different interwoven criminal stories which the audience really
tries to follow because it is interested to solve the cases. Fassbinder was a
master to sell highly abstracts contents to his public by embedding theoretical
knowledge into practical, appetizing forms. The basis problem to understand is that
an identity defines a reality, but on the other side, a reality also requires
identity in order to be perceived. The idea of a person with multiple identities is
known to us solely from the standpoint of psychiatry. However, logically spoken,
the only reason why we have just one identity, is the fact that our logic has only
two values (right and false). Now take a logic with just one more value, i.e. with
three: Then, as you can easily see, you have already three identities. What happens
now, when, let us say, Dr. Stiller gets killed? Then, it is quite possible that
only one of three identities is abolished and the other two remain and are able to
rescue the individual from death. Another question is, if a person with multiple
identities actually feels these identities at once. The idea, however, to display
such sets of identities in a up-down or down-up way as shown in the scene with the
elevator in the hotel, is misleading, since identities and hence realities are not
structured in Hierarchical, but in a Heterarchical way. Strictly speaking, there is
no "artificial identity" either, since each identity is defined over two objects
who share all of their features with one another. Therefore, the idea of assuming
that every individual has just one single identity is nothing but a consequence of
ancient two-valued logic either (a second identity would imply that a person, at
the same time, exists and not-exists). But now look around and see that one and the
same object (which is by definition self-identical) is perceived by every subject
in its own way. If therefore every subject sees an object differently, why should
it no be possible for the single individual to open the borders of his two-valued
individuality-corset, with the effect that different persons can exchange their
different Individualities? Fassbinder would five years later pick up this topic in
his masterpiece "Despair. A trip into the light".
I am surprised that there is confusion over the title of this film. Quite
obviously, it is an investigation into the nature of modern love. It is suggesting
that love is love while the going is good, but one in which people reserve the
right to put themselves first, and if the going gets tough, they get out and go
onto something else. This observation has generational implications, as
it is coming from Generation X, makes comment on Generation X, and in the end is
aimed at Generation X. It expresses disappointment that love has transformed from
that which the Baby Boomers, the parents of Generation X, had engendered in their
marriages and family lives, and which gave Generation X the innocent and bountiful
childhood it ultimately enjoyed. The Generation X attitude to love is,
of course, flippant, but as decisions are made and commitments are broken, the
biggest casualty are the children of Generation X. This is made clear at the end of
the film, and was so pungent I took a week to recover from the shock I received
from this epiphany.
The SF premise isn't unique (although it pretty much was back then), but the focus
is a completely different one than in other artificial reality films. Especially
during the first part it is an elaborate crime picture, that uses the SF premise to
tell an unusual crime story in which the forced detective tries to solve a mystery
with the obstacle of vanishing characters and unhelpful witnesses who don't have to
lie to be unhelpful. Instead of an unreliable narrator we have an unreliable
world. In part two we follow the main character's struggle for sanity
and it turns more into a psychological examination of a character in an extreme
situation. He knows his very existence is nothing more than electrical impulses,
how does he deal with this knowledge? He knows that there is a world that is more
real than his, but he is trapped in an artificial world, a world where nobody can
understand him. The problem of thinking of knowing something essential about the
world that nobody else knows or wants to believe is a very real one that many of us
can identify with. For me the film transports this hopelessness very well, with its
dreary, artificial atmosphere which also supports the factual artificiality of the
film's world. Other than 'The Matrix' or 'The Thirteenth Floor' it's
little concerned with evoking a sense of awe for its artificial reality plot,
instead it very much focuses on the psychological aspects. Philosophy is only in so
far interesting in that certain philosophical concepts are essential in how they
shape and alter the character's perception of the world. Arguably it is
longer than it has to be (which isn't a problem if you are as captivated by it as I
was) and part 2 runs pretty low on steam.
During my teens or should I say prime time I was "eating up" all kinds of SF novels
every day of the week. It was in the Sixties and Seventies when TV was not such a
important leisure time killer like today, one night in the mid seventies I watched
the movie on TV I think it was ARD and I was stunned. I was impressed in a way that
I can almost remember each scene even today. Nowadays I observe my kids
playing the SIMS or something like that and I think we are close to what that
Fassbender Movie expressed. I also would highly appreciate if I could buy this
movie on a DVD. But in vain I tried almost everything to get a hint where. The
movie MATRIX cannot touch by far the quality and the state of art of this movie.
And by the way by now we do not have a glue if we were a superior reality or just
one of a couple simulation models. Probably after our death we definitely will
know...
When I saw this film the first time I was very impressed concerning the kind of
atmosphere the director creates. It is also very interesting to see how they
imagine the near future in the year 1974. If you see the film you will see a lot of
sets and customs which are called freaky and modern again today. The
topic of the film deals with the old question "What is real and what is illusion?".
If you see "The Matrix" you will find a lot of similarities. But the two films are
not comparable at all because "Welt am Draht" is art and "The Matrix" is
entertainment. If prefer the first one. Unfortunately I lost my video
copy of it. 
In these days of ultra-fast processors and the Internet, coming up with a movie
like "The Matrix" may seem merely the next step from coining the term 'cyberspace',
but do you remember what computers were like in 1974? Right. To come up with the
notion of virtual reality back then is truly an amazing feat of the imagination.
Fassbinder's movie, of course, has none of the massive gunslinging and
pyrotechnics, and a lot of 'artsy' elements instead, but the atmosphere it creates
is intense and poses the question how we can know what is real in a dark and
gripping manner, making this a chiller and a thriller for the mind. It also takes
it up a notch on more recent VR stories: if you get out of one cyberspace, can you
be sure you didn't just emerge into another level of virtual reality?
One of the best movies I ever saw - a classic "Matrix" movie. For many years, I
have been trying to get it on VHS or DVD - to no avail. The German movie/TV
industry still prefers to let valuable cultural contributions (and this is
Fassbinder, after all!) rot away and collect dust in some archive rather than
distribute it commercially (and make a lot of money with it if that is what
stimulates them instead of the promotion of creative thinking). Though, the WDR
once told me if I paid DM 200.00 to check the copyright (non-reimbursable), and
then DM 8 per minute of copying, plus the cost for the materials, then they will
consider preparing a (single!) copy for me. Some way to sell something! The same
problem we have with many other TV movies or series like "So weit die Füße tragen",
"Sonntagseltern", "Kellerkinder", and others. Excellent TV series - never to be
heard of again. Germany, wake up! UPDATE from March 2007: Last year, I
finally could get a DVD copy from the "Mittschnittservice" of the WDR for about 50+
Euro. Great!
I really liked this picture, because it realistically dealt with two people in
love, and one of them having a disorder. Though the ending saddened me, I know that
that was the best way for it to finish off. I would recommed this to everyone.
Because it's late and i'm running short on vocabulary, i will describe this film as
"beautiful and heartbreaking," begging the forgiveness of those who cringe at such
cliches. Robin Tunney does an amazing job portraying a young woman in the clutches
of tourette's syndrome - her character was absolutely sincere and convincing, and i
will follow her career wherever it goes because of this film.
Niagra Niagra was certainly not the best movie I have seen. However., I cannot
describe the way the movie made me feel while watching it and how I felt as it
ended and also how I feel about it now. Very few movies have such an effect on me.
I like them or I do not. I look at Niagra Niagra as a work of art. We all see
something in it and it may remind us of something or it may instill fear or fun
etc... This movie had me in not the best mood. In fact it left me feeling empty
somehow. I guess because the lives these two persons led were so empty in so many
ways. They had no direction. Their only direction was to have no direction. They
had many problems to deal with and I guess needed to get away from what could not
have been a happy life. But on the way things really only got worse. A steady
decline from where it started. It was sad as it was so well acted and I guess we
have all most likely seen someone in some situation that may in some way resemble
the situation these folks were in. They might have had a good life if they had any
idea how. But it Wes clear they did not know what to do. So they kind of Rambled to
someplace they had heard about. No real goal. They had no idea how to have a goal.
They had no idea how to overcome the life that was set before them. I felt bad but
could not stop watching the movie. Only good actors can make me feel so much about
a movie that I would not like if just anyone played the parts. These two did a
great job to the point you just did not see the acting. I am very impressed and
want to buy the movie when it is available on DVD. You know. It left me feeling a
little like Leaving Los Vegas did. But again it is in a class of its own. Not a
great movie but well worth an hour or two on the right day. If you are a person who
has problems I would not suggest you watch it. It could depress you. It depressed
me and I have not the conditions these folks had. JimmyJoeJetter
I tuned in to this movie because there was nothing else to watch. I was immediately
sucked in by the characters. Robin Tunney is nothing less than
spectacular in this film. Her portrayal of a mentally ill woman is both moving and
100% believable. Really, this sort of thing is not easy to do. She pulls it off
fantastically. We know early on this film is going to end tragically,
but you cannot take your eyes off of it. The characters do stupid things, but
unlike most Hollywood movies where people do stupid things because the plot demands
it, these people do stupid things because the are not right in the head - and the
things they do are completely consistent with their characters. This is
just a great example of film making IMHO. Great writing, great acting, great
directing. A film for people who think film can be more than mindless
entertainment.
I have watched this movie time and time and time again - each time it makes me
laugh, it makes me think, and it makes me cry. Robin Tuney does an incredible job
of portraying Marcy (and I'm kind of glad that Kate Winslet and that other lady
turned down her part) its just one of those rolls that you know that no one else
could have even compared. Its a beautiful love story of these 2 very
different people in crappy situations that team up together. They stand beside each
other no matter what, even if it is in an odd situation and crazy ways. I'll tell you now its not for everyone - out of everyone I've shown it to I'd say
the results are 50/50 - but if you like it, you'll love it and want to share it
with others! 10 stars all the way!
OK....so, by minute 15 in the film, there's still no dialogue. This film
arrived to me in a padded sack from Down Under, with Sharpie encrypted info on the
front. I am a programmer from a North American fest, and MOD LOVE was sent thru to
me by our chief as a potential starter having preem'd at the far-away
Moscow/Karlovy Vary interface. Straight away I thought "this film is not
for us" (no dialogue by minute 15??) but kept watching anyway. Well, well, well. It
built and built and built, and half way in I was involved in this film, because,
like when you go to the zoo, at first you're reticent, but by the time you get to
the dangerous snakes bit, you're totally 'there'. This film has a
dangerousness, not at all like the much hyped WolF Creek, but because it is so
totally 'other' in every way shape and form, and seems to weave a web made up of
all the fantasies of most independent first-time helmers ie. - gloomy weather, red-
neck intrigue, odd splicing, eerie music, and a plot which, though imperfect and
basic, has a bit in common with one of the 'great Aussie Movies' ie The Cars That
Ate Paris, by Wier. But MODERN LOVE is actually not really a very Aussie movie in
the sense of Ocker-ishness and playful self-deprecation that pervades many of that
country's films. It works on a more nightmarish realm from the start. No cell-
phones, no brand names, no i-pods, no gritty urban middle/class angst - just a dude
married to a good-looker, an old Volvo, and a little boy (son) who has weird teeth
and chucks stuff around. Oh and it's set in weird sea-side village where people all
look slightly 'wrong.' Photographed by Nick Matthews (2:37) and music by Tom
Huzenroeder (Ten Canoes) MOD LUV succeeds where many Aust. movies fail - ie it
stands up without regard to the "god-forsaken" country that it comes out of.
Instead, it revels in a warped but entertaining riddle which the film itself cannot
solve - and herein lies the weak link...what on earth does this film have to do
with "Modern Love"???? The final minutes of the film seem to give an answer, or at
least hints at one....and as I sat and drank a coffee and ate my Hershey's
afterwards, all that I could surmise was that this film's helmer, Alex Frayne, will
prob have a lot of fun with this one./
I like movies about quirky people. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is maybe my
all time favorite, so one can imagine I had a blast with this one. It's definitely
not one to watch if you want to walk off smiling. This movie is unpredictable and
intense. Some scenes are downright frightening, even after multiple viewings
(because this kind of stuff really can happen). It will most definitely keep you on
the edge of your seat for the whole ride. And after you see the ending, if you're
not deeply disturbed, you really should check yourself for a pulse. The
acting was phenomenal. Marcy, with her rather extreme case of tourette's, shifts
from quirky-cute to utterly terrifying, sometimes appearing so out-of-control that
she looks like the undead. Seth was great, too. The focus of the movie definitely
does not fall nearly as much on him as it does on Marcy, though he happens to be
the one that gains the most momentum as a blossoming character. It's a
classic love story with some unconventional twists, and it's also my favorite love
story next to "True Romance." There are two bad reviews for it up here, but one of
the people who gave such a review didn't have his facts straight and admitted to
not seeing the whole film, while the other was just looking for some Hollywood
thrills without the deep characters (and perhaps was a little thrown off by the
apparent shallowness of the plot, seeing as the end goal revolves around stealing a
black bobbi head from a toy store). The point is that this movie is not for those
who want to see something "normal" or "lighthearted". This one is messed up and
indie as can be, and won't let you go until the heavy climax.
This movie is truly worth seeing - Robin Tunney excels and Henry Thomas proves that
he's one of those rarities, the child 'actor' who grows up to become a real actor.
The characters are perfectly drawn, and in the wrong hands because of their depth,
they could have been unconvincing - but all the actors are simply astounding. The
cast of this movie has to rank up there with that of "Girl, Interrupted" (both
movies coincidentally star the brilliant Clea Duvall). The score and music
selections fit perfectly, and there is plenty of action to prevent the movie
becoming just a character study. If you want the story, you won't find it in this
review, but I will say that the climax will haunt you for a long time.
Not only is this a very interesting exploration of Tourette's and how we react to
people in our lives, it has some of the most well-filmed views of a bleak northern
winter landscape. There's nothing pretty about this film, but it stays with the
viewer.
Wow! I caught this on IFC recently after I watched But Im A Cheerleader. Id never
heard of this movie but the description sounded remotely interesting. I went in
with low expectations and now I must say this is one of the best love stories ever
in film. Robin Tunney does an excellent job portraying a person with tourettes. The
relationship between the two and just the slightest details in the film are so
acurate and believable. I usually hate "romance" and love films but this movie
truly touched me. I so recommend this movie to anyone with the ability of vision.
Niagara, Niagara is a stunning and heartbreaking story about the two outsiders Seth
and Marcy. Robin Tunney gives a fantastic performance as Marcy suffering from
Tourette's Sydrome, getting sicker and sicker as the movie progresses. This movie
is not very optimistic and it's very hard emotional, but at the same time very
romantic. It's hard to explain, but see it and find out for yourself. It's
definitely worth it.
Henry Thomas, and Robin Tunny, are a couple of the most underrated performers in
the business. It's beyond me as to why they haven't received more recognition than
they have. This movie is a perfect example of how boundless their abilities are. Acting out the lives of folks who could be referred to as a bit odd seems
to be their speciality, and if these characters ain't odd, I'm at a loss to find
anyone who is. The story is funny, romantic, dramatic, complicated, and
tragic. I hated the ending, but if I hadn't, I wouldn't have loved the story as a
whole. So there ya go.
There are many things to admire about this film, but the thing that got me above
all others was the part of an eccentric recluse, the sort of role that Hollywood
loves & romanticizes but which here is absolutely convincing & unlike any character
I've encounterd in film or in life. Also a very convincing & disturbing depiction
of Tourete's syndrome
I watched this movie in 75 and this movie was a kind of open mind to me about how
important is to care the Natur and the Wild life. When i got a Dog in 83, i called
him TRUSKA ( In Movie..Avakun's dog ) to never forget this movie. By
the way, i HAVE a Copy this Movie, but is in Portuguese Language and the quality is
not so good like a DVD or a New VHS ( i recorded almost 20 years ago and in SLP
speedy.. so the quality is not so good..) If somebody wish a Copy.. i'll
try convert to DVD and i can send for you OK? Ot's a great movie and i
agree that is a movie to be always watched. Waldemar Braz - Sao
Paulo/Brazil
Another "must have" film. Henry Brandon is a favorite! I was so surprised when I
learned years ago that he was from Germany because he sounds & looks so typically
American! And wasn't he great in "The Searchers" as Chief Scar??!! Another of my
favorites, I have it & watch it over & again. Now if I could add this one to my
collection, it would make my day! This is a great wildlife story & film for all
ages. The scenery is so absolutely beautiful & the plight of the endangered snow
leopards is told with such great emotion it will spark the interest in endangered
species in anyone, especially children. If I could I would give a copy to all of my
grands & great grands!
This is one of my favourite films, dating back to my childhood. Set in the remote
wilderness of Siberia at the turn of the century, a small community is stirred when
an extremely cold winter forces two tigers to come down from the mountains in
search of food, preying on outlying farms. In this atmosphere we are introduced to
Avakum, a hermit fur trapper, who lives out in the wilds, as he comes to the
village to sell his annual catch to Boris, his close, and rather only, friend in
the village, who runs a store. At Boris' request, Avakum accompanies his friend's
arrogant son, Ivan, on the hunt for the menacing tigers. Personalities crash and
tempers flare as the older, more experienced Avakum criticises Ivan's amateur
methods, an encounter noticed also by the other members of the hunt. On the second
day, the hunters sight their prey and give chase. In a thick wood, Ivan wounds one
of the tigers, which then attacks the hapless man. Avakum, seeing Ivan tangling
with the enraged beast, fires, but accidently hits Ivan. He kills the tiger as it
flees. The other hunters arrive on the scene, suspicious. Back in the
village, the doctor works to save the wounded Ivan. Avakum attempts to leave the
village, but is confronted by Ivan's friends. The trapper brushes them off however,
and speeds off with his dog-drawn sled. The young villagers swear after him that
they'll come for him if Ivan dies, which he later does, but before dying explains
to his father that it was an accident. Old Boris, upon learning of his close friend
being run out of the village, straightens out the gathering "lynch mob" and goes
out after Avakum, to find him and set things right. And so the main story
begins. A simple film, it raises the conflict of man and civilisation
versus nature, mainly Avakum's struggle to survive alone out in the wilderness. The
winter landscape is very well filmed. Perhaps the strongest element in the film is
the soundtrack by Jimmie Haskell. Very sentimental and evocative, the main theme
reminiscent of Albinoni's Adagio. Other movements reflect Russian styles, as well
as a couple of folk music type tunes. Unfortunately, this film is not
available to buy, to my knowledge, which is rather a shame. The copy I own,
recorded off TV nearly twenty years ago is slowly deteriorating. This film is a
must see for those who can appreciate it, if they can find it. 8/10
I saw this film via one of the actors' agents, and it surely conforms with a great
deal that comes out of Sth. Australia in terms of the overall *tone,* which is
rightly dark and moody. I thought the little boy in the film was
excellent. Mostly kid actors are *hammed up* and embarrassing but not in this case.
He was really very good. In terms of the *surrealism* thingy mentioned by jingo,
well, I just think this film is plain 'weird.' It's a real weirdo film, with weirdo
locations, storyline, weird stuff going on the whole time. But 'good' weird as
opposed to 'bad'. Its hard to think of other movies like it, but its not
at all like CARS ATE Paris, maybe more like a REPULSION, but actually I think more
like a Hammer movie from the 60's. Its certainly has an interesting mind working
behind it. JINGO, My question is also about the title. Why Modern Love??
Anyone? Also, jingo, what did you mean by "god Forsaken" when you were talking
about Australia, hmmm? Just curious
I managed to obtain an original BBC broadcast of this film on video and loved it so
much I had to try and locate the original video in its original box; thanks go to
Ebay. Deleted on any format since 1990, this exceptional wildlife film
is finely constructed and well acted. Directed by Stewart Raffil (MAC & Me), the
scenes of leaping Tigers running through the Alaskan wilderness is nothing short of
stunning and its timeless tale of a trapper trying to survive on his own in the
frozen wastes with two young tiger cubs is moving on each viewing. Why
no major company has picked up this movie to distribute on DVD is a big wonder; but
makes it that extra special to know its also hard to locate. If you find
this film by chance or eventually track it down to add to your collection, make
sure never to let it vanish out of your grasp. Films of this calibre, as shown,
don't come often. A true masterpiece in every sense of the word, and
highly worthy of its praised comments, "WHEN THE NORTH WIND BLOWS" will sink deep
into your heart as soon as you see it.
I collect films on Super-8, and managed to snag a full length print of this one
last week on E-bay. It looks like at least for the moment, this is the only way to
see this film in a country having NTSC video. I have seen it available on Region 2
DVD many times, but never Region 1. I just finished watching it a few
minutes ago and I am amazed by it. It's a powerful testament to freedom and finding
your own place in the world. The photography and music were wonderful, and I really
felt empathy for some of the characters. I kind of like the idea that I
was probably the only one in the USA watching "When the North Wind Blows" tonight!
 Long Live Avakum!!
I remember this film,it was the first film i had watched at the cinema the picture
was dark in places i was very nervous it was back in 74/75 my Dad took me my
brother & sister to Newbury cinema in Newbury Berkshire England. I recall the
tigers and the lots of snow in the film also the appearance of Grizzly Adams actor
Dan Haggery i think one of the tigers gets shot and dies. If anyone knows where to
find this on DVD etc please let me know.The cinema now has been turned in a fitness
club which is a very big shame as the nearest cinema now is 20 miles away, would
love to hear from others who have seen this film or any other like it.
This film is one of the best memories I have from childhood. Having always loved
Tigers my Mum took me to see it. It is absolutely amazing. Its is one
of those films that leaves a lasting impression on you. The image of Tigers running
through the snow with it all spraying around is still in my head some 25 yrs on,
not many films have managed that, As other comments have said photography is
stunning. A must see. I have also been looking for the film for some time with no
luck at all. :-(. Checking Amazon every now and then reveals nothing, not even
listed. If anyone does know of a source, please contact me or post here. Tim
I saw this movie alone when i was an early teen in my hometown in India, at a time
when the only thing that fascinated me aside from girls were Tigers. I came home
after watching it, with a glazed look in my eye, wanting to be that bloke in the
movie that befriended the Tigers. What a movie and what a moment that was! The
theatre I saw it in does not exist any and has given way to a shopping mall. I
don't know how i'd feel about it now after so many years and do not want to spoil a
childhood memory by finding this movie available on DVD or something similar and
not finding it interesting anymore. I have learned from previous experience that a
childhood memory is often tarnished when one travels life's jaded highways
occasionally trying to rediscover their unadulterated past by way of movies, only
to find its gushing innocence completely soppy and not welcome anymore. And I do
not want to throw away the experiences of a memory of this movie into the wind. I
do not have kids, so i probably am being selfish in leaving this movie in a sepia
toned area of my brain, not wanting it on DVD. But if you are at a precocious age
and want to recollect in later years memories of an endearing childhood, try to
watch this film(if you can ever). It'll be really worth it.
If it were possible to award a 10+ .... this would be the one film I would
choose. I remember catching this film on TV many, many years ago - and
fortunately being prepared enough to video it. Now my video copy is getting old,
video technology is outdated and I'm starting to worry that I may not be able to
enjoy the delights of this movie for much longer. As a wildlife film it
is superb. As a film about the relationship between man and nature it surpasses
anything screened before or since. How can the film industry allow such a classic
to go unnoticed and forgotten? If such a thing as a lobby/pressure group exists to
push for the re-release of this film, count me in and send me the details
pronto. My guess is there's a mint to be made by anyone able to re-
release this in today's market.
THE FEELING of the need to have someone play the role of Arbiter of Public Taste
and Political Correctness always manages to get under our skin. It does seem that
these self-appointed, self-superior, pseudo-intellectual types do appear
everywhere; be it in one's family, church or bowling league. THESE are
the guys who would have society completely disregard and ignore all that went
before us; unless, of course, whatever 'it' is does not fly in the face of today's
"acceptable" language, mores and general "standards" of "proper" behavior. SO it is that these latter day, high tech book burners have targeted a great deal
of what was Hollywood's greatest achievement; namely their participation in our own
Allied Propaganda via their unselfishly crafted message and theme films. COLDLY brutal in its generation, the Banned Code and List of Now
Unacceptable extends into the Wartime Cartoons that don't meet with the new touchy,
feely socially engineered 'official' attitudes; which these "Thought Police" have
foisted down upon us. WE were truly surprised to see that there seem to
be volumes of such animated short subjects. The majority we are aware of are from
Warner Brothers' LOONEY TUNES and MERRIE MELODIES; featuring Bugs, Daffy, Elmer &
Porky, all in conflict with Hitler, Goerring, 'Il Duce', Tojo and the like.
Surprisingly though, we found an ample supply of cartoons from MGM, Walt Disney,
Lantz, Paramount-Famous Studios and the Brothers Fleischer. YOU'RE A SAP
MR. JAP (Famous Studios/Paramount Pictures, 1942) is a prime example of just what
we're talking about. BEING virtually indiscernible from the cartoons
that were the output of the Studios of Max and Dave Fleischer before the 1941
business coup-de-tat that moved them out, bringing the new name of "Famous"
Studios, YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP bore none of the bland plot elements that would
reduce the latter day Popeye Cartoons down to the level of the ultimate formula
short movie. WE all remember how we'd have Popeye and Olive Oyl
together. Enter Bluto, usually the exponent of wolf whistle and an on acceptable
on-screen version of a Male reaction to feminine pulchritude. Olive falls for
Bluto's less than honorable attentions; until he gets a little too physical and
invariably blurts out, "Hey Babe, how 'bout a kiss?" At this point we hear "Help!
Help, Popeye and the diminutive sailor shows up to save the day; replete with the
obligatory can of Spinach! DO we exaggerate, Schultz? ONCE again this JAP SAP
cartoon is nothing like any of that. Oh sure, it follows the storyline of now
having Popeye in the U.S. Navy. The Brothers Fleischer put the little guy in the
service in 1941 to conform to the mood in the country and as an open gesture of
support for the men now being conscripted in the first Peacetime Draft in United
States History. Max and Dave even put Popeye in service aboard the mythical
Battleship, the U.S.S. Pensyltucky. OUR point is just this. YOU'RE A SAP
MR. JAP and others like SPINACH FER Britain aren't cartoon vehicles for comic
relief in the Theatre's program at all in the true sense. Rather they are a sort of
grouping of Editorial Cartoons much like those from any "Great Metropolitan
Newspaper". These animated shorts, much like those still one panel illustrations,
have characters that are highly symbolic and representative of Nations, Ideas and
Ideals, such as a just and lasting Peace. In most cases, the hero (Popeye, Bugs
Bunny or whoever) is alone with the symbol of the Enemy. Both are highly
exaggerated visual metaphors for abstract concept and thought; even if they are
cloaked in humorous trappings for wider palatability. OUR liberal
stupidgencia (the antithesis of intelligencia) may not see themselves this way; but
for this sort of behavior, they are no more than Neo Nazi Book burners. PLEASE, allow the future generations to view and appreciate a view of past
happenings that is both Historical and Humorous. POODLE SCHNITZ!!
If you are very sensitive when it comes to extreme racial stereotypes, this cartoon
is not for you. But if you are strongly interested in seeing a rare piece of
wartime animation, come on in! In this cartoon, Popeye is patrolling the
seas and discovers what looks like a Japanese fishing boat. The two Japanese
fishermen trick Popeye into thinking that they want a peace treaty signed. But
looks can be deceiving; the fishing boat turns out to be a Japanese navy ship! What
follows is considered today to be morale-boosting propaganda. Be
forewarned, the representations of the Japanese in the film are done in a mean-
spirited fashion. Keep in mind, though, that there was a war going on at the time.
But I strongly recommend this cartoon to those who are interested in the WWII era.
This World War II Popeye cartoon had some very good sight gags in it, and its
decidedly above-average for its genre. It was nicely drawn, too, with some great
angles, good detail and....well, lots of interesting sights. What it
amounts to is Popeye out at sea in his little boat and accidentally running into a
small Japanese boat, with two guys on it. (Incidentally, why were the "Japs" always
pictured with big, round glasses and bucked teeth?). Anyway, these
harmless-looking Japanese sailors want Popeye to sign a peace treaty. Oh, boy,
thinks the gullible Popeye, "wait until the Admiral sees this!" In one of those
great artwork scenes I was alluding to above, we slowly see how that little
Japanese ship is really a big destroyer.....and Popeye is in deep....um, water!
"Why, you double-crossing Ja-pansies!," yells our Sailor Man. How he
gets out of the situation is fun to watch.
This short was the first short released by Paramount Famous Studios and was one of
several done by the studio showing Popeye engaged directly against the enemy, most
often the Japanese. While Warner Brothers, Disney and, to a lesser extent, other
studios, did shorts often depicting Germans as foils, the majority of Famous
Studios efforts focused on the Japanese. Given Pearl Harbor and Popeye's naval
ties, this is quite understandable. This is an average short. Seein' Red, White an'
Blue and Spinach For Britain have aged better. But it's still worth watching.
Recommended.
Jingofighter I agree with some of your comments, but I have to disagree on a couple
of things. First, this film is nothing like THE CARS THAT ATE Paris. Not IMHO.
Nothing like it. I think the film had elements of surrealism, but I
think the basic approach of the film maker is not "surrealist" per se. therefore
its not really like CARS Paris, I think more like a weird Euro work, with some
scenes bearing the hallmark of "wierd" not surreal. Secondly, I think
the music by Heuzenroeder is brilliant. They used whistling, that old sound from
Country and Western records, and its waaayyy better than most Aussie films which
usually team the film maker up with a dumb sounding Indy band that the company
wants to push. As for the name of the film - I don't know why it's
called Modern Love, I was kinda hoping for David Bowie to appear dressed in drag
and lipstick... opps I'm starting to show my age.
i loved the great lighting and was warmed by this story of American working class
society and seaport life in the first half of the 20th century. i was drawn in by
the timeless watchability of this realistic performance. see and feel the star
power. melancholic "greek" comedy. Anybody in the mood for a shot with a beer
back?...or a little ginger? Hey, waterboy !!
Viewed this GREAT Classic film of Greta Garbo and thought her performance was
excellent. However, the German film version which had English captions was her
greatest performance. Greta Garbo even mentioned to the press that the German film
was her favorite where she had to make the change from Silent films to sound. Greta
had a high pitched voice and had to take lessons in order to lower her voice for
her future roles in films. This story was very sad because Greta Garbo(Anna
Christie),"Ninotchka",'39, was abused on a farm by young boys and her father left
her years ago as a sailor and then as a coal barge captain. There were many scenes
of Old NYC, the Brooklyn Bridge, Coney Island and the sky line of Manhattan.
Charles Bickford(Matt Burke),"Days of Wine & Roses",'62 a Classic veteran actor
gave a great supporting role.
039: Anna Christie (1930) - released 2/21/1930; viewed 3/10/06 On
October 24, 1929: Black Thursday, the stock market crashes. Now the country and
indeed the world will look to Hollywood for escape from the worldwide Great
Depression. BIRTHS: Anne Frank, June Carter, Yasser Arafat, Bob Newhart,
Barbara Walters, Doris Roberts, Ed Asner, Dick Clark, Roy E. Disney, Gene
Hackman. DOUG: At long last, our Odyssey resumes in earnest with Greta
Garbo's first sound film, a simple character study called Anna Christie. An
excellent performance from Ms. Garbo, who showed right off the bat that her talents
could carry over from the silent era (I wanted to see some of her silent work, but
Netflix doesn't seem to be stocking them. How odd). One thing I noticed over and
over was the way the Swedish accent sounds, like replacing the letter J with a Y
sound. Anna ends up being the only character I liked; I didn't really care for her
estranged father or her would-be suitor. It looks like the sound-recording systems
are getting better (nobody leaning in to talk into the mystery-can), but the camera
still isn't moving. We'll be sure to watch for that to change as our odyssey
continues. KEVIN: Our first film of the 1930's is the first sound film
of silent starlet Greta Garbo, Anna Christie. This is a very simple movie, with
only about five different locations where we spend long stretches of the film's 89
minute running time, often with a static camera. It was great to see Marie Dressler
in sound as well, and quite hilarious as what we hear is an endless chain of
heartfelt yet inebriated slurs. I very much enjoyed Garbo's performance, as she
sustains the film through even the most meandering moments. I didn't really like
George Marion or Charles Bickford, maybe because I wasn't sympathetic to either of
them, so I was relieved and excited when Anna finally stands up for herself and
shows them that she doesn't "belong" to either her estranged father or her muscle-
bound Irish boyfriend. It's also great to see that renowned silent screenwriter
Frances Marion hasn't missed a step going from silent to sound. Last
film viewed: Speedy (1928). Last film chronologically: The Love Parade (1929). Next
film: The Blue Angel (1930).
The magnificent Greta Garbo is in top form in this, her first talkie. She gets fine
support from the rest of the cast which includes Charles Bickford the rugged sailor
who captures her heart. Ms. Garbo gives a great performance as she usually does as
the estranged daughter of a sea captain who returns after fifteen years. Also in
the cast is that great actress Marie Dressler. A great movie!
'Anne Christie' was Garbo's 14th film and the first in which her husky Swedish
voice was heard. She plays the lead character, Anna, who has struggled with being
abandoned by her father Chris (a drunken barge owner played by George F Marion),
and with the misfortune of the life she has has to lead to keep her head above
water. Meeting Irish Matt (Charles Bickford) may mark the turning point
for her ... or does it? Garbo looks and sounds great in this drama which, although
looking rather clunky and moving at a slow pace, still manages to interest and
engage an audience nearly 80 years later. Marie Dressler makes an impact in the
role which gave her a second flush of movie success in films such as Min and Bill,
Dinner at Eight, and Emma; while Marion and Bickford are more than adequate. An interesting slice of movie history. Garbo would do better talkies in the
years following, but 'Anna Christie' will always be remembered for the first time
she talked on screen.
Viewing both of these films concurrently is not a bad idea to get a sense of early
film production and acting for the camera styles. I give the nod to Garbo(but not
by much)in regard to her naturalness. Robeson is majestic. But his performance is
aimed for a large proscenium theater. Something else that struck me was the movies
themes of empowerment for women and minorities. There hadn't been any films coming
out of Hollywood yet that allowed the voices of marginal characters like Anna and
Brutus to take the foreground. These were very progressive films for their time.
It's quite probable that O'Neill saw the writing on the wall way before everyone
else did about the future of America.
Greta Garbo stars in 'Anna Christie', a very early 1930 MGM 'talkie', the first
time 'Garbo Talks'. 'Anna Christie' is a powerful movie but not for everyone. The
movie is filmed like a stage play, short on sets and cinematography, long on
dialogue and dramatic characterizations. Eugene O'Neil who wrote the play 'Anna
Christie' is known for his dark work and Garbo's character Anna Christie is a bleak
figure with a tortured past. The sound quality on the DVD was mediocre.
Not helping matters is that George F. Marion who plays Anna's estranged dad, Chris
Christofferson, is verbally hard to understand. Marion gives a good performance as
the old drunken seamen who’s teetering on insanity with his fixation of the evil
'devil sea'. But his dialogue is written with a very heavy Swedish accent, this is
true to O'Neils original play. Marie Dressler's dialogue as Marthy Owens is equally
hard to understand. Dressler believably portrays a broken down old drunken women, a
'wharf rat'. Her dialogue also is true to O'Neils original play as is Charles
Bickford as the Irish seamen, Matt Burke who pursues Anna in a troubled
relationship. Garbo is actually the easiest to understand. The films
strong point is Greta Garbo. She delivers a gut wrenching performance as the victim
of neglect and abuse, leading to a life of prostitution. Garbo was a huge star at
the time and considered one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. Here her look
isn't glamorous, it's tortured. Her body posture nearly doubles over in agony. She
scrunches her face to become a pathetic creature on the screen. Garbo conveys these
angst-ridden feelings to the viewer to convince us of her misery. This
is dark subject matter and Garbo brings it to life. It’s not light fare, not fun,
not for everyone. ‘Anna Christie’ is strong emotions dredged up from the depths for
examination, this is one helluva ride.
Anna Christie (1930) Anna Christie has some terrific parts, and some
amazing performances, and yet it should be even better than it is. It has drama.
Some of the scenes are really atmospheric, and if the interior shots around the
table are a bore, other shots at night and at sea are really pretty exciting. Then
there are the nearly historical, lively scenes set in Coney Island (even a brief
jittery roller coaster ride), and the episode where two women are behind a netting
in separate beds, and visitors to the midway can throw balls to try to tip them
over, and the women (scantily dressed) egg the men on is weirdly sexual come-on
kind of way. All the while Garbo (at the front of the crowd) watches. Garbo of course is what makes this movie more than just another very good early
talkie. She plays all sides of her character. She is coy and skeptical and in some
kind of inner anguish. She laughs and cries, withdraws and pushes outward. In some
ways it's a forward looking, remarkable movie (directed by Clarence Brown, who has
a whole series of significant films from this pre-code sound era). Though based on a successful Eugene O'Neil play, it's the writing that struggles
a little as the actors seem to go through the paces at times. Marie Dressler is
great in that exaggerated way she almost trademarked. And then there is Greta
Garbo, who really does have a natural presence, even if it seems she's overacting,
just slightly, at times (but then, so is everyone else). Garbo is of course famous
first as a silent actress, and this is her talking film debut. Audiences loved her
enough that she made a German language version the following year.
This film is worthwhile despite what you may hear. The performance of Marie
Dressler (I hope I am spelling it right) as a drunken old sot is reason enough to
see this film. It is an amazing performance. She is in a drunken stupor in three
scenes for a good long while and she never does the same thing twice. You can
actually smell the alcohol when she is done. Amazing. And Greta of course speaks
her first lines on film and shes great. The Eugene O'Neill story is solid and like
most O'Neill stories, very deep and intense. This is not light entertainment but if
you appreciate those great character actors from the 30's and 40's you will like
it. Some of the film is technically fuzzy but all in all worthwhile.
And with those words one of the great movie publicity campaigns came to a
conclusion. 'Garbo Talks' and she spoke those words in her first sound film, an
adaption of the Eugene O'Neil play Anna Christie. Unlike with some
other players and some other studios, MGM took great care in finding the proper
vehicle for Greta Garbo. Many players who were fine in the universal medium of
silent film would lose their careers because of talkies. Their heavy native accents
would get in the way, some didn't know any English. It was no accident
that Anna Christie was chosen for Garbo. First of all it being authored by one of
America's leading playwrights, it was the kind of literary property that would have
appealed to her. Secondly since the title role was someone who was Swedish, the
accent could be explained. Finally a lot of the kinks from early talkies had been
worked out, even though Anna Christie still made use of title cards. Like most of O'Neil's work it's short on action, but long and deep on
characterization. The story takes place on the New York waterfront where Garbo as
Anna has come to live with her father George Marion. Marion ran away to sea years
ago when Anna was a baby and Marion abandoned his wife. Anna has had to do what she
could to survive in the adult world and that includes prostitution. Marion of course is glad to see her, he even kicks out Marie Dressler, the old
waterfront crone he's been living with for years to make room for his flesh and
blood. Of course both Marion and Garbo have their problems adjusting to each other,
not made easy when they give shelter to a sailor played by Charles Bickford who
takes a fancy to Garbo. Marion is repeating his role from the original
Broadway production. The role of Anna on stage was done by Pauline Lord. Anna
Christie ran for 177 performances in the 1921-22 season on Broadway. It's one of
O'Neil's best known works and one that's revived frequently. Of course
Garbo's performance with perfect diction even with a Swedish accent was acclaimed
and her future in sound films was assured. Greta Garbo received an Oscar nomination
for Best Actress and the film also got nominations for Clarence Brown as Best
Director and William Daniels for Cinematography. Daniels should especially get a
lot of kudos for the way he photographed the waterfront scenes. And Brown created
the mood around the waterfront where the film is set. Eugene O'Neil's
work is timeless so Anna Christie even with a lot of the trappings of early sound
films does not date the way many films of that era do. Garbo also shows she
mastered the subtlety needed to work in the sound medium. Anna Christie is a
classic, all the way around.
I saw this at the BendFilm Festival Friday amid an unsettled crowd of people, not
helped by a poor decision by the planners of the event, who chose a totally
inappropriate short film to precede the movie. And it really threw the audience
when Modern Love came up after a light, whimsical short (name I forget). People!!! It was really silly to mix this short with Modern Love - which is
a serious drama movie. A film film. So the audience gets the teaser
which is a comedy and then...Modern Love. Hmmmm. Modern Love, despite my
reservations (strange ending, a little too tangential)needed a short film that was
commensurate with it's oddball strangeness, so my advice to the programmers for
next year is to take more care planning the show. The folks watching
Modern Love really just didn't know what had hit them, - they were led up the path
and this is not their fault. Modern Love has some superb performances
which play well against the tangential meanderings of the film - a film that its
maker seems to have 'wondered out loud' rather than executed in the normal way a
film is scripted and shot. Too bad the audience was misinformed. Wrong
session placement, wrong short film, wrong approach by the well intentioned
programmers, who, despite good efforts, need to see a lot more films and travel to
some other festivals.
I'd read all the negative reviews for "Anna Christie". You know, the gripes about
the static camera, out-dated acting and wordiness of the screenplay. But when I
viewed it yesterday I found it remarkably affecting and enjoyable. Yep, Clarence
Brown's camera remains stationary for the most part, and I'm pretty sure one of the
microphones was concealed in the ship's light. Yep, there's a lot of dialogue and
no spectacular action sequences. It's an early talkie with primitive technical
aspects. But... then there's Garbo, Marie Dressler, George F. Marion and Charles
Bickford, all proving that great acting is timeless. I believe "Anna
Christie" is still one of Garbo's most iconic performances. And it's a wonderful
performance from the Divine One, in a role that is really quite atypical for her.
Yes, we've seen Garbo weary and almost beaten, yet never with bags under her eyes
or her knocking back shots of whiskey. Garbo played so many (delightful) costume
roles, that to see her play a contemporary woman is fascinating. She's not weighed
down by heavy dresses or make-up. This performance seems quite raw from
Garbo. The plot, from the O'Neill play, follows weary Swedish ex-
prostitute Anna, and her reunion with her boozy, seaman father. Anna's had enough
trouble for any girl of twenty, as she tells drunken, slovenly Marthy (Dressler)in
a bar. She finds solace in a life at sea, and romance with a rough-hewn, but good-
hearted, fisherman (Charles Bickford). But her past threatens to ruin it all. Charles Bickford is overlooked in Garbo's long line of (largely inferior)
leading men. He's one actor who can actually share the screen with her and not get
swallowed up by her magical presence. The pair have great chemistry together and
seemed to enjoy working with one another. Dressler can never be accused of
underplaying, and once again the grand dame is up to her old tricks, but she's
terrific and convincing in her role, never annoying as in the dreadful "Dinner At
Eight". I've never really heard of George F. Marion before, but he was wonderful as
Garbo's father. This is Pre-Code, and rather gritty and dark by MGM's
standards. I really enjoyed it, and while it may creak in some places, it's still
wonderful.
For Greta Garbo's first talking picture, MGM wisely chose Eugene O'Neill's Pultizer
Prize winning 1921 play ANNA Christie. Also wisely, the producers
backed Garbo up with not one but two members of the Original Broadway Cast (George
Marion as Anna's father, Chris, and James T. Mack as Johnny the Priest - transmuted
to "Johnny the Harp" for films so as not to offend). This little change
is interesting. Like too many films accused (by those who want MOVIES to be MOVIES
and ignore their origins) of being "little more than filmed stage plays," the
problem is not the play but the movie makers who wouldn't be more faithful to the
property. By diluting a great cinematic stage work so it wouldn't offend anyone, or
opening it up because they COULD, too many lose the very qualities which made the
piece worth filming in the first place. Fortunately, the respect the
studio had for both O'Neill and Garbo allowed ANNA Christie to survive the normally
destructive process admirably in Frances Marion's generally sensitive screen
adaptation. Wonder of wonders, Marion even allows the POINT of the scene where
Garbo's Anna reveals her past on "the farm" to the man she badly wants to marry and
the father who sent her there in tact! What the League of Decency must have thought
of that! The source play's greatest problem has always been that
Chris's friend Marthy tends to walk away with the first act and then disappears
from the last two so that Anna can take stage - the two sides of the genuinely good
woman men don't always recognize. The perfectly cast Marie Dressler
(who had cut her teeth on the Broadway stage as well before going to Hollywood) is
the perfect balance for Garbo's Anna in this area as well and the fast moving film
at only 90 minutes, doesn't allow us too much time to miss her - one of the few
benefits from atmosphere being shown rather than eloquently described in the
original - AND screenwriter Marion is wise enough to stray from O'Neill to bring
Dressler back for a touching scene two thirds of the way through the film that will
remind many of Julie Laverne's second act appearance in SHOW BOAT. Anna
and Marthy's early scene together on screen (16 minutes into the film) taking each
other's measure and setting up all the tension of the rest of the story is among
the most affecting scenes in the entire piece. Not to be missed. ANNA
Christie is great tragic play and a good film drama. It's hard to imagine that a
latter day remake, which would almost certainly lose the grit and atmosphere of
this 1930 remake (it was first filmed without sound in 1923 - also with George
Marion's original Broadway Chris) could improve on this excellent filming. The internal scenes hew closest to the play, but the exteriors shouldn't be
missed by anyone with an eye to atmosphere. While the background screen work is not
to modern technical standards, the backgrounds give a better glimpse than most
films of the era of the actual world in which the screen play is set (especially in
the New York harbor). Nearly all Garbo's naturalistic performances of
the sound era have held up superbly (only the too often parodied death scene from
CAMILLE, 7 years later, will occasionally draw snickers because of the heavy handed
direction and the parodies), but this ANNA Christie, together with the variety of
her 1932 films, MATA HARI and GRAND HOTEL, and the sublime Lubitsch touch on her
1939 comedy, NINOTCHKA ("Garbo laughs!"), surely stand as her best. O'Neill fans who are taken with this play at the edge of his lauded "sea plays,"
should track down the fine World War II shaped film released in the year before the
U.S. entered the conflict, THE LONG VOYAGE HOME (1940). It is almost as skillfully
drawn from those sea plays as this one is from ANNA Christie, and features a
youngish John Wayne in one of his rare non-Westerns supporting a fine cast of
veteran actors showing him the way.
78 years ago...the premiere of "Anna Christie" advertised by the slogan "Garbo
Talks!" The film runs for 16 minutes and the viewers reach the climax of curiosity:
Greta enters the bar and gets through a long awaited transfer from silence into
sound: a few seconds closing her silent era and, at last, Greta Garbo says a
historic line: "Gimme a whiskey, ginger ale on the side and don't be stingy, baby!"
 "Anna Christie" (1930) is the movie by Clarence Brown that introduced a
great silent star Greta Garbo to talkies. Nowadays, we can only imagine what
serious transfer it was for actors and actresses. The careers of many were bound to
end - something we hardly or not at all see at present. And it was no coincidence
that it was Clarence Brown who directed the first talkie with the Swedish beauty.
Garbo trusted the director after two of his great silent productions, FLESH AND THE
DEVIL (1926) and A WOMAN OF AFFAIRS (1928): movies that achieved a smashing success
at the box office, both with Garbo in the lead. But we are in 2008 and
that fact about the movie, now purely historical, appears to be of minor
importance. The question for today's viewer is not what Garbo's voice sounds like
but if the movie is still watchable after these 78 years. In other words, we all
strive to answer the question if the movie has stood a test of time. Has it? When I recently watched it, I came into conclusion that, except for some
minor technical aspects, including static camera, "Anna Christie" is still very
entertaining. It's, on the one hand, a wonderful story of a life, of a reality that
the young woman faces (being based on Eugene O"Neill's play), and, on the other
hand, an artistic manifestation of true magnificence in the field of direction and
acting. Let me analyze these two aspects in separate paragraphs. CONTENT: Chris Christopherson (George F Marion), a heavy drinker, lives a life of
a sailor, on a barge. Although his days are filled with sorrows, he is consoled by
a letter from his daughter Anna (Garbo) whom he hasn't seen for 15 years. She says
that she will come back to him. He starts to change everything for better; however
forgets that his daughter is no longer a child lacking experience but a 23 year-old
woman who has got through various sorts of things on a farm in Minnessota where she
lived and worked. Moreover, he forgets that she has a right to accept another kind
of male love in her life... This brief presentation of the content not from the
perspective of the main character but the one which is introduced to us sooner than
Anna (her father Chris) makes you realize how universal it is. Simply no letter
from the whole text that life appears to be has been erased after all these years.
Cases discussed here in 1930 are still meaningful and valid... PERFORMANCES. There are not many characters in the movie, but there are two that
really shine in the roles. It is of course Greta Garbo herself who did something
extraordinary in her 15 year-long phenomenon, the presence that strongly marked the
history of early cinema (something I have already discussed in many of my earlier
comments on her films). But here, Garbo is slightly different. I admit that there
are moments in this movie when she does not feel very comfortable with her role.
That seems to be caused by her new experience with sound in English; however, her
performance is, as always, genuine and unique. But that is what everyone has
expected from Garbo. The true surprise of the movie for the 1930 viewers and also
for us is Marie Dressler as Marthy. She is excellent in her facial expressions, in
her accent, in the entire portrayal of a drinking woman who looks at life from the
perspective of "hitting the bottle." Her best moments include the conversation with
Anna Christie in the bar preceded by her hilarious talk with Chris. The rest of the
supporting cast are fine yet not great whatsoever (here the German version makes up
for it). Particularly Dressler, except for Garbo herself, constitutes an absolutely
flawless choice. If you asked me what I like about "Anna Christie"
nowadays, that's what I would tell you: it's a classic movie. However, there is one
more thing that I must mention at the end. It is humor, wonderful wit that is
noticeable throughout. Although the content is quite serious and "Anna Christie" in
no way carries a comedian spirit (the only Garbo's comedy was NINOTCHKA), there are
such moments when you will split your sides. Don't skip, for instance, Anna and
Matt's visit in the fun park, particularly at the restaurant where he orders milk
for her thinking how virtuous and innocent she is, beer for himself and where
suddenly Marthy joins them by chance... "Anna Christie" is a perfect
movie for classic buffs and a must see for all at least a bit interested in the
true magnificence of performance. If you are fed up with many of those modern
starlets, seek such movies out and you shall be satisfied. Very worth your search!
 Skaal Greta Garbo! Skaal Marie Dressler! Let us drink a toast to the
great jobs you did in the movie! Skaal after all these years when wine tastes much
better and your spirits are with us in a different sense...
Garbo's first spoken words in this 1930 film electrified audiences and became part
of Hollywood legend. Garbo had become a star in her first American film, The
Torrent, in 1926. And audiences waited til this film to see if Garbo could make the
transition to talkies. She did. And while Pola Negri, Vilma Banky, and Renee Adoree
fell by the wayside because of their accents, Garbo sailed on for another decade.
Despite the staginess of this film, Garbo is really excellent, especially in the
opening scene with the equally great Marie Dressler as Marthy. The two great stars
trade dirty looks and sharp words as they size each other up while they have a few
drinks and set the tone for the remainder of the film. Garbo was 25; Dressler was
60. Charles Bickford is OK as Matt, and George F. Marion is good as Old Chris.
Marion originated this role on Broadway in 1922 and also played it in the 1923
silent version with Blanche Sweet. This Eugene O'Neill play is a true classic yet,
oddly, was never filmed again. Anna Christie ranks as one of Garbo's greatest
performances. And despite the staginess of the film and the grimness of the story,
she is truly a marvel. See this one for Garbo and Dressler!
This is an amazingly well-filmed early talkie adaptation of the Eugene O'Neill
play. Its major drawback is a static camera, and as a result it comes off much of
the time as the filmed play it is, which is a pity, for it's a good piece of
primitive moviemaking, made at a time when sound was posing all kinds of technical
problems, and as a result most films were experimental whether or not this was
their maker's intention. Garbo is as mysterious and charismatic as she was in her
silent films, and her entrance is still classic. Her voice is strangely deep,
almost boyish, which only enhances her already seductively eccentric persona. As
her boyfriend, Charles Bickford is appropriately virile,--he was apparently born
craggy--and a perfect counterpart to the divine Garbo. His Irish brogue is not bad
at all, and he seems always a natural man of the sea, very O'Neill-like in his
independent, brooding nature. As Garbo's (very) confused father, George Marion
seems truly from another time. He has the sort of face and voice,--open,
unmannered, totally without guile--that has vanished from the earth. Marie Dressler
is also in the O'Neill swing of things. Her blank expression and intensity around
the eyes speaks volumes, as she plays her boozy character as a woman at times
bordering on psychosis. Poetic license, perhaps, as this is not in the script, but
we can forgive Miss Dressler's excesses; she is too good at it not to. The story
ends with a movement to the next thing, as distinct from resolution, which isn't
the author's cup of tea; and those who like their films neatly worked out in the
end will be disappointed by the absence of any real surprise. In Anna Christie we
are in O'Neill country, a place of sea, storms and fog, a feeling of all-pervading
and damnable uncertainty, which we would now call ambivilance, or anxiety neurosis.
Rather than analyze this mood the author simply and wisely presents it, as weather,
land, ocean and people intertwine and address one another in a unique language we
feel priveleged to have heard.
I would say that this film is disturbing. The brutality is depicted in a very sick
way, it's like a psychosis in 40 minutes. In the same time, it is a cruel
introspection in human behavior. The scenes are ferocious, starting with the
butchery of the horse and ending with the brutal sex scene in the kitchen. Every
emotion is exploited to extreme, the frustration of the butcher, the love for his
daughter almost incestuous, the rage when he finds out she has been abused, every
feeling is so natural and so wrong. This film delivers the truth about human nature
in a very honest and brutal way. The message of the film is that one's life can
change in a second as a consequence of one's behavior and that the most primitive
emotions are the most powerful and can determine one's acting. I'd loved the unique
manner of filming, the simplicity and the brutality accompanied with the silence in
which only inner thoughts pierce through.
The short film which got Gaspar Noe on the movie map, introducing us to his
horrific, but thoroughly interesting character The Butcher, played brilliantly by
Phillipe Nahon. Noe's direction here has all the hallmarks of his later films,
showing he was carving his own voice and style from the beginning. His sudden
cutting along with harsh, loud noise, skipping flashbacks and many other techniques
all are used to disconcert the viewer. And it certainly works. Also, he is not
afraid of showing violence, as viewers of Irreversible will know. Here the violence
is equally powerful, and in the sequel Seul Contre Tous, it is almost
unbearable. The film opens with a horse being killed. It is shot in the
head, and we watch it writhe on the floor, its pool of blood flowing out. We then
see a human birth in all its bloody glory, the daughter of The Butcher. He was
orphaned in WWII, and has grown up hating the world, and everyone and everything in
it. He serves his customers, but his interior monologue constantly reminds us of
his thoughts- he wants them all dead. His daughter Blandine Lenoir, who would also
reprise her role six years later, is the only thing he cares about, and we watch
them grow older together. She is however mute, and the subject of bullying and
toying. The Butcher's relationship with her is almost incestuous, bathing her when
she is old enough to do it herself etc,but this is explored more in the next film.
When she is attacked by a man, the Butcher explodes with rage, stabbing an innocent
man in the mouth. He goes to prison, taken from the only things he wants- his shop
and daughter. In the short 40 minutes we see all this and more, his time in prison
and release back to his world. Because of his daughter's state, autistic as well i
think, she is bland, does little except stare, and is under the full control of her
father. The film continues in the exceptionally bleak Seul Contre Tous. If you can,
watch these two films, this one first. It has some truly excellent acting, but is
very difficult to watch because of the relentless tone. 7 out of 10
This is the forty minute film that introduces us to the character of the Butcher,
who will later be examined more thoroughly in the feature Seul Contre Tous. In this
film, it follows the early period of his life from 1965-1979, but focusing on the
late seventies. The first images are of a slaughter of a horse, then the birth of a
baby, the Butcher's daughter, who we quickly see growing up each year. The Butcher
(played by Philippe Nahon in both films) is a man bitter with the world. He hates
many things. His anger comes to a head when a man assaults his autistic daughter.
The Butcher then maims the wrong man, and finds himself in prison. This
film follows the butcher's life to just after his release from prison, then Seul
Contre Tous takes over from there. I watched the films the wrong way about, Seul
Contre Tous first. Try and watch this little film first if you can.
This was my first Gaspar Noe movie I've watched and I have to say I was shocked. I
don't mind gore in generally, but this isn't even gore , it's real butchering. For
some of you a couple of scenes may be impossible to see and I mean really
disgusting. Leaving aside these aspects, the main ideas revealed here and the
dialog are quite brilliant. When you are given a strong argument against bringing a
new life into the world and the manner in which it is given, you can't stop and
take a minute to think about it. The actors did their job well, representing
general masks of a handpick few people found at the bottom of a diseased society.
The movie is full of metaphors, but I'll let you figure them out. Don't watch it if
you want to have a lite, relaxing time. I recommend this movie to all those of you
who want something to think about or simply watch something different of what you
find in your average cinema.
This short film certainly pulls no punches. The story is of a butcher who
wrongfully kills an innocent man who he believes has sexually molested his retarded
daughter. The film goes onto depict how the butcher serves his time, and returns to
life with his daughter in care, and having to come to terms with a life with no
future. The graphic opening scenes of a horse being slaughtered, and the
full frontal birth of the butchers daughter puts you a brutal frame of mind that
stays with you throughout the film. The snappy flow of the film is very
direct and adds to its brutality. Consequently alot of ground is covered in the 40
minutes. You are taken in fully with the butchers non-life - particularly after he
loses his daughter to social services and his business. His story continues in the
excellent film Seul Contre Tous
I saw this film at the 3rd Adelaide International Film Festival at the Palace
cinemas, and was totally switched onto it in the opening five minutes. Thanks
goodness for a film that ignores all the rubbish we often see in Australian films
that seem to revolve around a)race b)gender and c) class, in favour of er...dare I
say....jolly good cinema. The producer, a shy, slightly eccentric chap called Alex
Frayne introduced his film, made with a bunch of his mates near the town he spent
much of his childhood. Apparently he's spent much of the last year traveling the
world with the film, mostly in Europe. The world the film creates is both brilliant
and arty, not least because of strange and disconcerting editing style, the Gothic
characters, and the surreal sense of time and place that draws viewers into its
nightmarish realm. The producer returned for the Q + A after-wards.
Someone asked him what his inspiration was - he replied "South Australia." Hear
hear! Another asked him what a 'day in the life of alex' entailed. He replied that
he drives an old Ute, that he has breakfast at the same table at the same
restaurant that he's jolly well eaten at for the past 8 years! and that he plays
piano which helps him to think. He doesn't drink booze and plays cricket once a
week. Then the Q and A session ended abruptly because of the next film screening -
so my thoughts are that for the next festival, they need to extend the after film
sessions.
Perhaps this movie is a little too long, but it still has some charm 45 years
later. The main roles seem more appropriate for Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. I
could care less about Gary Cooper, but Ingrid Bergman is fine, particularly in dark
hair. The movie is worth seeing for the supporting cast: Flora Robson is terrific
as a mulatto servant. She is a white woman in blackface, and can have an expression
of evil or of a voodoo mistress. Jerry Austin as a servant dwarf has a delightful
role, that keeps you chuckling despite some overlong scenes. Speaking of scenes,
Florence Bates steals most of the ones she is in as a dowager social lady. I didn't
understand the outcome of the railroad fight at the end of the movie, and the last
scene was pure Hollywood dreck. It's an odd feeling when you realize the film title
refers to a railroad rather than a piece of luggage!
I first saw this movie when I was in elementary school, back in the 1960s. I was
fascinated with the character played by Ingrid Bergman and it was my introduction
to the French Quarter of New Orleans. The first part of the movie is the best as
she comes back to exact some revenge on her father's wife and daughter (her mother
had been driven out in disgrace). During this time she meets the wonderful Clint
Maroon, played by Gary Cooper. The chemistry between the two is great. The second
half of the movie takes place in Saratoga, NY (the Saratoga of the title) and I
never enjoy it as much as the New Orleans setting but it's still very good. I give
this movie a ten - partly out of nostalgia but mostly because it's just a darn good
movie and the characters besides those of Bergman and Cooper are equally wonderful
(Flora Robson comes close to stealing the scenes from Bergman). It used to be shown
on TV periodically but it's shown rarely if ever - it would be a good one for one
of the classic movie stations to pick up and put into their programming cycles.
I would rate this film high on my list of Ingrid Bergman films. Ingrid's beauty
aside, her talent is evident in scene after scene. She was sad, mean, witty, snobbish, flirtatious, delightfully funny, loving, tender, sorrowful,
distressed, happy, etc. You name it, she was all those things and more. -And
so convincing. Ingrid plays a notorious woman (Clio) who comes back to
New Orleans and falls for a Texas gambler, Gary Cooper (Clint). I
especially loved the scene where they are sitting at the dining table saying
nothing, just staring at each other. She, in an elegant white gown and he in a
handsome white cowboy outfit, sitting there looking at her adoringly.
What chemistry! What love!
I grew up in New York City and every afternoon ABC would show the 4:30 movie-
Saratoga Trunk was one of the first movies I remember watching as a kid. I loved
this movie and it has stayed with me for years. I recently watched it again and
still thought it was great - maybe I am just a romantic - but I thought it was well
done. I do not want to say this movie was good only because of the main actors - I
really did not know who they were when I first saw this movie - I guess I just knew
quality acting as a child. Both Bergman and Cooper were excellent. I especially
loved seeing old New Orleans during the time period of this movie . If you ever get
a chance to visit New Orleans - you should watch movies that show the city during
that time period - when you get to see some of the old homes in the French
Quarter(not just Bourbon Street) or uptown, you can truly imagine life as it was
100 years ago. I love old movies - this one to me is a good flick!!
I have to admit I am prejudiced about my vote on this film, but I have strong
reasons as I know some of the true history that was given the Hollywood treatment
here. Edna Ferber's novel upon which this is based is from an era where real names
can't be used. In a way, this film is all smoke & mirrors. Even though it was
released in 1946, it was filmed shortly after Casablanca. Ingrid Bergman is at her
most radiant in this movie as a brunette. She plays a beautiful woman
who is trying to trade on her beauty to get a rich husband. Today that is a gold
digger, but in this social era, she is desirable & the kind of woman who makes all
the men want her, & all the old snooty society types talk of her & avoid her, while
wishing they were her. Ingrid is at her best & plays this role well. Some sympathy for Ingrids character is raised in the New Orleans section of this
film as she manages to get a decent belated tomb for her scandalized mother as part
of the settlement by her relatives to get her to leave New Orleans. The snooty
family of relatives there are so scandalized by her that they will do almost
anything she asks to get her to leave town. Gary Cooper is good in this
film though he already appears to be aging a bit to play a dashing Texan
Bachelor/Gambler. He pulls it off well considering that handicap which he appeared
older than he was due to his real life chain smoking. Flora Robison as Ingrid's
Maid got nominated for an Oscar as supporting actress in this film. Jerry Austin as
Cupidor was over-looked in many ways for his role but is the only comic relief in
the film & does it well. When the film moves to Saratoga, it depicts
accurately how important Saratoga was in that era. I like the sequence when Bergman
walks to the Saratoge Spring to get some of the "sulfur" water which everyone
considered so healthy then. When she drinks some she forces herself not to make a
face and comments how good it is & that she must have more. The real
history is the railroad battle which really occurred on the rail line in Tunnel,
New York- which is the actual Saratoga Trunk the film title is derived from. This
battle actually happened in 1869 between agents for Andrew Carnagie & J. P. Morgan.
The line was the economic key to the country in 1869 connecting coal country & the
east coast. The references to it are throughout the film are very real. There is
even some dialog describing Carnagie as a "Scot" though the reference is vague &
unfamiliar to anyone not knowing the history around the battle. The
railroad line & the railroad tunnel in Tunnel, New York (zip code 13848) still
exist although the film was shot in California. The real tunnel is about 1 mile
long. It is still part of a key freight line today, years after this occurred. I
grew up there. Gary Cooper's line in the film while he is riding the train into the
tunnel is right, it is still "mighty pretty country".
I gave this movie a 10 simply out of my sick obsession with Ingrid Bergman:) lol. I
really think she was the best actress to ever grace this earth with her talent and
all of her movies are absolutely wonderful (even when they are awful) because SHE
is in them. If it hadn't been her and Vivien Leigh (as it had originally been
desired I hear) I would have given it a 9.0 Simply because I love Viv but probably
not as much as I love Ingrid. And any other actress would have made it maybe a 6.
It's a good story, two wild people falling in love in a society where it bad to be
bad. Reminds me a little of GWTW except laced with a more highbrow attitude. Gary
Cooper is very handsome as usual and of course his voice never changes the entire
film, but hey Ingrid makes him seem so amazing and dashing and 20 times hotter than
he probably should be.
"Saratoga Trunk" is a 1945 film starring Ingrid Bergman and Gary Cooper. It's based
on a 1941 book by the great Edna Ferber. Subconsciously she may have had Gone with
the Wind on the brain; parts of the story reminded me of GWTW. Set in
the 1890s, Clio Dulaine is an illegitimate child who returns from New Orleans from
France with a mulatto servant (Flora Robson) and a dwarf servant, Cupidon (Jerry
Austin). She has given herself a Countess title and claims to be a widow. Her
mother killed her father by accident, and his family shunned her. Clio takes over
the old homestead with the idea of embarrassing her half-sister and the wife of her
father, which she does by calling great attention to herself. Her plan is to marry
someone very wealthy who can give her the security and respectability she craves.
Then she spots Clint Maroon (Cooper), a Texas gambler, and falls for him. The two
have a volatile relationship - and he doesn't have any money, so she can't marry
him - so he leaves for Saratoga Springs. Eventually the Dulaine family has enough,
and their attorney gives her $10,000 to get out of town. She does. She goes to
Saratoga Springs and goes after the owner of the railroad, Bart von Steed. But
Clint is always around. Bergman is beautiful in dark hair and wearing
the period costumes, and Cooper is drop-dead gorgeous with that incredible 300-watt
smile of his. How she could resist him is beyond me. And the love scenes - whoa,
what chemistry! The supporting cast is excellent, Robson and Cupidon creating
interesting characters, and Florence Bates giving an excellent performance as a
socially prominent woman who takes Clio under her wing, knowing she's a big
fake. The film runs a little long, and some of the acting may seem old-
fashioned today, but it's an absorbing story filled with atmosphere and vivid
performances. The ending won't come as any surprise. It's a fun journey, though.
A fantastic movie, and very overlooked. Gary has never been more handsome, and
Ingrid is more beautiful than in ANY other film. If you don't believe, just watch
the movie. Every cast member is wonderful; the love scenes between Gary and Ingrid
will make your pulse race! The story is great, the script is Oscar caliber. Don't
miss this film!!
Ingrid Bergman (Cleo Dulaine) has never been so beautiful. Gary Cooper as "Cleent"
so perfectly cast as a laconic Texan who knows this gal is up to no good. When the
two lock eyes at the French Market, we know this match will be full of sparks. When
they stroll in her garden in her restored French Quarter house and the love theme
plays it is a dream for all us romantics. The costumes are lovely; the
set decoration makes you wish the "Quarter" was just that way. And that Saratoga
still had that hotel with the wide veranda with all the old biddies
gossiping. From Edna Ferbers novel, the story is of revenge for old
wrongs and the fights over who would run the railroads in the early days of that
industry. In the Saratoga scenes, Florence Bates as a grand dame steals
every scene. But it is the scene of Cleo taking on the little lawyer her
New Orleans relatives have sent to buy her off that is a Magic Movie Moment. After
Cleo has bested him in the negotiations, he looks at her with longing and says "may
I say - you are very-beautiful". And Cleo with a happy, wicked smile says "yes,
isn't it lucky." You want to shout "YES"!!! One of my all time favorite
romantic films.
This film is pretty good, it actually is like a good wine, it gets better the more
you watch it. The pace is pretty slow for such a high octane topic, but the
cinematography is beautiful and surreal. There is a cool blue tint that "rides" the
whole film. There is also one great performance in Gabriel Casseus' performance of
the character "Midget". He is terrific. Why doesn't this guy work more. If the film
got better support, he probably would have.
Received this DVD from the ACCENT range which is a label which specializes in art-
house flics, they released Irreversible and a range of Bergman's opus. The thing that struck me about Alex Frayne's strangely titled film MODERN LOVE is
that it is an impeccable film that breathes with perfection and vision, a film that
takes us into the mind of Mr Joe Average, replete with voices in the head, visions,
and madness. It's set in rural redneck Australia, the film doesn't trivialise or
praise the folks like so many Australian movies. ie our films are full of "loveable
rogues" or people with "hearts of gold" etc etc etc. Not in this film.
The spirit of Stanley Kubrick looms large here, it's not flawless, but has a
mesmerising attention to details, a romantic streak and a mood that is bracing if
not embraceable. Minor quibbles...the transfer looks faulty - front
credits were sliced, they don't fit in frame. Also, one of the short
films is corrupted, it stops half way.
I thought Nick Gomez's look at the gritty streets of New Jersey, where car-jackings
are at an all-time high, was both thought-provoking and entertaining. This is just
as good as movies like Boyz n the Hood or Menace II Society or Above the Rim. I
thought the actors and the scenarios were suitable, it had a gritty realistic feel
to it and was very atmospheric, whether on purpose or by raw coincidence. I liked
this movie a lot, an underrated gem i found on TV and glad i caught it. Go watch
this movie if you get a shot. If they don't have a DVD, they should release one.
Well done Nick Gomez. IMDb Rating: 5.9. My Rating: 9/10
WOW I Love this movie. This is definitely added to my list of Ghetto Movies. Juice - Starring Tupac 'I don't giva F***' Menace II Society - O-Dawg 'I'll
smoke Anybody, I just don't giva F****' New Jersey Drive - Hey they steal cars in
broad daylight they obviously don't giva f*** New Jersey Drive is the
best hood movie ever. It is at the top of the list, menace II society is second,
and juice is third, Clockers is really stupid. The soundtrack for New
Jersey Drive is Pwnage too Mac Mall & Young Lay - All about my fetti is heard
through out the movie. Lords of the underground - Burn rubber, another
good song, and so is Ill & Al Scratch - don't shut down on a player If
your a fan of GTA-SA you'll freaking love this movie, AND The amazing soundtrack.
The soundtrack is basically Rap about stealing cars ^_^ SWEETTTT Movie!
I lived in that area (Hoboken and Jersey City)for about ten years. This film
certainly captures the feel of that time and place. The dialogue is very good, the
music is right and scenarios realistic. As another poster said, it looks almost
like a documentary. I like the way it humanizes these kids, who probably
would have rather have been born in Westchester, but fall into what kids fall into.
It just so happens that area is pretty rough. They over-demonize the
cops quite a bit, but that's to be expected. I'd say the acting is good all-around,
too. It gives the viewer some sense of how this idiocy is caused and
gets blown out-of-proportion. Hopefully, the new mayor of Newark is making
progress.
This movie brings to mind "Boys 'n the Hood," "Menace to Society," "South Central"
and others of its ilk and even shares actors with some of them. The film's "us vs.
the law" mentality is underscored by the all-black neighborhood vs. the nearly all-
white police force. Here the cops are so bad they seem like caricatures and in one
scene they even ambush the boys as they drive by in a car they've just "liberated"
from its owner. It's like a bushwhacking from an old Western, but the contemporary
setting makes it look all too real. The story centers on young Jason
Petty and his buddies, to whom school is just an inconvenience that takes time away
from their "real occupation" of boosting cars. This happens to be Newark, N.J., a
rust-belt city low on jobs but notoriously high on crime. In fact the problem is so
severe that the cops all have "Car Theft" written on their backs, to show that an
entire unit must be devoted to this particular crime. The boys use a
"slim Jim" to gleefully break into cars and go joy-riding, as if it's no big deal.
They only run into real trouble when the police ambush them. The vicious, Nazi-like
Lt. has a vendetta against the boys, seeing them not as human beings who might be
worthy of redemption, but as human targets. In fact, he's a little reminiscent of
that sadistic Nazi officer of the Warsaw ghetto, who shot down Jews for pleasure in
the film "Schindler's List." When the boys steal a police car in retribution for
the ambush, things predictably go downhill fast. They are severely beaten by the
cops and Jason finally ends up in prison. Clearly these are "bad boys," who'd steal
your car in a minute, but the film wants us to see them as anti-heroes, showing
Jason protecting his sister and his friend taking care of his own grandmother. The
film left us wondering whose side to take and who to feel sadder for: the boys
whose lives are going down the drain, the honest citizens whose cars are being
stolen left and right and who could be caught in the crossfire of a shootout at any
moment or the city of Newark itself, the spirit of whose law is being betrayed by
brutal, soul-dead cops. In spite of the over-the-top portrayal of the
latter, the film offers a realistic-looking rendering of the ghetto, of the
protagonists and their families and of the culture of car theft in a city where
there appears to be only 2 career paths - law enforcement and crime. Strangely, the
entire subject of drugs is never mentioned. The filmmakers (including
producer Spike Lee) are obviously biased against the Newark police, who, we hope,
are not as bad they are portrayed here. Nevertheless, they've given us yet another
a strong, affecting story about the inner city and black youth gone awry and
Sharron Corley is fine as Jason.
This is a very realistic movie. It's the most realistic I've seen on urban youth.
The actors were great. I will look out for more films by Gomez. I had never heard
of the film until someone mentioned it recently. I bought it on DVD. I was
impressed. I haven't seen anything come close to life as I know it in Philadelphia.
This comes real close - in fact, one scene where there is an accident (I won't
spoil and give details), reminded me of a nearly identical situation in
Philadelphia. At first I thought Gomez took the scene from that real-life event,
but then I realized that he made the film a few years before that situation. I also
agree with the point that this film didn't try to broaden its appeal by putting in
Hollywood crap. Gomez also directed "Laws of Gravity" - I am eager to see it.
Being from eastern PA, right on the border of Northern New Jersey, I still get a
feeling like this was a documentary more so than a movie. I have friends from New
York and New Jersey and this film represents the kind of lifestyle that "still"
exists today in lower income area's outside of the "Big City" lifestyle. If you
have not seen this movie and ever wondered what REALLY goes on in the urban jungle,
check this movie out. No really big name actors, its as if they just pulled these
guys off the street and said act, which adds to the realism of the movie, the
performances are FANTASTIC none the less! SEE THIS FILM!
I just wanted to inform anyone who may be interested that the the movie "New Jersey
Drive" was my personal favorite off alltime. I admire the work Nick Gomez and Spike
Lee put into this masterpiece of a movie. This movie made quite an impression on me
because of its realness and its appreciation of detail of life in urban New Jersey.
It struck a chord with me, personally, because I grew up with friends like those
depicted in the movie. It further made an impression with me because I used to
spend time in Teaneck several years ago, so some of the characters were kept
"real". At times, this movie seemed like a documentary because you didn't know
whether or not these were real events taking place. Although movies like "Boys in
the Hood" and "Menace II Society" grab more attention, I personally feel these
movies were somewhat "enhanced" to appeal to a broader audience. "New Jersey Drive"
was an uncompromising piece of "in your face" reality. Lee and Gomez covered every
detail in this urban drama from the music, clothing, slang, and location.Unlike
some of the movies I mentioned earlier, the actors performed as if they weren't
"actors". Nothing was compromised in order to make good "theater". The only
misfortune to come from this movie was the fact that many people "slept" on it. I
look forward to more works of art from Nick and Spike in the hopefully near future.
I am NOT one to like those Anime Cartoons (eg.Pokemon,Dragonball Z,Naruto), But
Zatch Bell is Different in my opinion.Zatch Bell is more Exciting, has better
characters, and doesn't focus so much on a sort of weapon or Mamodo as much as the
episodes i've seen,Such as it The Episodes "Big Brother Kanchome", "Zatch vs.
Kiyo".Zatch Bell Really focuses on the Life of The Strange Zatch,The Smart Kiyo,The
Clueless Suzy,and the WeIrD Ponygon.Zatch Bell is probably my Fav Cartoon for
now,but I encourage others to watch 1 Episode of it, you'll most likely will like
it! -Robbie H. (aka Vectorman)
This anime recounts the tale of the Battle for Mamodo King. Every 1,000 years, 100
Mamado children are sent to Earth to fight to determine who will be their next king
(in the original Japanese, the creatures are Mamono, which literally means
magic/evil object). Each Mamado is paired with a Human partner, and given a magic
spellbook. The Human can use this book to unleash incredible powers in the Mamodo,
and when a Mamodo is defeated, their spellbook is engulfed in flames (alternately,
a Mamdodo's book can be captured and burned directly). After that the Mamodo
returns to the Mamodo world. The titular character is Zatch (Gash in
Japan), a 6-year old mamodo with electric powers. He is paired with Kiyomaru
Takamini, and 14-year old genius. Zatch is initially reluctant to fight, but
learning that some Mamodo are evil and deciding the battle for king is wrong, he
decided to fight to become a 'kind king'. Zatch Bell has drawn
comparison to Pokemon, but a better comparison is to Digimon. Like Digimon, the
Mamodo and Human have a one to one, symbiotic relationship. Also unlike Pokemon,
both shows have an actual plot. Zatch Bell features character growth and
evolving relationships, and some fairly adult story lines (like love vs racism;
slavery; mind control; etc.). It even has some decent plot twists and mysteries.
Take a young liberal idealist Christopher Boyce (Timothy Hutton) put in a top
secret classification in a government front company because of his father's
position team him up with a no'count drug dealer Daulton Lee (Sean Penn) who is
wanted by the police and needs a new source of income and you have a recipe for
espionage. Sean Penn played the part of the punk drug dealer with a certain sang
froid probably out of particular verisimilitude with such raunchy types. The gall
Penn carries with him in every situation is unique; he even suggests the Soviets
run drugs for him. I've seen the movie over and over again and each time
I see something new. It seems to me that a major problem with US spy organizations
is its inbreeding which leads to the hiring of an obviously unsuitable candidate by
reason of temperament and inclination for a government front company. I
do recall when the Falconeer escaped from prison and led the authorities on a wild
goose chase. I see that despite the escape he is now released. A pity the Soviets
are no longer around to accept the wretch! A Cheery Cherio!
UK-born Australian helmer Alex Frayne calls for attention with his strange,
necessitating a meticulous read, visually stunning Modern Love (2006). Following
the steps of a man incapable of controlling a drastic personality change spurred by
the death of a close relative pic offers a fascinating examination of human
psychology. Distributed by Accent Film-Australia. John (Mark Constable),
his wife Emily (Victoria Hill), and their son Edward (William Traeger) arrive in a
small Southern town to take care of his deceased uncle's (Don Barker) property.
While Emily and Edward check into a local hotel John begins to question the locals
about Uncle Tom's death - some say that he committed suicide, some are unwilling to
talk. Puzzled John comes up with a theory of his own - Uncle Tom is alive and well,
hiding in the nearby bushes. If not for the occasional lines of dialog
used to ease its heavy atmospheric tone Modern Love could have been easily mistaken
for a Sokurov film. Shot with a 16mm camera its washed-out color scheme is
strangely evocative of the Russian director's reflective forays into human agony.
Perhaps it isn't a coincidence that it was at the Moscow International Film
Festival where Modern Love had its premiere. Looking under the surface
of this unique collage of intoxicating visuals however reveals a slightly different
picture - while Sokurov's films tend to remain painfully intimate, to a point where
they intentionally detach the main protagonists from the surrounding environment by
blurring everything into a large splash of the director's preferred yellow, Modern
Love very much feeds off the Australian countryside. John's gradual psychological
transformation is dependent on it and the more the story progresses the more it
becomes obvious that nature was an integral part of Frayne's vision. In
Sokurov's The Second Circle a young man returns to the Russian countryside to bury
his deceased father. In the shack where the old man once lived everything is
covered with dust. He gathers the few old clothes scattered around and places the
body of his father in a coffin. Then he bids goodbye and buries it. The rest of the
film is a prolonged reflection on the collapse of the Soviet system, the loneliness
and dissatisfaction many were left dealing with. In Modern Love,
somewhat ironically, love is nowhere to be seen. On the contrary it is pain,
loneliness, and dissatisfaction with "modernity" that suddenly invade John's life.
Unlike The Second Circle however here the main protagonist has the opportunity to
re-embrace his modern life. His wife and son await him, yet, he walks away. Slowly
but surely the present begins to disintegrate under the weight of a somewhat
confusing past. I doubt Frayne intended for Modern Love to be so
strikingly similar to what Sokurov did in The Second Circle. Yet, the pacing, and
in particular the puzzling framing, are precisely what transforms this film into a
near meditative experience - a difficult and enormously brittle approach to
deconstructing human psychology the two directors have mastered to
perfection. Mark Constable delivers a top-notch performance as John
adding even greater depth to his highly challenging character. His facial
expressions are outstanding. Both Victoria Hill and William Traeger match perfectly
with their performances pic's tense visual style.
The Falcon and the Snowman is based on a true story. Christopher Boyce, and Andrew
Daulton Lee, (the titular traitors,) played by Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn,
received their code- names from the KGB. Why? Boyce was an avid falconer and Lee
was a coke head. The movie is based on a true story. It's based on the book of the
same name. Another reviewer asked what was their motivation? Disillusionment it
ain't. Ideology it ain't. (Pardon my bad grammar,) but I'm making a point here.
What was it if it wasn't disillusionment or ideology? In a word, greed. By the time
of the Boyce-Lee case, money became the great motivator and not ideology. Don't
believe me? Then look at the Walker Family Spy Ring which was broken in the late
'80s. Three spies did the worst damage to our national security in the '70s and
'80s. John Walker, who began his career as a spy in the '60s, Christopher Boyce,
and Andrew Daulton Lee. All three sold out this country for thirty pieces of
silver. If you aren't familiar with that phrase, I suggest you read the Bible.
... sings David Bovie in this movie. BUT IT IS!!! It's ALL about America, so don't
be ashamed to watch it. Just think, if you can, to prevent more damage... You know,
you're just the same regular guy next door, so, be careful! One of the best critics
of "common" mind and friendship. Still don't care? Go for it for the music - it's
worth a try, just close your eyes and Pat Metheny and David Bowie will touch you so
deep you'll start to scream! And while watching, if you'll dare to open your eyes,
please don't do the popcorn&stuff, you're gonna miss quite a lot. You may think
that it's not worth, but, think twice - and don't look at your neighbours lawn -
you never know what to find there... Is It worth? Try it! Just don't die or gloat
over it...
True stories make the best stories don't they? There's always something enjoyable
about a story, be it novel or movie or whatever, simply by the fact that it's real
makes the story all the more fascinating. This movie is based on a true story of
two young American men, one a government employee and falcon enthusiastChris Boyce
(Timothy Hutton)and the otherAndrew Daulton Lee (Sean Penn)is a drug dealer.
These two begin selling government, mostly CIA, secrets in 1975 to the Soviet
Union. The film focuses on the human aspect of the two men, as well as
their growing personal problems (especially Penn's character with ever-worsening
drug addictions), rather than glorifying their status as traitors to America, which
would, no doubt, hurt the film's credibility in the US. Boyce gradually becomes
more cautious and eventually frustrated and paranoid as their dealings drag on and
they dig ever deeper into treacherous territory. Daulton becomes more dependent and
addicted to cocaine and heroin as he becomes more frightened, and more desperate to
maintain control over a situation he has no control overon top of which, he
already has problems with the law. The torment of Boyce and Daulton's families
because of the way they lead their lives is also well portrayed and adds well to
the idea that espionage against one's country, even if thought to be done justly,
leads only to major problems and the ruination of livesincluding the degradation
of the friendship and trust between the two main characters. Here's the
breakdown: The Good: --Hutton and Penn each did extensive
research on the characters to capture their individual look and feel, so they're
portrayed with extensive depth and realism. --The acting is
excellent. --The atmosphere of paranoia builds quite well. --
The story is fascinating, and of course, as one based on actual events, it has some
added kick. --Nice sets. --The Soviets working with the Boyce
and Daulton are portrayed very well, and not stereotyped or given evil consciences
just for the sake of making them look bad. Didn't Hurt It, Didn't
Help: --The music is alright, nothing perfect though. --Sound
effects are occasionally a little iffysuch was the case with a lot of films from
the seventies through the eighties. The Bad: --Chris Boyce
(Timothy Hutton) has a relationship with a woman that we hardly know. Because of
Boyce's trouble brewing with the US and Soviet Governments, her life can be put in
jeopardybut this isn't as expanded upon as it feels it should've been. Minor
problem, though. The Ugly: --The apparent simplicity required
to sell government secrets is a little unnerving. Nothing like a constant state of
unreadiness to keep the masses feeling as unsafe as possible. Memorable
Scene: --Seeing the first CIA report accidentally sent to the wrong
place with the reason being, "rough night." This was another film that
suffered massive delays due to the controversial content of the story. Studios and
producers didn't see how a movie about two American traitors could ever be accepted
by American audiences. Luckily, it's filmed and portrayed with a high degree of
class and quality. Of course, it helps that the traitorous anti-heroes aren't
portrayed heroicallymore like a couple young men who've made gross errors in
judgment in their lives. As such, it becomes a very human drama, and one portrayed
very well and very believably. Acting: 9/10 Story: 10/10 Atmosphere:
8/10 Cinematography: 8/10 Character Development: 9/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 8/10
(little quantity, high quality) Nudity/Sexuality: 2/10 (one scene in a strip club)
Violence/Gore: 7/10 (no gore, just some violence) Music: 7/10 Direction: 9/10 Cheesiness: 0/10 Crappiness: 0/10 Overall: 8/10 If
you like films about espionage and spies, then you can't go wrong here. If you like
dramatic films with a strong focus on the humanity of the characters, then this may
also work for you. Highly recommended. www.ResidentHazard.com
This movie is very good in term of acting and plot. The events and the setting
(i.e. how Chris gets the job, Chris's work environment, the face-to-face between
the two sides, etc) thereof, on the other hand, are found to be less than
realistic.
I am not a fan of Sean Penn, but in contrast to my German colleague whose review
appears here, I think he was perfectly cast as the neurotic, druggy character in
this film. He has every nuance perfected and reminded me of several acquaintances
who had similar tastes in "recreational chemistry." I saw this film but once, 10-15
years ago and this is the only part of the film that was etched indelibly on my
mind. I don't say it very often, but in this case I will: Bravo, Sean Penn! As for
the story line, well, it's based on fact, and as such, it is a tragedy that people
would sell their country's secrets to the then enemy. Again, Penn has shown what
you can do if you disagree with the administration. Use the freedoms you have, paid
for in blood; don't break the law.
My father has worked with top secret information in the DIA before and he is the
one who mentioned this movie to me. When I was a kid I would always ask him what
would happen if he gave away secrets and he recommended this movie. In
the movie it really puts 2, almost completely different FRIENDS! in a tangle they
never really knew what the outcome would really be. The snowman, Daulton really
cracked me up because the movie portrayed him as just some drug pusher that did not
know what he was arguing about, and in the movie it seemed like he got the worst of
everything. The falcon, Chris is just a guy that wanted to express his feelings on
U.S government in a very radical view. For movie lovers this is a must
see!!!
Christopher Boyce (Oscar-Winner:Timothy Hutton) gives up on being a priest and he's
returning home for an uncertain future. When his best friend Daulton Lee (Oscar-
Winner:Sean Penn) is a drug dealer, who's always gets in trouble and enjoys taking
drugs a bit too much. When Christopher gets a job by working in a top secret
government place titled "RTX". Boyce and Lee both have wealthy families, which they
hoped to make it out of their own. When Boyce decides to take secret documents out
of curiosity, which these documents are supposed to be destroyed. He decides to
sell these secret documents for a cheap price for the Soviet Union with the help of
his best friend. But both of them never knew how far they will go for sealing
documents for a living and since they are both amateurs. Both of them have betrayed
their country for top secret information. Directed by the late Oscar-
Winner:John Schlesinger (The Believers, Eye for an Eye, Midnight Cowboy) made an
interesting character drama about two young men taking the wrong path in life.
Oscar-Winners:Hutton and Penn are both extraordinary good in the film. The movie is
even occasionally funny and quite disturbing at times. David Suchet nearly steals
the show as the man, who works for the Soviet Union. This picture has a familiar
cast in the supporting roles. It was quite underrated, when it was first released.
Despite some great reviews by some of the top film critics. This picture is
actually based on a true story. There's some flaws in the storytelling, like these
two leads characters but overall, it's a movie worth seeing. Based on a novel by
Robert Lindsey. Screenplay by Oscar-Winner:Steven Zaillian (American Gangster,
Hannibal, Schindler's List). (****/*****).
this moving was intriguing and absorbing; however, the story was a little choppy
and hard to follow at times. Although the two principal actors did a great job,
just seeing Senn Penn acting with every fiber of his being and stealing every frame
made this a very memorable movie. Later movies have revealed him to be a not just
one-role actor: he also showed comedic flair in Sweet and Lowdown. Surprisingly
talented and not the light-weight I used to think he was./
"The Falcon and the Snowman" is the story of two young men, a CIA employee and a
drug dealer, who become disenchanted with United States foreign policy and sell
state secrets to the Soviet Union. The events of the film are based on a true
story. Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn are convincing in the lead parts and
develop interesting characterizations. The supporting cast also performs well,
notably with a performance from David Suchet of Hercule Poirot fame as a seasoned
Soviet agent. The film is generally effective at setting out its premise
and developing it and giving a sense of two boys caught in something they did not
properly understand going in. However, it does seem overlong and cumbersome at
points in the middle. The ending, however, is tense, stunning and effective. There
are some catchy rock songs included in the soundtrack, but also unfortunately a
repeated mellow synthesizer track that doesn't fit with a spy story. There are
other spy films more worth seeking out than "The Falcon and the Snowman", but it is
a decent film none the less.
Director John Schlesinger's tense and frantic film tells the true story of
Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee, two young men who sold United States
government secrets to the Soviet Union in the early 1970's. Timothy
Hutton plays Christopher Boyce very competently. He is a young man very
disillusioned by the CIA's underhanded activities in allied Australia. Sean Penn,
as the doped-up, drug running Andrew Daulton Lee, is outstanding. The
competent and professional direction of Schlesinger, along with some very good
acting, make "The Falcon and the Snowman" an espionage thriller not to be
missed. Tuesday, February 4, 1992 - Video
OK. A warning for anyone out there who is a parent or guardian. Be careful about
who you see this film with - ie - DO NOT TAKE KIDS TO SEE THIS FILM. I'll explain
why. 1 - the title is misleading and the film has nothing to do with
romance - I assume this was fully intentional on the producers behalf, but is
annoying 2 - the film itself is really very very disturbing. I have some problems -
first is the fact that the film is neither violent or sexual and therefore is not a
'horror film'. But it IS a very disturbing film ,and involves a child and his
parents, and a small town. OK, it boils down to this. The film is not
suitable for minors, because it contains sequences and images that are unsettling
and would be confusing to a child. Is has a bizarre quality to it, and its ONLY
because it has a child in it that makes me feel its unsuitable. As a parent myself
I feel strongly enough to want to tell people because I read only the other day
that it is having a release in theatres. I hope im not offending the
film makers by saying this, but I think its my right, because its getting a
release, and has an M rating only.(because its not violent or sexual). Just weird
and unsettling but pretty good in and of itself.
"The belief in the Big Other as an invisible power structure which exists in the
Real is the most succinct definition of paranoia." Slavoj Zizek This
is a review of "Marathon Man" and "The Falcon and the Snowman", two films by
director John Schlesinger. Though Hitchcock and Lang brought the
"conspiracy thriller" to Hollywood, the genre only blossomed in the late 60s and
70s, with films like "The Parallax View", "Z", "Marathon Man", "Capricorn One",
"The Manchurian Candidate", "Three Days of the Condor" and "All The President's
Men". This was the age of Vietnam and Watergate, the public deeply suspicious of
all political leaders. The genre remained quiet in the 80s and early
90s, until the "X Files" TV series sprung to life. With taglines such as "The Truth
Is Out There" and "Trust No One", the series posited a world of vast conspiracies
and government plots, the common man at the mercy of all manners of ridiculously
elaborate schemes. The only way out of the maze? "Fight the future!" as the tagline
of the series' final season proclaimed. It was apparently our duty to trawl through
the labyrinth of information, discovering some elusive "truth" that ensured our own
freedom. This trend ended with the boom of the internet, conspiracy
thrillers now giving way to "conspiracy documentaries". The internet generation
lapped up such independent documentaries as "Loose Change" and "Zeitgeist", whilst
in the mainstream Michael Moore titillated his audience with stuff like "Fahrenheit
9/11". All these documentaries believed in a "secret order", a cabal of wealthy
politicians and businessmen who conspire to reduce human rights and enslave the
world. They struggle to create a mono-myth, linking various conspiracies and hidden
agendas into a single, all encompassing narrative that explains the purpose and
point and future of everything. This need to "streamline narratives", to
make them more "efficient", is reflected in the scientific community, who battle to
create a "Grand Unification Theory" and ultimately a "Theory of Everything",
merging everything from Quantum Mechanics to Special Relativity into one giant all
encompassing formula. So ultimately, the "conspiracy thriller" is rooted
in man's desire to have control. The modern subject is one who displays outright
cynicism towards official institutions, yet at the same time believes in the
existence of conspiracies (an unseen Other pulling the strings). This apparently
contradictory coupling of cynicism and belief is strictly related to the demise of
the big Other. Its disappearance causes us to construct an Other of the Other
(conspiracy) in order to escape the unbearable freedom its loss causes. Conversely,
there is no need to take the Big Other seriously if we believe in an Other of the
Other. We're therefore allowed to display cynicism and belief in equal measures.
 Man thus seeks to assert control over a wayward universe, to create a
kind of paternal babysitter (be it God, a mathematical formula, a conspiracy
theory, an explanation for violence/conspiracies/murder/war etc) who provides
meaning and symbolic order. The Big Other provides reassurances to the believer.
It's a "lifestyle choice", akin to religion, in which his place in the world is
dependent on sheer irrationality. The problem with most "conspiracy
thrillers", from the innocent days of Hitchcock's "Topaz" all the way up to modern
fare like "The Da Vinci Code", are two fold. Firstly, they are not incorrect in
suggesting that something is "wrong" amongst the "elite" or "best people", but they
are incorrect in individualizing and personalizing processes that are social,
collective and systemic, an approach which implies that it is just a question of
personal morality rather than social structures. Secondly, and most importantly,
these "conspiracies" ignore the fact that the Big Other simply doesn't exist. There
is no symbolic order pulling the strings. Some modern "conspiracy
thrillers" ("Eyes Wide Shut", "Existenz" etc) acknowledge this, with their
untangleable webs of lies, accidents, truths and half truths, nothing ever adding
up, nothing ever making sense, the real and the hyperreal, the truth and the
desire, all blurred, without any identifiable ground zero, but these are mostly
films by intellectual directors. Compared to these modern "conspiracy
thrillers", "Marathon Man" and "The Falcon and the Snowman" are positively archaic.
"Marathon Man" is a about a grad student (Dustin Hoffman) who gets embroiled in his
big brother's business (Roy Scheider), which unfortunately has to do with spies,
guns, double agents, diamonds and evil Nazi dentists. Scheider is suave, Hoffman is
excellent and Schlesinger hits us with some neat visuals (the reveal of the Eiffel
tower is stunning), but what's most interesting about the film is the way that its
various plot lines don't intersect until the 1 hour mark. Even then, it takes a
further half hour for things to start making sense. Unfortunately, the film ends
with a clichéd showdown between the villain and the good guy, everything neatly
resolved and explained. "The Falcon and the Snowman" is a bit more
ambitious. Sean Penn and Timothy Hutton play two friends who sell government
secrets to the Soviet Union. Hutton works at a civil defence contractor and
smuggles information out of his office and into the hands of Penn, a small time
drug dealer who has no qualms selling to the KGB. Penn does this strictly for the
money, whilst Hutton is disillusioned with the American government (particularly
its attempt to depose the leader of Australia) and so sells the secrets strictly
because he hates how his country conducts crimes and games of espionage. In other
words, the film is about a conspiracy undertaken as a response to
conspiracies. "Marathon Man" 7.9/10 "The Falcon and the
Snowman" 8/10 Aside from an oddly slapstick car crash and its clichéd
ending, "Marathon Man" is an effective thriller, with several neat scenes. "The
Falcon and the Snowman" is even better, Penn turning in a memorable performance.
This movie is one of my all-time favorites. I think that Sean Penn did a great job
acting. It is one of the few true stories that made it to film that I really like.
It is in my top 10 films of all-time. I watch it over and over and never get tired
of it. Great movie!
Based on the true story about Christopher Boyce (Hutton) and Daulton Lee (Penn),
and their involvement in selling American secret Government documents to the
Soviets during the 1970s. Boyce works for the Government, and his job is to guard
these particular documents, which ultimately disillusions him about his Country's
affairs and practices. He then enlists his drug-dealer friend, Daulton Lee, who has
become a wanted man, to be the courier for these sensitive documents. Lee
infiltrates the Russian Embassy in Mexico, and makes contact with Alex (Suchet),
and they both begin to play the espionage game. Lee's interest is purely
about money whilst Boyce is acting out of anger towards the system he is involved
in. Alex believes Lee to be the inside man in the American government. Things start
to become array when Lee's drug addiction and reckless behaviour in handling the
courier position offsets both Alex and Boyce. Lee becomes more paranoid, and the
initial espionage game becomes more deadly and consequential for everyone
involved. This is a true spy thriller without the cheesy action. The
character motives and analysis of real-life subjects is sympathetic but very well
written, and the film cleverly interweaves the real-life events with underlying
political themes about human predatory behaviour. Where a bigger nation uses their
political power to control the smaller nations. Well directed, and intense in
parts, especially where the protagonists become immensely in over their heads in
the spy game. Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn give amazingly riveting performances in
a film that questions authority and yet there is no simple answer to the political
message or the complexity of that system. The plight of the protagonists becomes
the underlying message within 'The Falcon and the Snowman', and makes it a clever
political thriller with a poignant element about society, human relationships, and
the American system. Great film! ****1/2 out of *****!
"The Falcon & the Snowman" offers some of the best acting from its two leads.
Hutton, in a brilliantly understated role, calmly portrays the confusion and angst
of a man who seemingly turns traitor for no other reason than as rebellion against
his father. Penn, as the co-conspirator basically just along for the ride and drug-
money, explosively turns in one of the strongest performances of his multi-talented
career.
In the movie, "The Falcon and the Snowman", when they were showing Christopher
Boyce around the complex, the satellite in the background was the actual Ryholite
satellite that is now in space. TRW allowed interior shots. TRW also allowed both
interior and exterior shots for one of the original Star Trek TV series. (The
episode is the one where Spock goes blind when a string of satellite lights are
activated to kill the aliens). Christopher escaped jail (Lompock) and was featured
on America's Most Wanted. He was drinking in a bar when the show aired. He said,
"Hey, that's me". Needless to say, he was captured and transfered to a maximum
security jail.
This movie is based on the true story of Christopher Boyce and his friend Daunton
Lee. This fascinating story takes place around the time of the Whitlam Dismissal,
in which during his time as a clerk for TRW, Christopher was privy to classified
correspondence which admitted the CIA's involvement in Australian political and
union circles. The movie shows several scenes involving Gough Whitlam (transmitted
over US TV), where events take place which confirm the classified documents that
Christopher had read previously. The removal of Gough Whitlam was an organized CIA
coup. Elsewhere in the film, it was mentioned that most people have no idea about
the level of deception that goes on, ultimately to ensure that the US is used as a
vehicle to promote certain policies at the behest of everyone else. In the current
age, nothing has changed. Christopher's life was profoundly affected,
read shocked, by his knowledge of what and how the CIA shapes foreign democracies,
including the democracies of allied nations to the United States. Christopher
reacted, probably not in the best way at the time, by selling top secret
information to the Soviet Union with Daunton Lee acting as his exchange. Eventually
Christopher and Daunton were captured and convicted of treason. On 23rd
May 1982, whilst serving time in US prison, Christopher Boyce agreed to a one and
only interview with Ray Martin of 60 Minutes Australia because it was the
Australian connection that profoundly affected him. It caused a furore in the
Australian media for about a week, then it went hushed. I liked the
movie's symbolism of the falcon, and in it Chris was called the Falcon, and Daunton
the Snowman (drug connection), but in reality the title "Falcon" was not something
that was used by Chris. Christopher Boyce: Criminal or Man of
Conscience? You decide. Resources:
http://www.playitforwardoz.com/boyce.html
THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN is a superb example of an anti-80s film. While many
other films of the decade in general lacked substance, this film is pure substance.
There's nothing stylish or fake or superfluous about it. It boasts two superb
performances: Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn as lifelong friends Christopher Boyce
and Daulton Lee, respectively. Hutton, Penn, and Tom Cruise were a triumvirate of
early 80s actors who all looked headed to much bigger and better things (all 3
starred in TAPS). While Penn and Cruise's popularity soared, Hutton has been
largely forgotten about, and that's a shame. Actually, Hutton is the first of the 3
to win an Oscar for supporting role in ORDINARY PEOPLE in 1980, but I think his
performance in this movie is even more outstanding. Hutton really
captures the post-Vietnam war rebelliousness in his character Chris Boyce. A failed
seminary school student, Chris has a love-hate relationship with his father, well
played by the great character actor Pat Hingle. The scene where Chris quotes the
poem his father thought he'd long forgotten is a particularly powerful one. Chris gets job at Dept. of Defense and uses his hatred of U.S. gov't and
its foreign policy to sell seemingly useless plans of old projects to the Soviets.
He gets his buddy Daulton, a hyper drug-dealing self-server, in on it to be the
courier of the project plans on microfilm. While Chris is doing it based on his
beliefs, Daulton is doing it strictly for the money. The Soviet liaison is
excellently played by David Suchet. Penn and Suchet have a real quirky chemistry
and it's a kind of funny set of exchanges between them. But, make no mistake, this
film is anything but that. It is a serious character study about pessimism,
malaise, paranoia and mistrust. Again, the leads make this film. Hutton
delivers a brilliantly understated performance as Chris, a rather smart young man
who had so much potential. Penn, as usual, does a tremendous characterization as
Daulton, a pathetic loser who acts before he thinks, and most of the time doesn't
think at all. The ending of this fact-based film is very saddening on several
levels. A truly powerful character study.
If you're interested in learning about the 'real' side of spying, this movie is for
you. Unlike 007 movies, this shows how things really go down in the world of
espionage. Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn both give outstanding performances in this
not-so-well-known film. Certainly worth watching.
The Falcon and the Snowman is the true story of two college-age rich kids from L.A.
who become spies for the Soviet Union. One, played by Penn, is already a drug
smuggler up to his eyeballs in trouble. The other, played by Hutton, lands a
position at an aerospace firm where his job is to man a top-secret cable facility.
There he learns of some of the dirty tricks employed by the CIA on foreigners that
America doesn't like. Don't forget that the movie is set the early 70s, the time of
Vietnam and Watergate. Appalled at what he's learned, the Hutton character decides
to betray his country and convinces his buddy to join him. Neither of them is long
on brains, it is not long before they're way in over their heads with no way
out. This is not a thriller, and is rather slowly paced. If this is not
a problem for you, then it is well worth the rental.
A great film in its genre, the direction, acting, most especially the casting of
the film makes it even more powerful. A must see.
I caught this movie at the Glenwood Cinemas at the weekend as part of the Kansas
International Film Festival, which, as usual has provided a thoughtful and eclectic
sample of world cinema. I have been keen on Australian Film for a
number of years, so was pleased to learn that this film was included, and I was
certainly not disappointed. Superbly shot, firmly directed, it's an
eerie tale of one man and his journey to the heart of darkness, as it were. It
reminded me a tad of Lynch's Wild at Heart, it has that strange madness in it, but
I was glued to the movie for other reasons - namely that it presents a portrait of
Australia which is..well, very believable. I have vacationed to the Land
Down Under a number of times, once in the 1980's and again about 7 years ago with
my wife. I don't wish to go to great lengths explaining my vacations,
but the director Frayne appears to have a grasp on much that I find so odd and
eccentric about Australia, a country that is responsible for the extremities of,
say, Nick Cave on one hand, and Steve Irwin (the 'Crocodile Hunter') on the
other. One incy wincy whinge - - I would have preferred even more of the
'unknown' Australia. Much more in fact. But I also realise that there's only 1 and
a half hours to do it all in... 'Sigh.' Overall though, this movie is
very, very accomplished.
Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is groundbreaking, bold, and artistic. A masterful social
commentary on the plight of the women from conservative, upper middle class Indian
households, this is a film no one should miss. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das give
stellar performances by underplaying their characters as much as possible. A.R.
Rahman's music is the work of the genius and almost plays the role of another
character in the film. Mehta uses Rahman's score and together, they create such
amazing sound montages that effectively portray the views of the world around Radha
and Sita whenever they look to each other for support. This film is not about
lesbianism as many have branded it. Lesbianism is just a part of the film. It is
unfortunate that most people tend to write the film off calling it taboo instead of
giving it a chance and looking at its real meaning.
Set in the 1970s Los Angeles, Christopher Boyce has just dropped out of seminary
school and returned back home were his father gets him a job where he monitors
intelligence documents. His old friend Daulton Lee is a ratty cock drug-dealer, and
gets caught in a set-up and must choose between becoming a narc or facing a long
stint in prison. When up on bail, he jumps and heads to Mexico City. Chris offers
Lee in a partnership to be his messenger to sell secret papers to the Soviet Union
embassy in Mexico City, because of the disgrace he feels about the US Government's
control over weaker countries to their own gain. But over time the two begin to
clash with their motivations and find themselves in something bigger then they had
originally intended. Director John Schlesinger has spun out such films
like the respectable "Midnight Cowboy", "Marathon Man", "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and
"Day of The Locust". While "The Falcon and the Snowman" might not be held up that
high, there's no question that this sombre espionage drama (inspired by a true
incident) is an unjustly overlooked character portrait. Everything about it, is
quite a subdued affair with no real grandeur qualities hitting a massive mark. The
driving factor of the film has got to be the admirably versatile lead performances
of Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn as the two ambitious young lads Chris and Daulton.
Penn is especially good with his uneasy intensity, which works well off Hutton's
superbly cool-and-collected turn. What starts off as easy, we watch the situation
gradually crumble, as the two amateurs find themselves really out of their league.
The strongly detailed and symbolic (predatory behaviour) plot mainly centres on the
pair's relationship and that of their reasoning's for their actions, which
eventually shows us the knotty developments that led to their downfall. The plan
opens up like a wound to never properly heal, due to Daulton's drug addiction,
which really makes him go off the rails and leaves Chris to pick up all the slack.
The searing political aspect is there, but it focus on the themes of idealism
(Boyce) and greed (Lee) to get its point across. Both don't mix and results show.
Suspense is justified through its stimulating pot-boiling script and character
interactions then that of any visual gimmicks. Action is very little, but still
there's a pressure induced style to Schlesinger's assured and realistically dark
'n' gritty direction. Pacing is mostly well handled, although some sequences do
seem to wallow on for too long, but however it grips you as it plays on its
authentically paranoid tone to slowly build up to an exploding tight latter end.
Adeptly fleshed into the technical production is an airily harrowing music score
and professionally poignant cinematography. The supporting cast are exceptionally
fine with Pat Hingle, Lori Singer, David Suchet, Boris Leskin, Jerry Hardin and
Joyce Van Patten. Also look out for Michael Ironside in a tiny part as a FBI
agent. A mostly outstanding spy-film that benefits largely from talented
lead performances and by not playing the usual stakes. It's more an emotional ride,
then a complex one of twists. Recommended.
John Schelesinger's career as a film director was extraordinary. We had watched
this film when it first came out, but wanted to see it again when it showed on
cable recently. The film has a faded look, as one watches it today, but still, it
is interesting because of the intense performances of the two principals. If you haven't seen it, please don't read any further. Chris and
Daulton were two childhood friends that came from upper middle class backgrounds.
Chris went to enter a seminary to be a priest, but gives up. Daulton became a small
time drug user and trafficker. The two lives seem to run parallel as the pair
become involved in an illegal activity that will prove their short sightedness. In
fact, it shows how both young men miscalculate in their attempt to fool the CIA and
the Soviet Union. These two, in a way, were so naive in thinking they could pull
something that bigger, and better equipped people couldn't even imagine could be
done. Chris' motivation is legitimate, as he feels outraged in
discovering the underhanded role of the agency for which he works in dealing with
other nations, in this case Australia, something he finds by sheer coincidence.
When he involves Daulton, we know the whole thing is doomed because no one into
drugs, as he is, will ever amount to anything. In fact, Chris and Daulton had no
conception of the scope of what they are trying to do, or its consequences. Timothy Hutton was at this period of his career, an actor that was going
places. He had proved he had talent with his work in other films, so it was a
natural choice for Mr. Schlesinger to select him, a choice that pays off well. Sean
Penn, also was a young actor who showed an intensity, like one hadn't seen before.
In fact, at times, Mr. Penn, reminded us of a young Robert Mitchum in the making.
Both actors' contribution to the film is incredible. One can't think who could have
played this duo but them. "The Falcon and the Snowman", while not up to
the par with other great John Schlesinger's movies, is an interesting look to our
not too distant past.
This movie does an excellent job of taking us all the way through the dark tunnel
of espionage, from the inception through the ultimate reckoning. The movie's impact
is made even deeper with the realization that it is based on a true story. Timothy
Hutton provides us with a quality, understated performance and Sean Penn
demonstrates why he is one of America's finest living actors. As with "Midnight
Express," this movie should make us all think twice about doing something we
shouldn't be doing in a foreign country.
There is something about true stories that makes them so much more interesting than
fiction. I guess it is the fact that truth has always been stranger than fiction.
The Falcon and the Snowman tells the true story about Christopher Boyce and his
buddy Daulton Lee. Boyce (Hutton) is a former alter boy and intellectual, trying to
find an occupation that can support and entertain him. His FBI father is able to
pull some strings and get his idealist son a job working in the defense department.
Boyce has few responsibilities and seems to be complacent drinking and goofing
around with his co-workers. However, as time goes on, Boyce starts to learn top
secret information that causes him to doubt the morality of his government. The
idealist Boyce soon sees the illegal operations that the CIA is carrying out in
above all places, Australia. Boyce eventually decides that he will leak some of the
top secret info he is privy to, to the KGB. Of course, Boyce's mistake is the
assumption that because the USA is doing bad things, the USSR is the good guy. Over
time, Boyce and his drug-dealing buddy Lee (Penn), start to sell their top secret
information to the KGB. What was once idealism, turns into capitalism and
espionage. The strength of this movie is the incredible performances by Hutton and
Penn. Although one of them starts off with the best intentions, they will both soon
find themselves in an unending downward spiral. Great direction, music, everything.
Not only a great film, but one of my all-time favorites.
Excellent drama about 2 alienated, spoiled punks who go afoul of the federal
government, each for his own reasons. One, a druggie, just wants to score some
bucks for his next fix, but the other has a far more sinister agenda fueled in part
by a resentment of his father. Good performances and a hot script makes this a
winner.
For the 1980s, this is a very dark movie. At this point, filmmakers were beginning
to operate under the assumption that all films require smarmy comic relief (which,
of course, is taken to the extreme today), flashy action scenes (even more overdone
today), or steamy sex scenes. Hutton and Penn are stupendous in their
roles as childhood friends turned Soviet spies. Penn in particular is brilliant as
hapless drug dealer Daulton Lee. What you have here is a true
thriller/drama. There is no eye candy to speak of, but the story is so compelling
and the acting so superb that (hopefully) most people wouldn't miss it. There are a
couple amusing scenes, in particular the one where Penn tries to get his Soviet
benefactors involved in a major drugrunning deal. Well worth watching.
Late night on BBC1, was on my way to bed but curiosity piqued at a contemporary-set
Irish film so I stayed to watch for a few minutes and then stayed to the end. I
have to admit that the main attraction was the only English actress, Kelly Reilly,
who is stunning to look at. This is billed as a black comedy, which is
one of the hardest things to pull off. It should be the perfect blend of horror and
horrible laughs so that in the end you don't know why you're laughing - for me
Martin Scorsese's After Hours (1985) is the best example. Dead Bodies is more black
than comedy but the plot rattles along and spirals down towards further blackness.
I didn't spot the final twists in the tale as some other posters here did so I was
suitably surprised. As a snapshot of the Irish film industry in 2003, it
all seems rather worthy; it doesn't look like they spent too much on the making of
it so it had a chance to make its money back. The script could've been a whole lot
sharper but the acting was on the whole pretty good. I'm glad I watched it, flaws
and all, tho I don't think I learnt much about Ireland today, especially their
policing methods!
When it comes to those eerie and uncanny little crime films, the sorts that revolve
around characters that are bordering on scum and inhabit equally scummy
surroundings, and additionally carry that wavering and bleak feel thanks to some
pretty grotty cinematography and some very black comedy; Dead Bodies is the sort of
film Paul McGuigan wishes he could make. Alas, the maddening and sporadic Gangster
No. 1 as well as the equally all over the shop, but interesting exercise in
surrealism mixed with realism, effort entitled The Acid House are the only ones of
his we've got to go on so far. Dead Bodies is Robert Quinn's piece based on a Derek
Landy script, a film that straddles the line between psychological horror and neo-
noir; intermingling elements of crime and terror with themes linked to morality and
unnatural, obsessive disorders. McGuigan's British based crime efforts
carry that wavy and distorted feel, like witnessing somebody's nightmare and having
front row seats in the process. His films are able to disgust is some areas and
amuse in others what with their outlandish and all-over-the-place approach. They
carry a very dream-like sensibility despite being grounded in a very realistic,
down-trodden, grimy looking world the real world with as much-an emphasis on the
horror and the terror of the situations his characters spawn than anything else.
Dead Bodies is a film that tackles both some pretty harrowing character driven
situations as well as a brief inclusion of a study of a delicate psychological
mindset, only here, the film balances both the eccentricity of its characters; the
terror of the scenarios they find themselves in and the questions of morality that
arise much better. Dead Bodies is effective and rather simplistic
without ever feeling like manipulative. Its suggestive and knowing tendency to want
to hammer home exactly what people are thinking and feeling does not detract from
the experience. Early on, we meet Tommy McGann (Scott), a young lad whose
girlfriend Jean (Davis) dominates him, his life and the screen whenever she's on
for the brief time that she is. The point as to the fact his situation of living in
a less-than desirable house; with a job stacking shelves and a partner he doesn't
get on with at all well is put across in a distinct manner. As is the manner in
which the audience are given distinct permission to dislike Jean what with the
bratty, spoilt and expectant attitudes she so clearly possesses. Later on the film
will linger, rather obviously, on a police officer's face as suspicions and
tensions rise in what is clearly a cheap and easy way to tell the watching audience
that our hero is not quite out of trouble just yet. But compare this to
Gangster No. 1, in which such is the episodic and misguided approach McGuigan
applies to the material; that a vital, vital plot point arises when a character is
spotted leaving a building by someone else out on a 'random drive' in a scene set
several months after the previous one. The feeling isn't as grounded nor
fulfilling. Dead Bodies' set up is dominated by Kay Davis' Jean; a would-be femme
fatale just itching to pick a fight of some sort but just not really being able to
find one. She has lead Tommy jumping through rings; going there, doing this and
that without Tommy ever really reacting in the manner he could, principally because
he is controlled by her promises of sex. The beginning builds a certain amount of
tension because of Tommy's underplayed reaction to what's going on and it
culminates in a distinct release when the initial incident happens, and Jean
dies. If the set up is simple enough then that's one thing, but the
pinch of the project is the manner in which Tommy decides to rid Jean of his hands
by burying her without informing anyone of her death bar a best friend. Things
tighten when it transpires there was a second dead body in the exact same place
Tommy buried Jean, with suspicions, denials and general trouble the all round
ingredients of the day. It is at this point the film blurs the lines between noir
and horror; indeed Tommy inhabits rather-a large, ominous, spooky and even Gothic
house which he shares with an elder relative whom inhabits the upper areas of said
house. This evokes memories of Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho and Bates' set up that
he has with his mother, and where she's positioned. It is additionally no
coincidence this would-be place of horror is the setting for Jean's unfortunate
demise. The placing of a dead body right in the hands of the hapless,
male lead in order for it to act as the initial incident is a classic set up for
any noir; from Ulmer's 1945 film Detour right up to a more recent, and more
contemporary compared to Dead Bodies, 2006 film entitled Big Nothing. What this
film unfolds into, is a twisted; rather unpredictable and quite frightening tale of
genre hybridity and mind games told under a palette of distinctly drained visuals.
The voice-overs and the treading on the fine line that the lead does for most of
the film between right and wrong aid in pushing it into a realm of the neo-noir; if
we consider the fact that the lead is, essentially, innocent and his murder charges
are unfair then that's one thing, but his attitudes towards Jean initially saw him
act without thought and his covering up of her death is the anti-thesis for
dropping the murder charges. Dead Bodies is taught; entertaining to watch without
ever feeling exploitative and provides a consistent tone for the rather nasty
physical and psychological content being explored.
I truly fell in love with the characters. They were very down to earth but each and
every one of them had a hidden dark side. Sort of a mystery. David Graysmark,
himself, was an enigma. The secret fears and just secrets in general that he had.
There was a whole side of him that the other characters knew nothing about and it
left the audience either wondering or assuming. There was always a part of this man
that he would keep hidden away, yet he'd share a little of himself too. He was the
strong male lead character and I admire that type of character. Billy Moses himself
is an incredible actor who could do just about any type of part! He's an amazing
talent and a good man. His fans love, respect, and support him endlessly. Since this show he's gone onto many other projects and has stretched his
acting ability quite a bit more and quite well. Kudos to him and all the other
actors from this show for doing such an excellent job! I wish them all well. I wish
the series would've continued on! It's such a shame it didn't!
I had always wanted to see this film and the first three-fourths proved I hadn't
waited in vain. But what the hell happened in the end? I mean, don't get me wrong,
I liked the film. It definitely made me nostalgic of the realistic, unique NYC of
the 80s that we have lost thanks to Giuliani. But it's missing another half hour!
This film really used its locations well with some amazing shots, dark and
disturbing the film moves very slowly, but constantly keeps you watching. Modern
Love worked well in the Gold Coast Film Fantastic program this year offering
audiences a glimpse at an Australian Cinema that is usually neglected. Most
importantly it is refreshing to see Australian cinema not taking on the cliché
Aussie characters and story lines we have seen done to death over the years. This
film would compliment any festival and will open debate after its screenings. The
performances and characters are well developed, and the cinematography is
fantastic. An interesting exploration into family relationships, and environments.
Fame, I think, was the best movie that I have ever seen. In ways it was funny and
dramatic, but that is what makes a movie. True, it has a few loose ends, actually a
lot, but I still think that it is a terrific movie. Some of the funny things happen
in the audition at the beginning of the movie. I think it is hilarious when the
girl tries to act out O.J. Simpson in "The Towering Inferno" and Raul/Ralph goes
around to every art department saying that his father was great at every one. He
says that his dad danced with the Rockets and left Ralph his tap shoes. The
Rockets, as far as I know, are made up of women. And the tap shoes were just
regular shoes with bottle caps on the bottom. Also the guy who read the lines of
Juliet in the Romeo and Juliet play was funny. One thing about the movie that just
turns me on is the music. I have never heard anything like it!!! My favorite song
is "I Sing the Body Electric" and my second is the theme song itself "Fame". Irene
Cara has a great voice and is a great actress. I like the way the movie focused on
many ethnic groups. It showed all of the kinds of people there actually are in what
is now called "La Guardia School of the Performing Arts". This movie showed the
triumphs and trials of many young performers, including Angelo, Doris, Bruno, Coco,
Montgomery, Ralph, Leroy, Hilary, and Liza. They all had a hard time, but made it
their own way. This movie could have added on about another 30-45 minutes (before
the graduation), but it is still my favorite movie no matter what!!!!
Great cast, great acting, great music. Each character in this movie had their own
stories and personalities and it's vivid. A great movie not to be missed.
Well,I am a dancer so automatically I liked this film. The only thing I didn't like
was they didn't have much dancing as I thought there would be. But I have to say
the it was a good dance film. I think there should be more songs too. But it was a
good film as i said before! My rating 9/10!
"Fame" had been one of my favorite movies for years! It is not just an 80's musical
movie of "that" high school in NYC, it is LEGENDARY- people no longer refer to the
High School of Performing Arts but "the Fame school"!! The characters
are real, they are not "Hollywood" and their stories are real. The film follows
them through the four years of school, starting with a powerful monologue by one
student at Auditions and finishing with a spectacular graduation show. Apparently some find the broadway show better, however it is my opinion that you
should definitely see this movie anyway, and then have your own view. For anyone
who enjoys movie watching and would like to have the "classics" down, this is
surely one of them. It is an example of one of those movies that was really great,
with actors that we loved for those 2 hours, and then never saw them again... they
are classic "Fame students". make FAME live forever.
Although at first glance this movie looks like the story of your parent's high
school life (and many people will try to tell you that this movie is WAY
outdated)... and I admit that that was MY first impression.... but honestly,the
'lessons' that are learned by the heroes/heroines are def. NOT outdated. Who
doesn't want to be famous? And who doesn't want do be accepted my their peers? And
the homosexual guy-isn't there a whole controversy today about gay marriage, blah,
blah? This movie, though released in the 80's still addresses some of the biggest
issues in today's world. This movie does have a little too much profanity and
nudity for my taste, though. (thus the 8/10 rating)
I expected FAME to be an uplifting film but it ended up the opposite. The overall
plot which follows the lives of several determined students attending a performing
arts school has strong potential. However, FAME builds its characters up
beautifully and then leaves us with so many questions when its over. I was very
surprised when the graduation scene pops up -- we thought the DVD had skipped or
something. All of the characters have internal and external conflicts of some sort
and virtually none of them are resolved when the movie ends! You might think there
are too many characters, but its probably too many scenes. Its evident the film was
cut up and shortened because its sometimes lacks transition. I think Laura Dean as
Lisa Monroe is my favorite character. I really connected with her character's
ambition and following her heart. Boyd Gaines as Michael, the stereotypical poor
student who can't read but is a divine dancer, is also very good. I didn't
especially like Irene Cara's character of Coco, but this is not Cara's fault since
her script is weak and her character is not fleshed out. Her voice is beautiful and
hearing her songs warrants watching the whole film. In summary, the film could use
many improvements, but the quality actors and great music earn its place in film
history.
This movie has become an iconic stand-in for what is great about America. Fame is famous for its music and performances. There are several standout actors,
singers, and dancers, including Irene Cara, Paul McCrae, Anne Meara*, and the
superb Gene Anthony Ray. The plot is not the movie. It follows an
interesting format ... but, it all really ends in a kind of mush. Where
Parker succeeds is in pushing this movie into periodic overdrive - with the
extremely poignant, sometimes beautiful and outright campy music score &
performances. The film's climax is a song-dance fest of
musicians,dancers, & score by Christopher Gore. A wonderment to behold. * An interesting note about the magnificent and superbly talented Anne
Meara ... sometimes talent must reside in the genes ... Ms. Meara is married to one
Jerry Stiller and is the mother of Ben Stiller ...
This movie and its subsequent TV series followup has become the iconic stand-in for
what is great about America. Fame is famous for its music and
performances. There are several standouts including Irene Cara, Paul McCrae, Anne
Meara*, and the superb Gene Anthony Ray. The latter who plays a walk-on dancer with
no academic or other than "street" credentials is an amazing personality and is
worth watching for what is essentially a portrayal of himself. A wonderment to
behold, as one king was apt to say. The plot follows an interesting
format - chronological at times, genre at other times, personalities in some
cases ... but, it all really ends in a kind of mush. Where Parker
succeeds is in pushing this movie into periodic overdrive - with the extremely
poignant and sometimes beautiful and outright campy music score that matches the
performers step for step. The climax of the film is a climax for all
times. And this climatic complete cast of many many talented musicians and dancers
and music is thankfully repeated throughout the credits. These are one set of
credits that are well worth sitting through ... an achievement for the ages. The
music by Christopher Gore is a gift to behold.
This movie tells the story of nine ambitious teens trying to follow their dream at
the infamous New York High School For Performing Arts: Coco, the singer, Bruno, the
modern Mozart, Lisa, Leroy, and Hilary, the struggling dancers, Ralph, the
comedian, and Doris and Montgomery, the actors. While they all think they have what
it takes to really reach their goals, they are going to need a lot more than just
their talent. They will have to deal with rejection, heartbreak, education, pain,
and love in order to achieve their fame. "Fame" is one of the most
entertaining, classic, and inspirational movies of all time. It has everything a
teen drama/musical should have: extremely catchy, entertaining, Oscar-winning songs
performed by the amazing Irene Cara, stunning dance numbers, a very attractive cast
that makes you believe in the characters, and a great story, including the
heartbreaking scene when Coco meets the video camera. Like I said, the
cast is awesome. Irene Cara can really act, and it's not only her singing that
makes her shine here as Coco. Lee Curreri is very good as Bruno. Barry Miller
brings a lot of humor to Ralph. Maureen Teefy is great as the outcast Doris, and
look closely, and you'll see Paul McCrane of "ER" as Montgomery. This is
truly an amazing film. "Fame" really touched me and inspired me to keep following
my dreams as an actor and singer. Any movie that moves me this much is a winner in
my book. A must-see! The film really touched me and inspired me to follow my dreams
as an actor and singer.
Fame was released in the U.S. a year before I was born; I was too young to ever
remember the original version of Fame- and yet I heard and read numerous things
about it. Such as the fact that it spawned a TV series and that its soundtrack was
led by the Irene Cara, Giogio Moroder hit, 'Fame'. Fame was arguably the
first of its kind to portray and showcase the world of performing arts in the form
of a feature length film. The lives, the struggles, the hurdles the students and
some of the teachers undergo themselves were under the eye of the viewers. The performances were great, yet one which caught my eye in particular was Gene
Anthony Ray, who played the troublesome yet promising Leroy. Angry, frustrated and
at first rude, his character later became less angry and frustrated and more
committed to his studies- not just with the practical in the performing but in the
theoretical too. Irene Cara was good as Coco- the scene with her taking her blouse
off while some pervy director was filming her was rather discomforting to watch-,
as well as Paul McCrane for his amazing portrayal of a vulnerable but closeted
homosexual trying to cope with life and enrolling on a performing arts school in
New York, after he had been kicked out of the military when he told them he was
gay. Ralph played by Barry Miller was interesting but at times, his character did
grate on my nerves. The choreography was excellent, there were some good
dance numbers involved and the 'hot lunch' scene in the cafeteria was worth
watching. Another scene that was great was when the 'Fame' song was played and all
the kids started rushing out into the streets of New York and danced wildly and
without a care in the world. It was a street jam like no other. The only
star to ever truly benefit from this in the long run was and is Debbie Allen- she
later became a producer, director and star- though she mostly worked behind the
scenes on shows such as Everybody Hates Chris and The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Paul
McCrane later went on to star alongside Peter Weller in the movie, 'Robocop', where
he played a villain and E.R. as the judgemental, obnoxious Doctor Romano. British director Alan Parker shot this really well- he allowed the
performers to dance, act, sing to their hearts content without wanting to interfere
with and affect their styles. Throughout the duration of the movie, we
see the various stages the students encounter during their 4 years- from their
auditions to freshman year, all the way up to graduation in New York's High School
For The Arts. Fame is one of those movies which caters for or is aimed
at a particular audience that isn't necessarily the general mainstream movie loving
community- it is definitely NOT for everyone. I for one enjoyed it
because I have an interest in the arts- not technically in terms of being a
performer because I am not one but as someone who appreciates that creativity and
artistic expression can be channelled through hard work, commitment and passion
towards what one does with their talents. Therefore, if you are an aspiring dancer,
actor- or just someone who is creative, you might be interested in a movie such as
this- though whether the events in Fame are anything like what it is in a
performing arts college/school in real life, then that is a completely different
matter altogether. The 2009 remake of this movie was released recently
and frankly, it virtually pales by comparison. As for the original
Fame, almost 30 years on though yes it is a bit dated but it is still a great
movie, nonetheless. It's not an outright classic but as a 80s cult
classic, in line with other 80s dance hit movies, such as Footloose and Flashdance,
Fame hits the spot. Isn't it a coincidence that all those dance movies begin with
the letter 'F'? Gritty, moving and intriguing, this one is worth a
watch.
John and his wife Emily, accompanied by their child Edward venture from the
comfortable environs of suburbia to the village where the husband spent some of his
childhood. There has been a death in the family and John must begin proceedings to
take control of an old ramshackle cottage, situated by the seaside and once
inhabited by an old man who has apparently committed suicide. Sceptical
about the circumstances of the death, John divorces himself from his family and
from reality, puts his own life in peril, and puts on the clothes of the old man
who is now dead. The film now changes - nothing is what it seems - the
people of his past appear, in full Gothic/hillbilly glory - his wife worries about
his mental state - and his son disappears into the reeds. John finds
that the old man didn't commit suicide, that his death is far more mysterious and
strange. In a spine chilling finale, we learn that the events of the film actually
never happened and that the entire narrative was imagined by the little boy,
Edward, who is struggling to come to terms with his parents' divorce
proceedings. Modern Love is a macabre piece of high art cinema, a
puzzling and perverse piece of pretentiousness, full of vague suggestion and
unexplored red-herrings. It is humourless and seemingly unconcerned with current
Indie trends which both validates its creators, but also renders it passé. But the weaknesses of this Australian film are fully outweighed by its sheer
muscular cinematic vision, its bloody-minded and uncompromising precision and its
oddball Euro horror. The bastardry of script norms and lack of slick dialogue pales
into insignificance against a backdrop of noir and a lead performance that needs to
be seen to be appreciated. One of the most aggressively weird Australian
films in years.
Film follows a bunch of students in the NYC High School of the Performing Arts.
There's Coco (Irene Cara) a black singer who WILL make it to the top despite
everything. She's helped by Bruno (Lee Curren) a white musician. Then there's Doris
(Maureen Teefy) who wants to be an actress--but she's shy and scared. She becomes
friends with Motgomery (Paul McCrane)--purportedly the only gay student in the
school and is romanced by Raul (Barry Miller). Then there's Leroy (Gene Anthony
Ray--who sadly died in 2003) who's homeless and a great dancer--but can't read.
Then there's various teachers (Albert Hague, Anne Meara stand out) trying to teach
the kids. The songs are GREAT (the title tune and "Out Here On My Own"
were nominated for Best Song--"Fame" won), the dances are energetic and the young
cast shows plenty of ambition and talent. BUT this film misses the boat in the
drama department. Many plot lines are brought up and completely left open-ended by
the end of the movie. Why did Coco do a porno? Did Doris and Raul remain together
afterwords? Did either make it? How about Montgomery--what happened to him? And did
Leroy ever graduate--and how? There are too many long speeches (Raul has two) and
moments that just lead to nothing. I'm assuming there were cuts in the script--I
can't believe the movie just left all this open. Still, it's worth
seeing for the acting and, again, the music. There's basically not one bad song and
the dances go full force (and at one point stop traffic--literally!). My favorites
are "Fame", "Out Here..." and "I Sing the Body Electric" which is a great closing
song. So I recommend it but can only give it a 7--the script really needed to tie
up loose ends--and it didn't. Trivia: They wanted to shot this film at
the actual School for Performing Arts but couldn't get permission. The dean of the
school read the script and said there was way too much swearing in the film. That
is true--there is a LOT of foul language but that's how high school kids talk.
Avoid the TV version which abysmally overdubs it.
I saw Fame when it first came out. It deals with the high school class of 1980,
which was coincidentally my year of graduation. I saw the movie in the summer
between high school and college and, being a performer myself, it holds a special
place in my heart. The biggest criticisms of Fame usually have to do
with continuity, and there are definitely some story lines that either are not
completed or don't make sense. However, those problems are more than made up for by
the passion and emotion of the characters and the incredible music. I
saw it again recently and was surprised that I still loved it as much as I did the
first time. Fame is often compared to Flashdance, which I don't think is fair.
Although Flashdance has some great music and Jennifer Beals is gorgeous, I think
Fame is vastly superior in the development of its characters and the complexity of
its stories. For anyone who truly loves the arts, this is a must-see movie.
Fame is one of the best movies I've seen about The Performing Arts. The music and
the acting are excellent. The screenplay and Set Design are also excellent. My
favorite part is when all the students start Dancing and making music in the
Canteen. I can see this movie any number of times, and never get bored. I give it 8
1/2 on 10.
We enjoy a film like "Fame" because we imagine we are there ourselves - music,
dance and drama students, enjoying our self expression. This film had humour,
entertainment and must be an inspiration to young people to have a go at the
performing arts. Bravo "Fame". Certainly worth 8 out of 10! Chris
Do not miss this picture that defies ages. With no hesitation, a masterpiece. Not
only the script and the music but also choregraphy, casting, cut :
everything contributes to the perfect achievement. Now nearly 25 years ago and
still amazing of maturity, art and sensitivity. Available now in DVD, do
not miss either. The transfert is perfect and the sound re-boosted. One
mystery remains about this superb work : why the actors did not succeed
better after this flashing start ?
This movie was well done but it also made me feel very down at times as well. For
anyone that is considering show business this is a must see as it shows the raw
deal in what goes on for these struggling workers. The soundtrack was definitely
cool and the acting and dancing complimented it nicely. Some of the student's
attitudes might have been a little far-fetched like Leroy's especially because I'm
sure someone like that would've been kicked out immediately for refusing to read
and such if this was the real High School For Performing Arts. The Coco screen test
is hard to watch for any people out there with weak stomachs, please heed my
warning. While it's very gritty I know it's the truth on what happens so in this
respect the movie is right on. Overall it's entertaining and even though some parts
drag on the majority goes by really quickly. Final Grouping: Movies: Probably would've skipped this one. DVD Purchase: Not
something I'd need to see again and again. Rental: Worth renting at
least once in your life!
"Fame" is a very well done portrait of the students who inhabit New York City's
High School of the Arts. The film focuses on a group of students who dream of
making it big while they perfect their craft at the now famous school. Director
Alan Parker allows each of the highlighted students to mature on screen, allowing
you to feel a connection with each one. The music here is infectious and fun. The
dancing is exciting and fresh. The film eventually became the basis for an Emmy-
winning television series starring Debbie Allen and some of the other actors from
the film. One of the more enjoyable "dance" films of the 1980's. Received Oscars
for music. 8/10
If your looking for a movie with fantastic music, nice cast and a storyline that is
not to difficult to understand; FAME is for you. I have several scenes
that i love in this movie; some make you laugh, others make you contemplative. The
editing i think is wonderful, really fast and often funny. Shure, maybe there would
have been some more potential in the whole thing, all the story's stay somehow on
the surface; maybe a bit too many characters are involved.But I don't care, because
the real stars are... ...the musical scenes! One of my favorites: the
hot-lunch-jam sequence. That piece is just so raw, funky and filmed in a special
way (handcamera-style in "music-hell-breaking-loose"), its just electrifying! I
miss this raw energy in todays music-clips; the only similar energy I found perhaps
in Bette Midlers "the rose", all of the concert footage.Its about capturing
something "wild" that is "realy" happening, and not doing it just perfect; take by
take. So, FAME is a wonderful nostalgia-trip to when synthesizers where
heavy and walk-mans not available.I recommend it once a year; sure not for
everyone.
In New York, a group of freshmen join the High School for the Performing Arts after
being well succeeded in their audition. For four years, their dreams, deceptions,
success, love and personal dramas are disclosed though the insecure Doris Finsecker
(Maureen Teefy), the homosexual Montgomery (Payl McCrane), the aggressive Leroy
(Gene Anthony Ray), the hopeful Coco (Irene Cara), the ambitious Ralph Garci (Barry
Miller) and their friends until their graduation day. Twenty-eight years
ago, "Fame" was a great success, with the story of teenagers seeking a spot in the
show business, and I loved this movie and the soundtrack on CD. I have just watched
"Fame" on DVD, and presently I would say that it is a good movie with a great
potential only, but with too many flawed subplots. The story follows too many
characters and leaves many situations without answer. I do not know whether Alan
Parker had edition problems to reduce the running time of this movie, but what
happened, for example, with the ballerina that goes to a clinic for abortion? What
happened with Leroy and his teacher, did he fail due to his grammar problem? What
happened with Coco after undressing her blouse in the apartment of that crook? The
musician that plays synthesizer and his proud father are left behind in the
subplot. Anyway, "Fame" is still a delightful entertainment and a cult-movie for
me. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Fama" ("Fame")
Of course this came out right at the beginning of the 1980s. Of course it did.
Those drama students dancing in the street to Irene Cara's famous theme song, it's
an indelible eighties leg-warmer style image. But there's more to the film than
that. There's deprivation, and one man's struggle to learn to read, and a struggle
with sexuality, and an attack on a child, and one girl tricked into taking topless
photographs, and contemplation of suicide. In the end, though, it is also about
that song.
We see a man move from city to "out-back" and change dramatically - his family asks
questions, but he goes mad. Strange, brilliant film for screening here
in Israel. Wonderful locations, great actors, a film which masquerades as a
"thriller" but which is more a case-study of madness in the lead man. The film was way above the other films screened as part of the AICE festival here
in Israel. Best of luck to the team who arrived at this film. It's a Grand Guignol,
a little masterpiece of noir. My only criticism which prevents a "10" is
that the sound and the music is overpowering at times. It tends to get in the way
of the images, which speak for themselves.
High school. Years and decades later, some look back on it with fondness, others
with embarrassment. But few find it easy to forget. It's one of the most critical
phases of our lives, when changes come fast and furious whether we're ready or not.
No longer children, not yet adults, irresistible forces buffet us, pushing and
pulling us in every direction. "Fame" did its best to capture this
turbulent, chaotic period for its cast of young characters. For the most part, it
succeeded. It meandered, but did feel like a slice of life. This movie holds a
special place in the hearts of the Class of '80. We had just bid farewell to a
decade, and soon to the end of three or four stimulating and sometimes difficult
school years. We were headed out into the cold, cruel world, leaving home for
college then parts unknown. As we approached our watershed event, this newly
released movie was like a two-hour yearbook for us. We couldn't escape the titular
song on the radio. That was us up there on the screen. Those were our friends,
rivals and classmates as we had faced our own dreams, frustrations, successes and
failures. It's especially poignant for those who attended any of New
York City's other elite, top-tier high schools, especially Stuyvesant, Bronx HS of
Science or Brooklyn Tech. Like the kids here, we were considered the best of the
best. We had no auditions, but instead rigorous entrance exams. Perhaps even more
than the Performing Arts kids, we were expected to change the world, although not
necessarily become famous. Like them, not all of us made it. But the pressure
cooker environment fostered extraordinary camaraderie and esprit de corps, not
unlike the toe-tapping "Hot Lunch Jam" in the cafeteria. On our own graduation day,
our spirits soared almost like the jubilant crescendo in the rousing finale. The
film leaves us fittingly on a single, triumphant note at the end of "I Sing the
Body Electric," pointing to the blindingly bright, boundless future and all the
promise it held. "Fame" couldn't have been set anywhere else. This story
never would have worked in a small or suburban school. Los Angeles has a stronger
identification with movies and television, but NYC is a mecca for all of the arts.
Home not only to what was then called PA, but also world-renowned Juilliard, NYC is
a cultural center unmatched by any other city in the world. It's also a time
capsule of the rest of the city of the time, showing the seediness, grit and dirt
that was endemic of a New York still struggling back from the fiscal crisis that
had nearly bankrupted it. But most of all, it showed the vitality, since muted by
the inroads of Giuliani, Disney and tourism. What I wouldn't give to be
young again. But with "Fame," at least I can remember what it was like.
I truly hate musicals because music numbers just start out of the sudden and
usually spoil scenes, but this one is completely different - it's simply brilliant.
Plot perhaps isn't any challenge for the viewers, but the simplicity of people life
stories makes this movie great. I've seen it at least dozen times and
still I'm not tired with the plot, characters or music (I just love the soundtrack
- it's the only soundtrack that I've really wanted to have and most probably will
remain the only one that I owe). For me it's a must-seen kind of movie,
great characters compiled with entertaining songs and a lot of things to think
about after the movie end.
A recent survey of children in the UK re-enforced the notion put forth by this film
27 years ago. That being more than anything else, young people want to grow up to
be somebody famous. It used to be doctors and firemen that kids wanted to be. Now,
everyone wants to be famous. Fame is a story of a group of kids accepted into the
High School for Performing Arts in New York City. We seen them first audition, then
take classes and learn about life for the next four years. The film has a lot of
fine qualities, but ultimately leaves you feeling a little unsatisfied. Alan Parker's bold directorial style fits the story pretty well. The film has
been classified as a musical, but more than anything it is a drama. Musical numbers
and dance routines break out here and there, and Parker keeps them as close to
realistic as they really could have been filmed. The acting is for the most part
top-drawer with a few exceptions. The pacing is a little off, particularly toward
the end of the film, but by that point, the story has already taken a few wrong
turns anyway. First off, the auditions at the beginning of the film
should have weeded a couple of the principle characters out. It seems unlikely that
anyone would show up and audition for one department, then stumble their way
through admissions to another. Some of these people just don't look that talented
or interested to begin with. Once the first year of classes gets going, the film
settles into a nice groove. The interaction between students and teachers is very
well handled, and it leaves you wanting more. The film begins to lose itself later
on as we see more and more of the students' lives out of school. Some of these
people just aren't worth caring about. The film's biggest mistake is
making the Ralph Garcy character so prominent. This guy is a boorish; self-centered
jerk. A "professional a-hole" as he proudly declares on stage during his comedy
routines. The audience is supposed to somehow feel for this guy and his tragic
personal situation, but I was just hoping they'd throw his butt out of school.
Irene Cara, Maureen Teefy, Paul McCrane and the late Gene Anthony Ray are the
people you'll care about by the time this film is over. Try as I might, I still
can't develop abs like Gene Anthony Ray had in this film. Overall this
film is good. It is memorable, interesting, and full of daring scenes and
performances. It runs maybe a little too long, and perhaps some of the wrong
characters get fully developed while others kind of hover in the background. The
musical numbers are great, and there is even a surprise or two waiting to be
discovered by the time the film is over. Though not perfect, Fame will be a film
that lives on in one way or another for many years to come. 7 of 10
stars. The Hound.
'Fame' (1980) is brilliant. It's got all these qualities that made the late 70's
movies so great. It is proud of its directness and not ashamed of being over the
top. What really matters here, is the journey, not the destination.
Ignorant idiots with soap opera mentality, will never realize that 'Fame' is about
the struggles, anxieties and triumphs of these young people, not about their
careers. Ironically enough, none of the very talented actors of 'Fame'
made it in Hollywood. 'Fame' marked the end of an era. The end of artistic freedom
and experimentation and the beginning of commercialization and political
correctness. It's the last statement of a generation that had a voice of its
own. 10/10
Bobbie Phillips, who in her own right has amassed a great list of credits as a hard
working Hollywood actress, shines in this third installment of UPN and Village
Roadshow's Chameleon series. In this installment, the sexual innuendo has been
toned down with Kam showing a caring maternal side towards a recently orphaned
genius teen. Bobbie delivers this role to the viewers with great panache'. The
action and stunts were the best in the series.
In 2023, in a world ruled by the economical interests of the great corporations
(and not by the people will or politicians), Kam (Bobbie Phillips) is a human
hybrid and IBI (International Bureau of Investigation) agent. She is denominated a
`sub'(from sub-human), and her genetic composition is 80% human and 20% animal. She
has a combination of genes of cougar, that gives her strength and flexibility;
falcon, that giver her a increased capacity of seeing and hearing; and chameleon,
that gives her the power of camouflage. In the first film, she was a very seductive
and amoral woman, using sex to achieve information. I do not have watched the
second yet, but in this third one, the story is full of action. A group of
scientists has been developing a new and dangerous form of power generation for
fifteen years. The research has not been concluded yet, when one of them betrayal
the other and steals the research. The problem is that, due to its molecular
instability, a black hole will be created and will suck the whole planet. Kam saves
Dr. Tess Adkins (Teal Redmann), the survival of the team of scientist, and tries to
retrieve the dangerous invent from the hands of the `bad guys'. There is a very
strong `sub' in this gang that causes many difficulties for Kam. This action and
sci-fi television movie is better than the first one, recalling `The Terminator' in
some parts of the plot. Bobbie Phillips is a very beautiful actress, and her outfit
is very cool. I am becoming a fan of this good entertainment. Fans of sci-fi movies
will not be disappointed. Now I am trying to buy `Chameleon 2'. My vote is seven.
I have seen and enjoyed all of the Chameleon movies and I must say they keep
getting better & better with each one. Bobbie Phillips is Fantastic and my
granddaughter wants to be just like her. I'm glad they brought in a "Brother"
character for Bobbie (Kam) so we can expect to see more exciting shows. Bobbie is
beautiful, sexy, and sweet, and independent at the same time, and everything any
female could desire to be!
This show was incredible!!! I've seen all three and this is the best. This movie
has suspense,a bit of romance,stunts that will blow your mind (GO BOBBIE), great
characters and amazing locations. Where was this filmed? Will there be more? I
really liked the story line with her brother. Looking forward to Chameleon 4 and to
see how the world is saved yet again.
I was surprised to catch this on TV Friday, and I enjoyed it. Between the presence
of Bobbie Phillips and the numerous references to everything that could be
considered "cyberpunk", this was a fun movie to watch. I enjoyed the story, which
reminded me of a book I've read ("Earth", David Brin), and was fun to see on TV.
Bobbie looks great, but I also enjoyed her performance as Kam because she did seem
different from everyone else. But the greatest thing about this movie was the
atmosphere that has been described in books by Gibson, Sterling, and others. It was
just fun to see it on TV.
Great job! Was very exciting and had great stunts. A show that really rocked. Was a
great job by all who worked on this one; and especially the acting on Bobbie
Phillips' part. This would have been great on the big screen. Would like to see
more of these movies of the week or perhaps a weekly series. This was great
entertainment and am glad I watched! By far the best of the three. Keep up the good
work UPN and Bobbie Phillips. I'll be looking for the next one.
The most vivid portrait of small-town oddity I've seen in a long time -and I'm not
just talking about Australian films. This piece of work seems to have been made
"under the radar" and really, it's an entirely fascinating piece of work, that has
a worldliness mostly unseen in recent Aust. film making. At times it is
rather slow and strange - it seems to meander hither and thither not really sure if
it's a thriller or a 'head-movie'. But the stunning aspect of the film by Alex
Frayne is its iron fisted, ruthless direction. It never wavers, it is highly
controlled, precise and absolutely self-assured. The cinematography is some of the
most artful, beautiful and lyrical I've seen. The sound is all psychological, the
music builds the tension. By the third act, the story is ramped up and
episodes collide and converge - don't attempt to piece together the puzzle of the
last 20 minutes, it's a bit of an impost - but by that time the film has you a bit
of a trance, a sort of hypnosis, and you've been sold a riddle - that has no real
answer.
I am awed by actress Bobbie Phillips and her superb skill as an action star! This
movie is propelled by her wonderful acting and terrific action prowess. I am a fan
of sci-fi but I must say that this film exceeds most science fiction films in it's
cinematography and mostly it's utilization of an actress whose presence supersedes
the plot which is fine but is nothing new. Even though it looks as though this film
was made for television, in my opinion it is better than most theatrically released
films of its kind.
I LOVED this movie because Bobbie Phillips can REALLY FIGHT! I always hate when
actors are not believable in action parts. It was great to see, no offense, but a
WOMAN who can skillfully perform martial arts and fighting. If you compare this
with most action movies with females you will DEFINITELY see what I mean. They
don't have to cut up the shots with someone that can fight and it flows better. I
was VERY impressed. I hope there's more!
I felt sorry enough that this film is not popular at all even in Hong Kong.
However, for all die hard Chow's fan, this will be a masterpiece that shud not b
left out. This is "Mo Lei Tou" (a comedy style that based on unrealistic and
ridiculous plot pioneered by Chow) at its peak. The plot is totally absolutely
ultimately 1000 times more ridiculous than any film that u can imagine. The dialog
is awesome. No single part of the film cool down for u to stop laughing. The plot look simple but crazy enuf for u to start laughing. It begin with
Chow starring a junior magistrate (a corrupted one of course)caught into jail when
helping an innocent married woman he love at first sight to clear her from a murder
charge that plot by evil minister whose son was actually the real convict. Chow
escape from jail and run away as a refugee. He intend to go to the capital to see
the Emperor and report the conviction. On his way, he manage to pick up 2 lovely
women, one from circus, another one a prostitute while in the mean time mastering
supreme skill to quarrel and bad mouth from the thin Mama-san (who happen to be his
future in law). Finally, he able to force the Emperor to re-open the case by black
mail the Emperor whom he meet him in the brothel. The Emperor made him a highest
level judge to judge the case tgt with the evil minister. He manage to setup some
brilliant but hilarious plots to force the convict to commit the crime, execute him
while thrown the evil minister to jail. The plots are really hilarious
and ridiculously brilliant. Also not to forget the tremendous dialog that include
some brilliant bad mouth quarrel between Chow and the Mama-san, quarrel between the
fat Mama-san and thin Mama-san to inspire Chow to learn the quarrel skill later and
also quarrel between Chow and the evil eunuch Lee near the ending. Beside that,
some of the scenes are brilliant too. One thing that need to mention is
that to really understand the film and catch up 100 % of all the elements
correctly, this will be a must to master Cantonese really well. Which may be the
reason why early age Chow movie receive moderate response only from Asian world.
However, when Chow film began to spread his influence around the globe, hardcore
fans like me found that his film is no more that funny like the old time.
It is one of the best of Stephen Chow. I give it a nine out of ten. I
was surprised to see that Shaolin Soccer was rated on top of all singsing's movies.
Unbelievable.
An especially delightful film to those of us who saw this when young because after
all it was meant for the young to watch - when viewing it again as an adult it's
better if rose-tinted spectacles can kick in. It was the first of the 16 Jungle Jim
films and later TV series chunky Johnny Weismuller went on to do for Columbia (in
the last 3 films he had to use his own name though as they'd lost the rights) after
getting the sack from playing Tarzan for Sol Lesser. Johnny Sheffield also gave up
playing Boy to become Bomba the Jungle Boy in a series of 12 films. Jim
and party go on perilous safari to hunt down the hidden temple of Zimbalu manned by
an obscure tribe of devil doctors who seem to have the secret of a poison that
might also be a cure for polio. Edgar Rice Burroughs probably approved. After 16
years talking monosyllabically Weismuller seemed awkward stringing sentences
together, not that it mattered. On the swift march we meet many of the interesting
but generally playful denizens of the jungle, barring the sinister crocodile going
to eat the leading lady with her leg caught under a twig and the surreal elephant
stampede (stock footage squeezed into a corner of the frame). Skipper the dog and
Caw-Caw the crow had many adventures, none of which turned out essential to the
plot in case you were concentrating! The biggest problem with the film is the
farcical climax, which can be exciting but also unfortunately remind you of the end
of a serial part and the original excellent serial had been made 12 years prior.
Although personally I wouldn't have minded this going on another couple of hours as
well! The only thing heavy about this was Weismuller; in so many ways an
enjoyable kids film from the old days - not recommended for serious adults so I
love it.
The story takes place in rural Germany on the eve of the second world war, a unique
setting, with a couple of British agents being held by the Germans in a farm house.
Since they aren't technically at war yet, it seems as if both sides must have
realized what was coming. Both agents (Bruce Lester and Ray Milland) escape into
the countryside and split up. Milland happens upon gypsy woman Marlene Dietrich one
evening as she's alone at her camp preparing dinner. Their encounter is an amazing
and captivating scene, not so much for Milland but for Dietrich, who takes sexy
sultriness to a whole new plane. Milland disguises himself as a gypsy in order to
hide from the Germans, but he remains committed to his mission, to do with locating
the scientist who knows the formula for a new poison gas but who also isn't a
committed Nazi. The Hollywood take on gypsy life and customs is predictably
portrayed, but the underlying knowledge that they would be one of the targets for
extermination by the Nazis adds a certain tension. The film straddles the line
between being a serious story about the poison gas and the urgent search to get the
formula, and a colorful though not too convincing love story between Milland and
Dietrich. However, they're both very good; it's the fault of the film that didn't
give them or their relationship enough dramatic realism, relying on and exploiting
obvious cultural differences for questionable comedic purposes. Nonetheless, there
are some tense and interesting points here and there, the surprise meetings with
German soldiers and Gestapo agents, where Dietrich does a great palm reading and
Milland nearly as good faking one, and a dinner party of Germans of various stripes
at which the announcement comes over the radio that Germany had been attacked by
Poland and everyone stands and does a stiff arm salute. Mitchell Leison may have
missed some opportunities here and there, but he fully took advantage of others.
Those reviewers who have complained that this movie lacks plausibility or has
problems of construction are missing the point. This is a wonderfully camp romance,
with plenty of Play, gypsies! Dance, gypsies! music, that both sends up exotic love
stories and celebrates them. Buttoned-up Ray Milland makes an amusing foil for a
Dietrich with black hair, tattered scarves, and tons of jewelry. The character's
eagerness to feed Milland and look after him more closely resembles the good German
hausfrau Dietrich was off the set than her mannered vamp roles. Censorship being in
force, it's made clear that they share a caravan on platonic terms only, with
Milland fighting off Dietrich's advances with a determination remarkable for a
heterosexual bachelor who might be killed any day. His only excuse is that she
smells, so perhaps a stuffy, fastidious Englishman might indeed be put off. In the small role of Milland's young companion on his secret mission, Bruce
Lester adds a note of camp of a different kind. We are told at the beginning that
he hero-worships Milland, and indeed he rather fawns on him. When, after they are
separated, he meets Milland, now transformed into a brown-skinned gypsy with a
shirt open to the waist, his glowing appreciation of the disguise even further
suggests that not only Dietrich is romantically infatuated with Milland. Despite the wonderfully improbable characters and sequence of events, the
growing love of Milland for Dietrich and his acceptance of the non-rational aspects
of life is rather touching. And when, on their last night alone before he escapes,
he says that each of them now contain half of the other, the two have become one,
and then darkness falls, I think we can assume that the censor decided to give them
a break! One goof--at the beginning, Milland, who is supposed to be English, refers
to a lieutenant, using the American pronunciation. (The English say "leftenant.")
Since Milland was British, he must have been saying it that way because the
American movie-makers feared that American audiences would be distracted and
confused by the British style.
This film is exceptional in that Marlene & Raymond present outstanding
performances. The acting in this film is the greatest strength of the production,
but the script, direction, and editing deserve applause. There is an extraordinary
chemistry that exsists between the two stars. If you like Marlene, and you like
Raymond, you'll love this film..... (It's a classic that compares with
Casablanca.) 
The film opens in a stuffy British men's club full of gents in leather chairs
smoking cigars. This is Denistoun's world. A messenger delivers a small box to him
which he opens to find a pair of gold earrings. The site of the earrings sets off a
reminiscence about the time he spent in the company of gypsies. The rest of the
film is flashback. Golden Earrings has been a long time favorite of mine
and is probably the most romantic movie I know. Dietrich plays against her usual
type. Here she's dark-haired, earthy and not in the least bit mysterious. Instead
of a femme fatale, she'a tower of strength and energetically sets out to use all
her resources to help Denistoun survive and reach his goal. To make sure that he's
a really convincing gypsy, she pierces his ears and has him wear her dead lover's
golden earrings. With his clothes and some grease, she transforms him from an
effete British gentleman into a wild and sexy looking man. When I was
growing up I used to hear the song "Golden Earrings" which is sung in the film. I
think the tune is hummed a little by Dietrich. /There's a story the gypsies know is
true /That when your love wears golden earrings /She belongs to you.
Having recently purchased Universal's Marlene Dietrich DVD collection, I was
somewhat reluctant to watch "Golden Earrings." The idea of a 40-something Marlene
Dietrich as a gypsy in a war-time romance seemed unusual, and implausible. I should
not have worried. With all the professional talent that went into these old movies,
it's hard to miss, really. The movie was a joy to watch; it's a classic. The most interesting thing about the film was Dietrich, who pulls off the
gypsy role perfectly. The makeup, lighting, photography, and her performance all
add up to make a really startling and memorable character. I had never seen
Dietrich play a "good" woman convincingly before--but she does here! She played a
lot of heartless vamps in those great Sternberg films, so it is refreshing to see
her in a more down to earth, relaxed role, playing an exotic but very human
character. Overall, a very nice romance. The love story is believable,
optimistic, and the happy ending is extremely satisfying.
Talking about competition features at the Split Film festival, we have titles from
all over the world. China, Korea, Canada, USA and Australia and many of these
stories are indicating that the world is really valley of tears. Modern
love...thats for sure. In that movie by Alex Frayne, two younger
married people and their boy are traveling from town to the coast to visit the
grave and house of the man's uncle who raised him a long time ago and who died in
mysterious circumstances. The coastal village seems like something in an American
horror film where the village is bizarre and people are uncommon mutants. But
episodes in Alex Frayne's pastorella can't be described as horror in the normal
way. In fact this is an extreme interesting drama where we are seeing relationships
and horror through flashbacks and much more. In this story and through obviously
psychological facets of the actors we are shown a peep show of film some charmingly
eccentric Australian film-making. Thus is the the case of Frayne. Always something
new and fresh. Visual intelligence and unique sensibility of some Australian
directors is astonishing good. Frayne's movie is super. There is something in the
Australian landscape that shows their movies so special as we have see in FRAYNE's
Modern Love and in RAY Lawrence movies Lantana and Jindabyne. It seems
it will be the same in future titles of Alex Frayne.
I am really surprised that this film only has a rating of 6.4 as of the time I did
this review. While not exactly a great film, I do think it's one of the best films
Dietrich did and it's a shame it isn't more highly regarded. I think a lot of the
reason I liked the film so much is that the usual silly Dietrich persona as the
"über-vamp" isn't present and her role required her to actually act. I just hate
seeing film after film after film in the early days of her career where she seemed
more like a caricature or cliché than a real woman. I don't necessarily blame
Dietrich for the silly vampish films she made in the 1930s--audiences loved them
and they did make her famous. But here, she showed she really could act. After all,
just looking at her in films like MOROCCO, BLONDE VENUS and THE BLUE ANGEL, who
would have guessed that she was well-cast to play a Gypsy! I was quite prepared to
hate the film because of this casting decision, but it worked--she was pretty
believable and a lot of fun to watch as well! The film is, essentially, a vehicle
just for Ray Milland and Marlene Dietrich--the other supporting characters are very
much secondary to the movie. Milland is a wanted spy in pre-WWII Germany and in his
efforts to escape, he stumbles upon a rather frisky lone Gypsy (Dietrich) who
instantly takes him to be a fulfillment of prophecy--in other words, her new lover!
Milland is quite stuffy but reluctantly agrees to travel in her wagon--even putting
on body paint and piercing his ears to make him look like a Gypsy (hence the title
to the movie). Over time, he slowly starts to realize that underneath her very
uncouth exterior is quite a woman and romance slowly blossoms. The film
in a word is "charming". A nice romance with a good dose of comedy and fun--just
the sort of picture you wish Hollywood still made. Also, please note the
performance of Murvyn Vye as "Zoltan". He was very magnetic in the short time he
was on film and I just loved his deep and beautiful voice. Finally, a
sad note to consider. While the film is set in Germany, no mention is made of the
upcoming Gypsy Holocaust. During the war, throughout German territory, the Nazis
exterminated a huge percentage of Gypsies and so the final nice ending to the film
is a tad far-fetched.
From a bare description of THE TOLL GATE's major plot elements, one might think
it's a revisionist Western of the 60s or 70s. * Our hero is a robber,
killer, and arsonist; * the love interest is a single mother whose
shiftless husband abandoned her and their child; * twice our criminal
hero is "unofficially" released by authorities in return for some good deed, and
this is presented as a praiseworthy act; * the only acts which are
presented as truly evil are the betrayal of one's family and the betrayal of a
criminal associate; * the hero tries to go straight, but turns back to a
life of crime after he can't get a job; * the hero is on the run from
both a sheriff's posse and a criminal gang; * the hero's final
redemption is accomplished by strangling a man with his bare hands and tossing his
body over a cliff; * and the "good bad man" ends the film by sending the
young mother and her child back to civilization and riding off alone into the
Mexican desert, never (presumably) to pay for his life of crime. Just
goes to show you that there is nothing new under the sun. Of course, THE
TOLL GATE doesn't display quite the cynicism or moral nihilism of its successors:
the hero's redemption is set up when he surrenders to the posse after reading a
passage from the Bible. Can't quite imagine Clint Eastwood doing that. THE TOLL GATE an excellent movie by any standard, and Hart was a very fine actor,
not given to the broad histrionics often used to convey emotion in the days before
sound. 9/10.
This has become one of my favorite movies and certainly one of the best westerns I
have ever seen. Having a soft spot for the genre (westerns are or were, since
they are no longer made very often morality plays that too often have been
denigrated by critics with intellectual pretensions), I purchased the DVD, sight
unseen, because I had read enough about William S. Hart's work (much of which he
wrote and directed) to pique my interest and thought I should have at least one of
his films in my video collection. I must admit that I approached the
actual viewing with some trepidation. My previous experiences with silent cinema
"classics" had left me feeling let down. Chaney's The Phantom of the Opera,
Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Fairbanks' The Mark of Zorro were fine, but not
nearly as good as their reputations would lead one to expect. They were either too
long, or too theatrical, or both. The Toll Gate, however, emerged as a
pleasant surprise. It is a story told in a simple and straightforward
manner. Black Deering (played by Hart), leader of a notoriously successful outlaw
gang, thinks the time has come for group to disband, before its luck runs out. He
is, however, opposed by his chief lieutenant, Jordan, who goads them all into one
last holdup by promising great wealth but leads them into a trap in which he is
complicit. Everyone is killed except Deering, who is taken prisoner. When his
captors recognize him as the man who once saved a number of soldiers and settlers
by warning an outpost of an impending Indian attack, they allow him to escape.
Free, he tries to find honest work but is snubbed and ridiculed and ultimately must
rob again to survive. Soon, he is pursued not only by the sheriff's posse but also
by Jordan (now prospering from the reward money he has collected) and his henchmen.
His flight leads him to a remote cabin inhabited by a single mother and her little
son. After some initial misgivings, they take him into their hearts. Deering sees a
chance for a new life but, with the posse and Jordan closing in, realizes that this
may not be possible. Hart was the first great western star and the
first to inject realism into the genre. As one of the pioneers of movie-making, he
created many of the characters and situations that have become cliché in westerns
for more than ninety years. What keeps his movies interesting, however, was his
ability to go beyond the cliché (perhaps his imitators did not go far enough) so
that the material appears fresh and innovative, even now. Three such instances in
The Toll Gate illustrate this: 1) In one scene, his character shoots
into a crowd in an attempt to kill Jordan, and kills a bystander instead. A
subsequent close-up shows that he is clearly frustrated. The frustration, however,
comes not from the fact that he has gunned down a man who had hitherto caused him
no harm but that he missed his intended target. 2) In another, as he
flees from the posse, his "borrowed" horse steps into a gopher hole and breaks a
leg. Hart pulls out his gun to put the animal out of its misery but, before pulling
the trigger, gives his head a sad, loving pat, as if to say farewell to an old
friend. 3) And finally, after he has strangled Jordan and thrown his
body over a cliff, he returns to retrieve his guns and spots his adversary's pistol
lying on the ground nearby. He steps forward and gives it a swift kick before
mounting his horse. It is a simple gesture but it underscores the deep loathing he
feels for the man who betrayed him and his comrades. And I love the
title, The Toll Gate. It is allegorical in its implication that a man cannot begin
a new life until he has paid for the sins of his old one. Deering's payment comes
in the form of sacrifice. Today's more sophisticated audiences may not buy into
that sentiment entirely but it can still work on you if you let it. Viewers who like their videos in pristine condition will undoubtedly object to
the DVD's picture quality, especially the badly deteriorated final reel. I don't
mind at all. That a copy of this 1920 movie even exists at all is a miracle since
prints of so many other silent movies have been lost. If you bear that in mind and
look upon the film as a piece of history, its visual flaws are not that difficult
to accept. William S. Hart was born in 1870 in New York but grew up in
the Minnesota and Wisconsin where he learned to speak Sioux and Indian sign
language. He counted Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson among his friends and collected
Remington paintings, so his knowledge of the West was first-hand. If his vision
seems overly romanticized by today's standards, it is nevertheless rooted far
closer to reality than the spaghetti westerns of the '60s and '70s and the
revisionist works that followed. Both the star and his films are overdue for re-
evaluation.
I was five when the show made its debut in 1958 and at a later point, was a regular
viewer. I remember that I really enjoyed the show, along with "Leave It To Beaver",
"My Three Sons", "Ozzie and Harriet", "Dick Van Dyke", reruns of "I Love Lucy",
"The Real McCoys", etc. I am now enjoying the first season of "Donna Reed" on DVD
and have watched the first two episodes. Donna Stone is shown to be an intelligent,
well-mannered, problem-solving, serene, stay-at-home mom, similar to June Cleaver
and in contrast to Lucy Ricardo. In episode 2, I especially like how Ms. Reed
becomes a surrogate dad, trading in her dress for sweats and boxing gloves, while
teaching her son how to defend himself physically against a much larger bully.
While none of the mothers in the neighborhood I grew up in, including my own,
exactly met the idealistic standards portrayed by Ms. Reed, it is refreshing to see
good manners and intelligent decision-making prevail at the end of the day, in
contrast to today's accepted standards of vulgarity, selfishness and indifference
among one's neighbors. I cannot imagine Jeff and Mary Stone being told by their
parents that trespassing in their neighbors' yards is okay, leaving a dog outside
to bark all day is acceptable, or telling their mother to "shut up" in a
supermarket in front of everyone.
Like a lot of stars of the big screen as their careers wound down, so many turned
to television where probably they secured their reputations for posterity. Donna
Reed is a case in point. I don't think Donna Reed ever thought that
Donna Stone was anything challenging, not to a woman who had won an Oscar for
playing a very different type in From Here to Eternity. She was certainly better
prepared to play wife, mother, and homemaker Donna Stone after having played Mary
Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life. Donna was always beautiful and wise
and ever helpful with the problems of her kids and her husband. Carl Betz was not
an idiot, he was a pediatrician who had his office attached to the house. Talk
about the man being ever ready in a crisis. Though this was the Donna
Reed Show because Donna's husband at the time, Tony Owen produced it. Yet it lasted
as long as did because of the popularity of the two children, Shelley Fabares and
Paul Petersen. Fabares had that best selling teen record Johnny Angel which she
introduced on the show. She successfully made the transition to adult star, most
known for her role in Coach as Craig T. Nelson's wife. But Petersen was
a bubblegum teen idol back in the day. The Donna Reed Show dare I say got most of
its viewers because of him. It's forgotten now, but Petersen also had a best
selling record, My Dad. Didn't do half as well as Johnny Angel. Now
Paul Petersen runs a support group for former child stars like himself. So many of
them end so tragically, it's good work that he's doing. The Stone
family was the quintessence of Middle America. They lived in a suburb near Chicago,
they led wholesome lives. Mom and Dad were always there for the kids. Of course the
problems they had usually were nothing more than breaking curfew. It's
this series I believe was the model for the TV town of Pleasantville where Tobey
Maguire and Reese Witherspoon are sucked into. I have pleasant memories
of The Donna Reed Show. Easy to take, but not too seriously.
While I agree this was a 1950s sitcom, I don't feel it was "typical". Firstly,
Donna Reed was a STRONG woman, unlike the regular 50s sitcom moms. She made a stand
for women's worth and equality (remember the episode where the TV announcer says
"just a housewife") and Donna stands up for all women do and represent, especially
those that don't work outside the home? And when the women rebelled against
something in the series, it was not something trivial...it was always something to
show that women have the right to be treated with the same respect as men.
Remember, Donna Reed was married to the show's producer, so she had much more input
into making hers a more powerful character. The children were
intelligent, but not precocious. They were normal kids. And they could ACT. Something else that made Donna Reed Show stand out was not only did the
children LOOK like their parents, but you could feel the chemistry between all the
actors in the real life situation, which then came out in the characters. Shelly
Fabares and Paul Peterson have often written and remarked that they were treated
like the children of Donna Reed and Carl Betz, and that the adults were fiercely
protective of the child actors, and treated them accordingly. Donna and Alex also
had somewhat of a sexual chemistry that wasn't seen on the other family shows. And
the characters could be flawed, and in major ways, and yet, accepted for the flaws
and mistakes. These were not super parents that did no wrong and had no emotional
highs and lows. They were normal people acting as normal people. Women's
rights, drug abuse, child abuse, single fathers, poverty, children who need good
health care but can't afford it...it was all shown on this show. Pretty
groundbreaking for the era. Donna Reed show didn't last for eight years
without a reason. And it could have possibly endured, had it not been for Tony
Owens and Donna Reed divorcing. This show is highly underrated and
should be shown so that other generations can appreciate quality. In
summary, I agree with the original poster, who obviously cares for the show, but I
think that the Donna Reed show has SO much more to offer than casual entertainment.
The quintessential housewife and perfect mother, Donna Reed (as Donna Stone) could
do it all. Settle spats between the children or neighbors, take care of her hard-
working pipe-smoking pediatrician husband, Alex, and still have a stack of
pancakes, three types of breakfast meat, and a tall glass of milk and OJ ready for
the kids every morning before breakfast. Over the course of the past
fifty years, we've lost sight of the idealistic stay-at-home mom, family meals
together at the kitchen table, and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband when
he comes home from work. I wish the show were available on DVD- I'd
discontinue my cable altogether!
Okay, I know that's cliché. Taken on its surface, this is a bad film- perhaps in a
league with "Plan 9 From Outer Space". The dialog is suspect (but the Singlish is
quite enjoyable...), the plot is not quite believable, Gavin's character overacts
excessively. While watching the movie, somethings happen that truly make you
wonder... Handsome and Kim making out on a tank, Gwen eating a banana in a bath,
just about everything Gavin says and does ("psssssssssssssssycho!!"). These things
taken separately are perhaps flaws. Taken together, however, they are merely
quirks. Watching this movie with an open-mind (especially if you're not familiar
with Singaporean culture), and with an open-minded group of friends is guaranteed
to deliver a lot of laughs and a memorable time. You can't go into this movie
expecting a masterpiece, or even expecting to take anything serious at all. If you
can take this film for what it is - an underdog film about underdogs, filled to the
brim with its own quirks - then you should have a good time watching this one! I've
already seen it three times and I wouldn't hesitate to watch it three more times!!
Jacques Audiard's directorial debut See How They Fall aka Regarde les Hommes Tomber
is our old friend, the film with two different stories that gradually converge and
turn out to be the same story after all, simply told from different sides. It's a
shaggy dog story, with Matthieu Kassovitz's simpleton following unlucky-in-cards
drifter Jean Louis Trintignant with mutt-like devotion that even stretches to
killing for him when he's asked to repay his gambling debts in kind. Meanwhile, in
a slightly different timeframe, Jean Yanne's over-the-hill travelling salesman
becomes increasingly obsessed with finding the hit-man who put his cop friend into
a brain-dead coma, his life, income and relationships gradually stripped away as he
gets closer to his prey. Yet while it may offer the perfect setup for a modern-day
neo noir, the film is often more surprisingly playful, more interested in quirks of
character and a slightly skewed sense of humor (aptly served by the occasional
ironic captions and Alexandre Desplat's half-jaunty, half-discordant score) than
the traditional thriller set pieces and plot mechanics. Unfortunately
the film is ill-served by one of the worst Region 1 DVDs released in recent years:
the picture quality on Synkronized's disc is so poor at times you keep on expecting
to see the audience's heads in front of the picture like a pirate disc.
This film is full of interesting ideas. Some scenes are truly hilarious. The
dialogs are witty and colloquial. The tension in the film comes not so much from
the 'murder mystery' plot as from the relationship between the characters. The film
tells two stories in parallel. The first story involves the characters
played by Trintignant and Kassovitz. Trintignant is an ageing drifter, with a
somewhat ridiculous macho toughness, who is followed by a naive young man played by
Kassovitz with plenty of good-natured smiles. Many good moments in the film come
from the contrast between the two characters, for example when Trintignant tries to
teach Kassovitz how to be intimidating. The second story tells how a
salesman,played by Jean Yanne, gives up his job and his wife to find the murderer
of a young friend. Yanne plays the part with a kind of aggressive irony. I wish I
could describe this better. After a while the viewer understands how
both stories are connected and they meet indeed in the end, in a surprising but
also logical ending. The film is a successful mixture of the witty but
superficial gangster films the director's father (the celebrated Michel Audiard)
used to write, and the "typical french film" with lots of psychological depth and
lots of care in the display of emotions.
I saw this on the Accent Underground release with the short films. I found the film
at first boring and old fashioned and switched it off after the first hour - I was
a little drunk and tired. I went to bed, and no kidding I had a
nightmare about this film within half and hour of falling asleep. I couldn't stop
thinking about why, so I got up, switched the TV back on, loaded the DVD and saw
the rest of the movie. Well done Alex Frayne sir, you've managed to
implant your film into this old, cynical movie goers head, and that takes doing. So
10 out of 10 to you. I can't say I 'love' this film of yours, but it has
made a lasting impact despite its flaws and low budget etc.
It's not hard to imagine what the main problem for a screenwriter is who wants to
have 18 equally well written characters with about the same amount of screen time
in a movie that last around 90 minutes. It's almost impossible not to fall back on
stereotypes and that is also what writer-director Ralf Westhoff does here. Very few
of the characters can be recognized as people that you and me know in real life,
many of them are just characterized with two or three attributes and stay vague. I
am aware of that but still think that "Shoppen" is successful, namely that it
accomplishes just what it wants to. It is a film with very well written dialogue,
extremely good acting and a film that made me laugh out loud really often. I don't
think that this film wants to make a deep going analysis of loneliness in our
modern society, or that it wants to be moral commentary on speed-dating. It's a
movie about something that exists and people and their motivation to use it. Funny
and entertaining.
In complete contrast to the previous correspondent here, I thought Shoppen Munich
(as it was billed when shown with English subtitles here in London at the German
Film Festival in November 2007) was very funny, very well acted, and excellently
scripted. It's quite audacious to design a 100-minute film that consists
exclusively, and relentlessly, of talking heads. But I think Ralf Westhoff
succeeded with wit and élan. No standard filmic devices of, say, following a
character's soul-baring pronouncement with some meditative minor-seventh-chord
music and long-shot nature cutaways. But when someone said something that revealed
their souls - well, we were hustled on by the man with the timer for yet another
superficial introduction. Which is, of course, the point: the hurtling tickbox
superficiality of thirtysomething urbanites, where everything is down to a quick
question and answer. Maybe most films are so clichéd and stupid that we
English are ready to laugh at any vaguely intelligent and uncontrived cinema, but I
can promise you that at the screening tonight (Curzon Cinema, Sun 25 Nov 2007) the
full audience bellowed with laughter most of the way through. So I wasn't the only
one guffawing! My girlfriend (who speaks German and has lived in Munich)
thought it was hilarious. I (who don't speak German and have not been to Munich, I
think) thought it was hilarious. I'd recommend Shoppen (Munich) to anyone
(especially couples...) looking for a smart, witty, original, wise film about the
superficiality of modern relationships and the bewilderment of the generation who
feel they've missed out on the happy-ever-after stuff first time round. NB In the English subtitled showing in London, the subtitles (which were very
good) were shown completely underneath the slightly reduced picture, not inside it.
I thought this was a Good Thing.
Hey, this Ralf Westhoff seems to knows a lot about people! We have nine women and
nine men taking part in a speed dating event, each person has five minutes to talk
to each opposite. A good idea to make a movie out of these conversations. And even
better: it works very, very well! The dialog is witty, original and authentic, each
person is subtly characterized, without falling into the cliché trap, something
that is unusual for German movies, remember: All these years, we Germans were
tormented with silly zeitgeist comedies such as "Workaholic" or "Stadtgespräch". But now the time has come for young German directors to do their own thing
and take the risk of producing movies which are entertaining and funny AND
intelligent and sensitive at the same time. The timing of "Shoppen" is good, too:
Although it presents mainly dialog, it keeps the tension and interest. After a
while, you actually become curious to see how this man and that woman would do.
Some of the participants meet later on for a two-some, it's fun to see them
interacting together in "real life". Of course, the film has a few drawbacks: it's
not very cinematic (but can such a movie be?), the musical soundtrack could have
been better, but all this is only marginal. The most important thing
about this movie: We have some damn good actors here. Imagine this: All of them are
still pretty unknown even here in Germany (most were derived from the Munich or
Bavarian theater scene). But I predict that out of the 18 main actors, at least 11
will quickly become very well-known in the movie and TV scene over here. It's great
to see so many fresh and at the same time talented faces. Well-done! For
those who want to read more, here's a rundown of all 18 actors:(spoilers!) Sebastian Weber: Silent waters are deep! Memorize his "Flower garden" monologue,
you can win any woman's heart with this one. Anna Böger: A hell of a
woman! Every time she opens her mouth, you can't help but laugh and feel good.
Listen how she pronounces "asshole" and calls the pink shirt guy a "Bürscherl"!
 Felix Hellmann: The "Bürscherl" from above is fun to watch. The
inconvenient truth is that there are too many of those guys around. His looks
somewhat reminded me of Flo Weber of "Sportfreunde Stiller". Katharina
Schubert: This woman has everything: love, hope, despair, beauty. Her "do you want
children" scene is a classic. A great actress of whom we will hear again, no
doubt. David Baalcke: Now is this guy a loser or not? Almost as
authentic as Paul Giamatti in "Sideways". I hope this is NOT method acting. Julia Koschitz: The "good looking" woman in the circle. Julia used to play
theater in my hometown, kudos! I think she will appear in many TV series to
come. Martin Butzke: The revolutionary guy catches the cutest and most
conventional woman in the end. Would you like to share a taxi with this guy? Kathrin von Steinburg: She gave a stunning performance in "Tatort" last
year. Her trance-like performance in this movie is no less. SEE her beautiful face
and HEAR her dirty laugh. The best scene in the movie belongs to her. Matthias Bundschuh: I know these "write down everything"-guys back from school.
I'm not sure whether the hot blond got her allergic reaction because of him or his
cat. Matthias' portrayal of such a chicken is outstanding. Mediha
Cetin: The sister-in-law of my ex-girl-friend was the same talker like her. The day
I met her was the only day in my life I needed tranquilizers, so bad remembrances
here. Thomas Limpinsel: The "nice and desperate guy" in the circle.
Limpinsel has a comical talent that is way better than most so-called "comedians"
on TV. Lisa Wagner: The victim of Sebastian's "flower garden" metaphor.
Lisa's face is funny and full of melancholy, her story made me feel good and sad at
the same time, wow! Oliver Bürgin: The "good looking" man in the circle.
No wonder he catches Julia in the end. These two really fit together. I think he
will appear in many TV series to come. Julia Heinze: The "cute,
conventional" woman. I hope she won't be underrated: Julia's face changes from
naive to hurt to furious are great! Stephan Zinner: The "nature boy"
from Partenkirchen likes cooking, eating and good sex. Watch the body language
between him and the hot blond! Zinner usually plays CSU politician Söder on stage!
 Anja Klawun: The "bargain girl" has some good moments, but, beg your
pardon, fails (like most actors) in playing a drunk on screen. Christian
Pfeil: Plays the arrogant and narcissistic guy. Couldn't believe that this very
actor owns two art-house cinemas in Munich. Tanja Schleiff: Plays the
girl who sleeps with every man around. I'm sure many male visitors will go for her.
I have heard she can do dramatic roles as well, so I'm curious.
Currently playing at the 2007 German Film Festival in Australia
http://www.goethe.de/ins/au/lp/prj/ff07/enindex.htm thanks to Peanutqueen and
especially AriesGemini for her rundown on the actors in this ensemble cast. In Australia these movies were sub-titled in English and while French
movies here often get a mainstream release, German movies are still to gather that
sort of commercial audience. But like BMWs and Mercedes when Germans get it right I
really like their films. Like PQ the time here went so quickly, lots of laughs from
the audience as each of the 9 men and 9 women moved down the speed dating line 5
minutes at a time. While many films are overlong this one I could have
watched much more of. It had the sort of characters and character development for a
series. Given time I will re-read AriesGemini100 review and reference the actors I
liked and their other work with a view to keeping an eye out from them. I
agree....most of these actors will go onto bigger and better things. Some very good
character actors in this fine film. I did see it in the program listed as a
mockumentary. Mock or otherwise it felt very real. And quite romantic in it's
way. Viva la Deutcsh!
I've just seen this movie in a preview and I can only recommend to watch it. It was
about 90 minutes long and when it was over I felt like it could go on for hours.
The stories of the protagonists are so realistic and you feel really at home. The
movie basically consists of dialogs but I wasn't bored a minute. 18 people of
really different characters and each one of them acted out so well. I had to laugh,
felt awkward, was sad and still felt happiness. All in all it is a movie that shows
the different kinds of people in our society, the way they communicate and how love
has changed and nowadays is handled as an economic thing. Dating becomes something
that is similar to an audition. The whole audience loved it. So please watch it if
there's a possibility. You'll love it!
When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was very excited to see
it. The ideas to make a movie of this caliber, as good as it was, must have been
very difficult. I wasn't really sure if anyone could encompass all of the Pope's
many amazing qualities in a movie, but the movie did his memory justice. In my
opinion the most important task was to reveal to the people who the Pope started
out as. To his days in Poland, all the way to his last days in the Vatican, this
movie followed every aspect of his life. Thomas Kretschmann, the man who played the
Pope in his adult life and on, did a very good job at getting the emotion across.
Overall this movie was educational, but also very entertaining.
Great movie about a great man. Thomas Kretschmann is first rate as in all of his
other movies.I would never have envisioned him as Pope John Paul. It speaks volumes
for the casting director. Why do they keep casting him as German officer in the
movies? And he only came to universal attention after "the pianist"? Of course he
looks so hot in the uniforms. I know a lot of girls drool over his handsome face.
But this guy is a great actor and has such great potentials. If you don't believe
me, go watch "Stalingrad". I hope he will get a lot of excellent roles in the
future with more diversity. Otherwise, what a heartbreaking waste of great talent.
ABC's version of the life of the late Pope: They put it just slightly ahead of
CBS's version and it may have suffered from that but the program itself was
excellent. It moved fast since it only had two hours (with commercials also taking
up time) to cover this great man's long life, but Thomas Kretschmann admirably was
up to the challenge.He did a remarkable job in conveying the emotions and strife
that John-Paul endured.He-unlike the CBS biopic- played the role from youth to old
age and managed to seem "realistic" at both ends of the scale.His credibility never
wavered.He has an amazing range and depth. It is a shame that the program could not
have been longer and more detailed but working within the time frame they did
have,I think they did an excellent job bringing it to the small screen.
I read the comments about this movie before watching it and wasn't expecting much,
but as a B movie it's a curiosity. I guess you have to be a certain type of person
to enjoy this kind of thing, but I seriously thought it was awesome. People should
watch it just for the experience because it's totally one of a kind. Don't expect
much of it. The acting is poor, transitions were obviously done on a PC, etc.
Definitely a B movie, but nonetheless really worth checking out. Very funny. Mild
gore, and some questionable themes, so probably not something to show your Gran,
but for the more adventurous viewer I'd say it's a must see.
"Dominion" is a good movie,but not original.It blends some elements of slasher
movie and adventure flick.The setting is wonderful,the acting is acceptable and the
film is fast-paced and exciting.Highly recommended for any thriller/adventure buff.
This is a great family film dealing with down to earth people who enjoy their local
interests dealing mainly with horse racing. Lloyd Bourdelle, (Walter Matthau) is a
farmer who also raises quarter horses and has a young son named Casey Bourdelle,
who loves horses. Lloyd is able to raise a full grown horse who he calls "Casey's
Shadow" after his son and this horse breaks all speed records and is a possible
winner of a million dollar race. Sarah Blue, ( Alexis Smith) becomes interested in
this horse and offers to buy the horse for $500,00 dollars, however, this horse
receives serious injuries to his legs and Lloyd receives a serious set-back which
upsets the entire family. Walter Matthau gave an outstanding performance and this
is a great film to view and enjoy.
This movie is a real thriller! It was exciting from shortly after the start till
the very end! If you are a real suspense nut, this is the movie for you! The
characters were very well developed and the scenery was beautiful. The story was
very well written, similar to some others I have seen, but quite different in
several ways. A must see!
This is a very well written movie full of suspense right up to the end! The setting
is beautiful in contrast to the frightening action taking place there! It is not
your typical suspense movie, but a movie well packed with interesting twists and
surprises which leave you wanting and hoping for a sequel. I recommend this film to
all suspense lovers!
Michael Kehoe has accomplished quite a feat, especially considering it is only his
second start as writer, producer AND director. Generally "first timers" lack vision
and direction when helming a major production but "Dominion" proves Mr. Kehoe is
going places in Hollywood! Set with beautiful scenery, Dominion boasts experienced
cast members (especially Thomerson & James) who communicate Kehoe's vast vision
with exceptional clarity. Few films can mix the slasher/horror genre with a genuine
action/adventure feel, but Dominion accomplished this completely. This film
certainly qualifies as one of the top-notch films in both of these categories. If
you are looking for fast-paced action with more than a modicum of suspense, look no
further. I look forward to Kehoe's future projects with great enthusiasm. Well
done!!!
By now, the game's stale, right? The jokes have been done. Its all over.
The creative genius which drove this game for the first two games was gone, after
all. Wrong. The game is still intact, the jokes are here,
folks. Sure, they're all rehash, but so was Monkey Island 2. And 1, for that
matter. The difficulty is well placed, somewhere between the slightly
easy 1 and the ridiculously hard 2. The ship fighting sub-game is badly
innappropriate, in the tradition of sub-games. And this game has the best joke of
the whole series. When asked for your membership card to an exclusive beach, always
select "You don't need to see my identification." Its worth the price of the game
by itself.
Lucasarts have pulled yet another beauty out of a seemingly bottomless bag of great
games. If any further proof was required that they rule this genre of gaming, then
this is it. Before actually playing the game, there was a little concern about how
the writers were going to keep up the pace of gags after the first two games. Fears
were rife that it was going to wear a bit thin. Play the game and see
how quickly those fears are allayed. From the introductory video with Guybrush in
the dodgem boat (!), to the closing stages in the funfair, the jokes just keep on
coming. I was a great fan of the first two games and the other Lucasarts works (Day
Of The Tentacle, Sam & Max, etc) and this one does not fail to deliver the quality.
You will not be disappointed. (Well, I wasn't.)
First I played the second monkey island game, and I liked it despite the low
quality graphics and sound. Then a few months later, I found out a new game was
made. I tried it out and liked it a lot. First thing you notice is the great
graphics. The areas are huge, colorful, and detailed, with lots to explore. The
game requires you to use your brain, a lot, as always. The game is challenging,
with all point and click games, frustrating. The jokes haven't gotten old a third
time around. The animated cut scenes are a great addition to the game also. This is
the best MI game out there, perhaps the best P&C game too! If you like cartoony
games that play like a movie, get this game!
What can I say? Curse of Monkey Island is fantastic. The story is good and solid,
but appropriately silly, the jokes are hillarious, the puzzles are puzzling... you
couldn't ask for more in an adventure game. The "You don't need to see my
identification" bit is in itself well worth buying the game for, not to mention
Murray, who has become the hot topic among many of my friends (only some of whom
have played the game). You will love this game. And if you don't, too bad!
Being a huge die-hard Monkey Island fan, I fugured this one would be terrible since
Ron Gilbert didn't make it. Boy was I surprised! Although it's still not as good as
the first two, it has the comedy that I wanted. I was a little nervous about the
new graphics, new SCUMM engine, and just the fact that it was on a CD. But it all
came together, and it was interesting to finally hear the voices of your favorite
characters. I especially enjoyed that SWORD FIGHTING had returned. And the whole
story about finding the big uncursed ring was just incredible. Go ahead and try out
this two-CD adventure. And now we can rejoice, because Monkey Island 4:Escape from
Monkey Island is coming out REALLY REALLY soon! This fall!
Destined to be a classic before it was even conceptualized. This game deserves all
the recognition it deserves. At a time when first-person shooters like Quake III
Arena and Unreal Tournament are garnering all the attention of computer gamers,
graphic adventures are a dying breed. With great pun and humour, The Curse of
Monkey Island is a game that people of all age groups would enjoy. Life can only
improve after playing The Curse of Monkey Island. *prediction* the sequel Escape
from Monkey Island is already destined to be a classic too. I guarantee it.
This was my second experience of the Monkey Island series, the full seven years
after I had been shown the first game. What was my response? "Oh, great, we're
playing a cartoon." I'm glad my brother shut me up then and played on, because the
jokes caught my attention once again, as well as Armato's wonderful voice-acting of
Guybrush - not to mention everyone else done well (I still think CMI's Elaine
sounds better than EMI's). The cutscenes do well to illustrate something happening,
and the art of both the game and cutscenes are excellent. When we found the CD with
the originals, Secret and LeChuck's Revenge, we were both ecstatic and spent hours
working through Revenge - one such moment was where we just sat down and blew half
a day on it. However, CMI has to be the Monkey Island game I've played the most,
especially for the return of swordfighting and combat on the high seas. That moment
when you encounter Kenny and he tells you he's gone straight and then, "I'm running
guns!" had both my brother and I in tears from laughter. And that's not the best
part of the game, not by far.
A wonderful family movie & a beautiful horse movie. 75+ %entertainment. Casey,
Buddy, Kelly Marsh are very interesting and lovable characters. The horses are real
beauties. Has the horse racing as a backdrop for showing how luck is
sometimes nothing but some good commonsense. Shows how kids can do stupid things
for stupid reasons. Shows how adults can do stupid things for selfish reasons. The
very realistically portrayed characters transform the unrealistic theme of the film
into something everyone can relate to. Andrew Rubin puts in a wonderful
performance as Buddy,the sensible elder brother. Somewhat reminded me of Aidan
Quinn(eyes, speech delivery, facial appearance). Casey makes you fall
in love with the character because of the earnestness. Sarah Blue is also nicely
portrayed by Alexis Smith. Lloyd Bourdelle, the father, is played by Walter Matthau
and he IS the character. Though there is room for improvement in the
movie, its a very enjoyable, feel-good movie.
The curse of Monkey Island is a brilliant video game and its a stroke of genius
from the video game designers at lucasarts to have created this sequel. All the
characters are brilliant, the voice overs for the characters were realistic and
funny. A lot of effort went into this game and it deserves the 10 i gave in the
vote, keep up the good work lucasarts!
On account of my unfortunately not being able to find them anywhere, I have not
gotten to try any of the other entries in the series, although I certainly would
not mind, and trust me, I have looked. For anyone who does not know, this is a
point-and-click adventure title. That means that the mouse is what you use to
interface with everything that you can do so with in this, though there is one
particular case in this where that is inaccurate. I won't spoil it here, for anyone
who haven't yet tried it. Nevertheless, regardless of how little experience you
have with computers, you can sit right down and try this. There isn't even terribly
many bits of this where you need to be fast or have swift reflexes. Heck, you can
adjust the speed of the text(if you have it have subtitles on), and thus, of the
talking in it, and it's not enormously awkward or forced when slow. Accessing your
inventory is easy, as well as combining or using items. Clicking and holding down
the button at anything you can affect gives three options for what to use with
it(be it a person, a specific part of the surroundings or an object): Hand(push,
pick up, open, etc.), eyes(examine, look through, etc.) and mouth(eat, converse,
etc.). This all adds up to a welcoming, friendly environment, where you can
approach the plentiful puzzles(the amount of them is varied, based on which of the
two difficulty settings you try this on) at your own pace, and explore and take in
the dozens of individual, creatively done characters and areas in this to your
heart's content. The length of this will be determined by how much time you take to
do such(you'll hear no blame from me, they're worth it), and your skill at figuring
out the solutions. There are a few points in this where you get to decide if you
want the harder way of completing that or not. This can be enjoyed by anyone, from
any age. There's no material that isn't acceptable for children. This is one of the
products that help prove that that very fact does not have to mean that it is
intolerable for older audiences. The animation is quality work, smooth, everything
moves as it should, and the 3rd dimension honestly isn't that sorely missed when
trying this. The story-telling is well-done, and you're never unclear as to what is
going on. There are numerous well-directed cut-scenes, kept in the same colorful,
mostly bright 2D world as the rest, with well-done camera motion. "Cartoony" is an
appropriate word to describe this, and not only the visual style. It can be applied
to all of this. The entire world of this is very similar to, but not quite the same
as, ours, with a mix of past and present, inhabited by people and filled with
things that we can sort of recognize or understand at least portions of, but the
absurdity makes them funny. That would have to be one of the greatest strengths of
this, right there: It's hilarious. A lot of that comes from the lines spoken(what
is said as well as how it is), and those who dig British efforts with focus on
verbal, the likes of 'Allo 'Allo or the BlackAdder franchise will want to check
this sucker out. However, there are several different types of jokes, including,
but not limited to the following: Satire, cleverness, dark, spoofs, irony, gross-
out comedy(not exactly my favorite aspect of this) and more. There's self-
awareness, with the lead addressing you, personally, and, for example, explaining
why he isn't going to do what you just asked him to. There are references to pop
culture through a couple of decades. Almost all of it works, hardly any gags fall
flat, and if you aren't in stitches during this, my best guess as to the reason
would be that it's simply not compatible with your sense of humor... a situation
that warrants no judgment, and if one suspects that could be the case, and wishes
to find out, I suggest the demo version, where you, for free, can see if you care
for the brand of play and/or laughter. The plot is well-written(nearly all of this
is, really), develops nicely throughout and keeps your interest well. The audio is
all excellent, crisp and well-done. The sound effects are spot-on. The music is
well-composed with no exceptions. The voice acting is impeccable, with a celebrity
or two. Armato is fantastic as Guybrush Threepwood(gotta love that name), whom you
control. Boen is incredible as LeChuck, the deceased(and still threatening) zombie
villain. The designs are immensely well-done, highly imaginative and all fit. In
spite of the relatively limited disposition of our hero when it comes to pirate
deeds, you do get to engage in some. Steer a ship, board that of others, and match
blades in a rather unique, and marvelously thought up, way. The re-playability lies
mainly in the choices, during dialog, etc. This is linear, with a tad freedom as
far as the order goes, so the buccaneer sitting down with this, for at least the
second time, has not got that large an amount of possibilities as far as being
challenged by this goes, unless he or she has forgotten what to do in the meantime.
Ah, nothing is perfect. Anyone who would care to delve into a thoroughly well-
crafted and fascinating fictional universe, and crack up countless times should get
a real kick out of this. The good kind, not the ones that hurt and potentially
leave bruises. Don't forget, kids, do *not* eat books... that is just begging for a
paper-cut. I would wager a guess that those who like the others would appreciate
this one, too. And they're not the only ones who may get into this. I recommend
this to, apart from members of aforementioned group, any fan of this genre of VGs,
as well as anyone to whom this review appeals. 8/10
Another fantastic offering from the Monkey Island team and though it was a long
time coming and had to survive the departure of Ron Gilbert it's another worthy
installment. My only gripe is that it was a little short seeming in comparison to
the previous two, though that might be because of a glorious lack of disk-swapping.
Roll on MI4.
The Curse of Monkey Island has always been my favorite of the series. A vibrant
visual look, an excellent soundtrack and brilliant voice-cast all create a
memorable and humouristic adventure. Graphics wise the game is
definitely not a let-down. Though some corners have been cut the over-all feel of
the game is reminiscent of Disney Feature Length Animations. The gameplay is simple
and even a novice will get the hang of it soon enough. The game also offers a
little extra for the more experienced players with its Mega Monkey Mode. The voice-cast is one of my favorites. Dominic Armato's sympathetic voice
makes Guybrush complete and Alexandra Boyd is simply charming as Elaine. Earl Boen
makes for a wonderfully sinister yet over-the-top villain, LeChuck. Also the game's
charm is added by memorable characters like Wally (Neil Ross), Murray (Denny Delk)
and one of my personal favorites Haggis McMutton (Allan Young, voice of Scrooge
McDuck). My hat also goes off to the late, great Kay Kuter and his memorable
secondary-role as Griswold Goodsoup. Michael Land's tropical and
wonderful soundtrack once more graces the Monkey Island adventure, comprising of
some of the best tunes in the business. The game isn't perfect and some locales are
not as well detailed as other, but I had no gripes with the simple ending of the
game which I found very satisfying.
I had only written one review on IMDb prior to this, as I consider most games as
unworthy of the time and effort...Curse of Monkey Island is different. Having played and been impressed by Monkey 1 and 2, I had great expectations for
the third release...and was not disappointed. The first thing that hit me was the
substantially improved graphics. Don't get me wrong, for games made in 1990 and
1991 respectively, Monkey 1 and 2 were ground-breaking and provided the goods well,
but CMI steps up and delivers a superb cartoon-style game-play which is both fun
and satisfying. All scenes and settings have been carefully crafted and well
thought out, and suit this type of game perfectly. The animation/CGI is a mixture
of realism and exaggeration; a fantastic combination in this case. For
me the script has been crucial in the success of the previous two games. The CMI
script is clever, appropriate and, above all, absolutely hilarious. Added to this,
the script is now audio unlike the previous two where speech is displayed in text
format at the bottom of the screen. Dominic Armato's voice is perfect for Guybrush:
witty, clear and slightly naive. All other voice talents fit their characters
perfectly, especially Earl Boen who is the voice behind LeChuck. I loved every
single character throughout the game: not just their personalities and wit, but the
way each character is animated superbly and distinctively. Whilst on the subject of
audio effects, the soundtrack is worth a mention. The soundtracks for Monkey 1 and
2 were both monotone, and despite this were very effective at giving atmosphere and
representing a change in mood. CMI's soundtrack is, once again, a step up. Each
scene is complemented by a catchy, subtle, playful and piratey (if that's a word)
tune. With a change in setting or mood, the music also adapts, adding to the
entertainment and amusement that the game offers. The whole idea behind
Monkey Island is to solve puzzles and problems in order to progress. This might
sound easy, but is actually devilishly tricky in many places. Some may be put off
by the level of logic and amount of thinking that goes into Monkey Island, but in
reality this makes the game even more entertaining and fun, and also adds to the
replay value. The option of "The Curse of Monkey Island" or "The Curse of Monkey
Island: Mega-Monkey" (which involves trickier and more abundant puzzles) suits
players of all abilities and also gives good cause to play the game at least twice.
Whatever difficulty level you choose, you are guaranteed a different game each time
you replay, with numerous speech options and other puzzles to solve that don't
affect the outcome of the game, but are just there for fun. The most entertaining
section of the game is Ship Combat, and the sword "fights" that follow. These were
particularly well thought out and make the game completely worthwhile. Add to this
a stupendous story that is non-violent and suitable for all ages which will keep
you hooked and wanting more until the very end. Finally in conclusion, a
uniquely special mention must go to the designers of this game. The way each
complex puzzle and problem is thought out is simply astonishing. Whilst gathering
up items and objects during game-play, you can't see how each one is going to help
you progress, but with a little thought and perseverance solutions present
themselves, and for that the designers of CMI must be highly commended. 10/10 for the best game I have ever played (not an exaggeration)
The Curse of Monkey Island. Released excactly 6 years after the success of Monkey
Island 2. You would think with Monkey Island 2's wierd ending that it would finish
Monkey Island once and for all. But, it all turned out to be a trick to lure
Guybrush into captivity. But enough about that, the whole jist of this is that
Monkey Island has returned, and the voices are just phenominal. If LucasArts were
to make a movie/cartoon of Monkey Island, this would probably be what it would look
like, and sound like. It's plot is real good, and everything about it is just
awesome. If you haven't heard about the Monkey Island series, buy the Monkey Island
Archives or The Monkey Island Booty Pack and play through all the games starting
with The Secret of Monkey Island, then Monkey Island 2, and The Curse of Monkey
Island. Monkey Island 4 was real good, but this one tops them all.
"Curse of Monkey Island" is a treasure; in my opinion the series as a whole was the
holy grail of adventure gaming, not to mention LucasArts. But to return
to "Curse," whats beautiful about CMI is that its not afraid to be itself. It does
deviate from the first two but still remains faithful to the Ron Gilbert
productions (if only the same could be said about the 4th installment of the
series!). The voice work is impeccable, with Dominic Armato playing our favorite
protagonist Guybrush Threepwood. The animation, while quite different than the
classic pixelated characters, is done beautifully. It really is just absolutely
gorgeous. And the music is fantastic! Its never annoying and you never have the
urge to turn it off. Although I'm not too big a fan of romance, the
romantic scenes and themes are not at all overpowering. They also have the rare
ability to come off as sweet instead of cheesy. That says a lot from a girl who
routinely falls asleep during chick flicks. Then, of course, is the
classic MI element of humor. CMI is quite adept at delivering deadpan lines,
altogether absurdist humor, and simply good fun. Gary Coleman makes a cameo as a
budding young entrepreneur, and world events are discreetly jabbed at without
stepping out of the bounds of the game. Its not entirely fair to compare
CMI to MI and MI2 because it truly is in a realm of its own. Personally I can never
find a favorite between the 3 as they all are quite different from each other.
However, if you want a swashbuckling good time with the flair of the classic
series, I insist you give this game a shot. You will NOT be disappointed. 10/10 stars, hands down. - Emily N
A group of evil businessmen need to knock down a building to build a huge complex,
but they can't remove the tenants. The tenants and businessmen with their hired
thugs clash until the film ends with one of the funniest fights ever! The guy with
the ginger hair who goes 'eeeeehhhh' every time he throws a punch and the other guy
who poses with a knife in his mouth instead of fighting, only to be beaten off
camera, make this essential viewing if you like to laugh at films rather than with
them.
One of the classic low budget 70's movies, this film was found in a bargain video
shop in London for only 50p. (interestingly, the package lists the star of the film
as 'Charles Bone', who sounds like a porn star, but once the credits role it's
obvious that the picture is aligned to far the right of the TV screen, so that all
the cast members have the last letter missing from their names) From the
moment the narrator lamely introduces us to the situation that the desperate
tenants of a grimy New York City apartment block, you know you're in for a
rollercoaster ride of fromage. The direction is from the 'Ed Wood one-take' school
- if one or two extras were looking at the camera crew, then what the hell? The films finishes with a plot twist that puts The Usual Suspects to shame.
Buy it now.
This movie stands for entertanment. Its the funniest movie I have ever seen. The
lines, the acting. And the clothes, wow, talk about 70:s. If you ever see this
little gem, buy it. Its worth every penny. By the way, the opening song is awsome.
If anyone know where I can find it. Plese, send me an E-mail.
Walter Matthau can always improve a mediocre film, and this movie proves it. He
turns in a very realistic performance as a small-time horse trainer and single
father, not sugar-coating either role. He can be, by turns, soft-hearted
and doting, then iron-handed to his boys, and we can see the same dichotomy in his
approach to horse training (we see that he doesn't want his young prospect racing
horse overworked and hurt in small-time races, but he seems to be willing to risk
the horse's life when he gets into the big time). This is just one of
Matthau's wonderful performances, and one that I highly recommend.
"Death Promise" is a lost 70's exploitation gem and deserves to be seen.
Technically somewhat of a mess and boasting a stock of amateur New Yawk types, this
film never bores. I highly recommend tracking this down. It's a hoot and a half.
First time I ever saw this was at a friends house. It ended up in his parents hands
by a fluke; some videostore/bicycle repair shop!! went bankrupt and treats like
this was up for grabs. We saw it two times in a row and almost wet are pants how
hard we laughed. I've seen historical documents like Ninja Mission and
Plan 9 from Outer Space, and they still remain good runners-up in comparison to
this one. Almost 15 years after first contact it is now considered the
best cult movie of all times (in my circles); I've showed it to all my friends...
We now have a tradition of searching for movies in the same category: the un-
rateable one. It can't be explained or reviewed in any normal way
because every scene, every take, every move, contains at least one mistake
regarding editing, dialouge, directing etc. For any cult-movie buff this
is the ultimate prize, the gem of all gems. Raiting: As for craft it
can't be rated, because it would even be an insult to homemade videos of birthdays
and weddings. As for pure amusement it is the funniest movie I have ever
seen; funnier than any comedy ever made past or present. Anything less than a 10/10
should be regarded as an insult to good sense of hum our.
so, i won't disagree with the critics but I really was not all that moved by this
movie. i was a little hesitant to rent it,as I am going through some of the same
things the protagonist is supposed to be experiencing. yet, i did rent it thinking
that I might experience some catharsis, or at the least understand that I am not
alone. while i understood the protagonist's irritation with his careless cousin, I
didn't feel his internal struggle with isolation as much as I would have liked. i
felt that much more emphasis was placed on his disruptive cousin overstaying his
welcome. it is a beautifully filmed movie, and I did really appreciate the use of
silence to bring out the feeling of isolation.
"Distant" is a slice-of-Turkish-life flick which follows the mundane activities of
two adult male cousins; one a photographer and the other an unemployed
underachiever. There's little doubt that auteur Nuri Bilge Ceylan is a work in
progress with considerable talent. However, this little foreign minimalistic arty
dramady is so full of empty filler and so devoid of story or anything engaging or
provocative that it will likely appeal to only the most avid devotees of cinema and
mainstream audiences should look elsewhere. I personally grew quickly bored with
the slow pace of the film and found myself fast-forwarding through the empty spaces
- and there are many - between dialogue, plot development, and denouement.
"Distant" is a very nicely done bit of esoterica. (B-)
My interpretation is that the term 'distant' is used in the sense of the opposite
of 'warm'; people who are not warm toward others. The film reminds me of the
teachings of the Dalai Lama in 'The Art of Happiness' where his main point is that
the key to happiness is connecting with others. Not only are the characters in the
film insular, but they are also humorless, charmless, shy, quiet and unfriendly.
These characteristics appear to prevent them, amongst other things, from forming
and enjoying relationships and being able to talk about and deal with their
problems. And as a result they are terribly unhappy. I see it as a strong
vindication of the Dalai Lama's teaching (I'm not a Buddist by the way). If you are
one of the people who thinks that their behavior is a natural response to living in
a large city then I think you may be right but I recommend the Dalai Lama's book.
City life need not be like this. I can see why some people found it
boring - it does drag a bit in places and the characters are not particularly
likable. And it does contrast to Lost In Translation where the insular characters
are much more likable and do connect with one another even though they don't
connect with people generally.
Nuri Bilge Ceylan's 2002 film Distant (Uzak)- his third feature film (his first was
1997's black and white The Small Town- Kasaba), is a significant step up from his
good but flawed 1999 film Clouds Of May (Mayis Sikintisi). The earlier film had
potential, but reeked of a small budget and improvised quality in the worst ways-
plot holes and wooden acting from amateurs. That Clouds Of May succeeded on any
level was a testament to Ceylan's talent as a budding filmmaker. However, Distant
is Ceylan's arrival on the international scene as a great artist, one who has many
of the same qualities as other great filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman (although his
screenplay is not as dialogue-heavy it is just as brooding, and he lacks Bergman's
penchant for close-ups- his shots are usually long shots for exteriors and medium
shots for interiors) and Yasujiro Ozu (whose penetrating scenes of contemplation
Ceylan reconfigures). The bulk of the film takes place in snowy hibernal Istanbul
(the fact that it snows in Turkey will likely surprise some), which lends the film
a definite Bergmanian feel, as well as reminding one of some of the bleak snowy
urban images from Krzysztof Kieslowski's The Decalogue. The natural images invoke
the best of Werner Herzog- as they tend to go on a beat or two longer than standard
film theory would dictate- which is what makes them even more memorable, while the
urban landscapes range from the nearly Precisionist compositions of Michelangelo
Antonioni to the cultural hagiography of Woody Allen- one shot of a bench
overlooking water is a direct quotation (read steal) from Manhattan, save the lack
of the Brooklyn Bridge in the background. In another scene, Ceylan similarly quotes
a famous shot of a ship in the harbor from Ozu's Tokyo Story. Yet, like all great
artists, Ceylan makes his appropriations his own art, by slightly altering them and
keeping them apropos to his own film's needs. Distant is a film whose title
suffuses the characterization within the film and the feeling some viewers will
have toward them, but it does not describe the film itself, for scenes stay with
one long after the film ends. Perhaps the most memorable scene and image of the
film comes when Mahmut stalks his ex-wife at the Istanbul airport, and watches her
with her new husband as they head to board the plane that will remove her from his
life forever. As he watches her, from a distance, we see her catch just a glance of
him watching her. Will she leave her husband and return to Mahmut? Not in this
film. He pulls back behind a column, and Nazan merely turns her head back to her
future. Mahmut is her past, and she knows how to best move on- just keep moving.
Mahmut will never get it. Most rarely get such moments of insight into themselves
of life. That some viewers will get the film, and that Ceylan gets his own powers
of creation, shows that ignorance can teach, as long as one moves about it. Distant
does, albeit it at just the right length.
ý thýnk uzak ýs the one of the best films of all times and everybody must realize
this movie.I m a Turkish boy and a big cinema fun. and in this days our cinema
industry is highing up.And UZAK is the best Turkish film of last ten years.and
maybe one of the best films of all times.director nuri bilge ceylan is quite
amazing.telling story,characters,atmosphere is wonderful.he is a minimalist
director and tells about routine event family,dreams,expects,life.tells about
you ,tells about me,tells about us.I promise you will find a piece of your body in
this movie.cinema life welcomes a new director.he is waiting to realize.I promise
yo you will love this movie please watch it
A study of one of those universally familiar, physical and/or emotional states:
isolation. I think the film also comments on cultural displacement too. The film presents the experiences of two Turkish men (cousins). One has money
(and the comforts that come of having 'made-it' with a steady income); the other
has none and goes in search of work. Neither are happy. Expect no celebration of
life here - this is loneliness, warts and all. The film succeeds in
offering a powerfully bleak traverse across the 'low lands' of the human condition.
Brave film-making. Well-acted and well-shot in my view (outdoor shots by the
harbour being my own favourites). A film that should inspire gratitude in anyone
who is not a stranger to happiness and fulfilment in life (not to mention
employment); everyone else will find a companion in this film. A film with all the
warmth and pace of an ice-floe. Expect a bitter pill, not a 'happy pill.'
The only complaint I heard about this film was that it was slow. Though, perhaps
this is the point. The two characters clash unforgivingly and the slow build-up of
tension between them is anxiety-producing. The intricate and subtle gestures and
minimal dialog take the tension to a point where an otherwise normal argument
shocks the audience. Istanbul and the outskirts are dreamy, scenery captivating,
and the plot is thrilling - not in that "look, the hero blew up yet another car and
he's now flying with his motorcycle" kind of way, though. I had chills down my
spine as the characters moved in and out of each other's spheres and watched the
fog engulf Istanbul.
Perhaps many viewers who got frustrated by this film live their lives without ever
thinking deeply about life itself. What i want to point out here is that "distant"
is not only an art-house film but one of the best art-house films. From all the
art-house films I have seen, "distant" is the one that really stands out as a
glittering piece of gold. It is even fair to say that this film's cinematography
and depiction of human emotion surpass Tarkovsky's Nostalgia. One commentator got
it right, that sex, a jaded, common feature among foreign films, is surprisingly
lacking in "distant" and in a good way. What is most remarkable about "distant" is
that it captures the details of life we usually ignore and the rich essence of our
existence that often gets buried under the din and visual extravaganza of our
commercialized world. Fortunately "distant" doesn't have that much to spare the
audiences and what we see on the screen is a bare portrait of human beings.
A good movie for horse enthusiasts and most others. It's a horse racing movie, and
it's a "little man gets his chance" movie, and it's a "how far would you go?"
movie. Walter Mattau once again proves his adaptability as an actor. He fits right
in as Lloyd Bourdelle, a Louisiana Cajun horse bum. This movie gives you a rare
screen glimpse of Lousiana Cajun horse drag racing. He has a young quarter horse
who is a top racing prospect. "had nothing but a filling station and a good horse."
The Bourdelles seize the opportunity to make it big by taking the horse, Shadow, to
Ruidoso, New Mexico, to get ready to run in the All-American Futurity. But how far
will Lloyd go to win the fame and fortune? Also memorable from this movie are
scenes of Lloyd spitting tobacco juice and waiting for his truck to start.
For all that has been said about the subject matter, and the controversy that
surrounded it, please do not overlook what I feel to be the most important part of
the film: the salient struggles of everyone to keep their pride through their
trials. Whether dealing with self-imposed male braggadocio, a sexual reawakening,
or even life itself, everybody is human.
This is the last film of a trilogy by the brilliant Turkish director, Nuri Bilge
Ceylan, whose last film Mayis Sikintisi -which was very Cehovian- was shown in
prestigious film festivals. Differing from his previous films, the story of 'Uzak'
is set on Istanbul which is one of the most crowded cities of the world. However,
in Ceylan's film, we do see only minor traces of that huge crowd. Rather he choose
to focus on two characters, one photographer and one of his relatives who comes
from his small village to find a job on transatlantic ships. The photographer, who
-we understand that- has also immigrated to the city, seems to be inhabited the
customs of the city life, not only in material sense. In his relation to his
relative, we see him first as caring and tolerant, however, when he could not find
a job, our suburbian character starts to be disturbed for sharing his private
'space' with someone whose leaving date becomes ambiguous. I will not reveal the
tactics he develops in order to pull his relative out of his life to prevent any
harm on your viewing pleasure, but it is enough to say that Ceylan shows us the
tactics that we acquire within the routine of suburbian life; 'tactics' to keep our
own private space, 'tactics' in order not to communicate with other people,
'tactics' to prevent our relationships from gaining a complex nature (since our own
experience, we believe that, is complex enough). Ceylan's film presents
a clear picture of what a human being becomes within the borders of modern (or
postmodern ?) city by depicting the two characters in different manners. But, he
doesn't condemn any of the two characters for doing this, rather he uses the power
of cinematic language to underline this difference. For example, in search of new
opportunities, we always see the character coming from the village in open spaces.
Even within the house, he prefers balcony as his favourite space. On the other
hand, we see the photographer always within the closed spaces, and generally at his
home. Although there are more than 10 million people out there, and lots of
adventures, lots of interesting things to discover (or are there any?) he prefers
sitting at home, watching TV, etc. His home is like his temple, a kind of sacred
place. Everyone living in a big city, and conscious of the experience he
is living through, will find something belonging to himself in Uzak. If you like
this film, I am sure that you will like Ceylan's other two films, Mayis Sikintisi
(The Clouds of May) and Kasaba (The Town). Go and find them!.
This is not a film to impress you with high budget, high-tech shots, fast camera
movements or glimmering costumes thought by an overzealous and hungry director. But
it's a film by a director who is also a very good photographer, who has a very good
sense of looking at things as a human, not as an half-god unlike most of the
directors. This is not a film in which actors and actresses try to give their best
'performances' with unreal or, at best, learned gestures and mimics. Rather, it's a
film in which they act as real as it can be. Actually, they are not professional
actors at all. The dialogues between the main characters, their expressions, their
feelings are as real as they can easily be yours in real life. You tell the same
lies to the people around you with the same regrets that you avoid to express with
words. You show the same signs of nuisance to an unwanted guest. This is the same
feeling of disconnection that you get in modern city life. And this is your chance
to see yourself from outside, impersonated by the main characters. I saw all of the
films of Nuri Bilge Ceylan, incl. his short film Koza (Cacoon) thanks to those who
puts it in the DVD. Many would compare him with Tarkovsky, Ozu and maybe Bresson or
Bergman as he is emerging as a true auteur. And he is sincere in saying that his
films are not to make money but to give a meaning to his life. That is the kind of
sincerity you'll find in Uzak.
Like all good art, this movie could mean different things to different people. To
me it means that failing to open your hart to the others could rob you of happiness
and leave you with an empty live. The convenience of the selfishness is like the
junk food: it feels good, but eventually could make you sick. Almost
everything I see in the US is a commercial mass production of action garbage,
shallow dramas, and stupid comedies, and this sensitive, deep and poetic movie
really touched me. Thank you, Nuri Bilge Ceylan (and all the other in the cast)! Ivan Yanachkov
Following the collapse of Yesilcam (Turkey's answer to Hollywood) in the mid '90s
few but the most prescient of observers could have foreseen such a recent pique in
the Turkish film industry, arguably built upon the work of ex-photographer Nuri
Bilge Ceylan. Uzak is the director's third feature and forms something
of a trilogy with his two earlier pictures (Kasaba and Clouds of May), following
similar themes and techniques. The film finds Mahmoud, a commercial photographer,
living alone in a small Istanbul apartment only visited occasionally by his
brusque, married lover. Yusuf, his nephew, has left his village home after the
closure of a factory and the loss of his job. The younger man stays with Mahmoud
while fruitlessly looking for work in the city, drinking in cafés and nervously
observing young women he never approaches. The film's title is
translated as "Distant", and the film beautifully illustrates every possible
connotation of the word; Yusuf's physical distance from his home, Mahmoud's
emotional distance from the world around him and the generational distance between
the two men. Ceylan's films rarely contain heightened dramatics, instead
allowing full and rich characters to develop from within the tightly framed, static
shots. He acts as director, producer, writer, cinematographer and co-editor and
casts friends and family in many of the roles. Such a confined, insulated approach
to film-making might be expected to lead to films hard to infiltrate and connect
with for most viewers, making Uzak's undoubted humanity all the more impressive. Ceylan is, however, a better cinematic formalist than dramatist, taking the
reigns from such past masters of cinematic language as Ozu and Tarkovsky. After
viewing Uzak, I can think of few better suited to the task.
The first time I saw the poster, I was stunned by its tranquility and beauty. Then
the city of Istanbul has been haunting in my mind ever since. Not much
dialogue, not much music, the whole film was shot as elaborately and aesthetically
like a sculpture. It itself is a landscape. Actually there are a lot of
things going on in the film, but the director deliberately omitted most dramatic
parts and leave them to our imagination, thus creating a really flat life. **(mild
spoiler)One can see Mahmut's ladylove crying in the toilet and then going out
without a word but not their fight; one can see Mahmut accompanying his mother in
the hospital but not her struggle from illness. The most dramatic scene in the film
to me is Yusuf laughing out loud for the toy soldier he bought for his niece,** and
that's when it almost broke my heart to see this boring, lonely life bursting out
in such a way. With all the trivialities in life weeded, the story
presents us with pure inner world of all the characters, their sadness, anxiety,
loneliness, regrets...And as the story unfolded, I sort of finally grasped their
desperate situation where their emotions were really no way out if no outer things
intervened, which is exactly every loner tries to keep at all cost, especially for
an irresponsible artist like Mahmut. I've just finished my second
watching. Last night, I crouched into my quilt, had some Vodka beside my bed and
went through the whole film in a trance. I felt two real lives going on, one
outside the screen, one inside the screen. I felt free from all those loneliness
and anxiety 'cause the people inside were experiencing it. I just had myself
removed from all those things. We cannot deny the universal problem of
communication, and loneliness even puts us far towards it, and it becomes a vicious
spiral. I bet Mahmut still didn't figure out a way of living in the end. That's why
he stepped out of his room to try to find the answers from the outer world, the
coldness and landscape.
This is a film about loneliness and how the distance physical and emotional --
between people tends to stultify relationships. The narrative is simple
to the point of banality: a young man Yusuf (Emin Toprak), from a rural village,
arrives in Istanbul to stay with his older and successful cousin Mahmut (Muzaffer
Ozdemir); Yusuf wants work in the big city. After trying for a few weeks to find
work without any success, the strain of having Yusuf living with him is too much
for Mahmut. They quarrel nothing physical, just verbal. Eventually, Yusuf goes,
leaving Mahmut alone again. End of story... Except for the fact that the
performance of the two men as relatives is one of the best on film. Much is said
visually; dialog is used to bring out disagreement, distrust, hostility, and
insecurity that exist within and between the two men. There are many
visual gems in this film. For example, while searching for work, young Yusuf,
needing a relationship, tries in vain to gain the attention of various young women
around the city. The look on his face, as he is thwarted every time, says it
all. Or, wanting a cigarette, Yusuf opens the door to the balcony of
Mahmut's apartment and lights up in the frigid December air, leaving the door open;
Mahmut, eventually gets up from his work desk, walks to the door (all glass) and
the cousins just look at each other for what seems way too long a time. Then Mahmut
closes the door, leaving Yusuf out in the cold. The metaphor is complete. Or, Mahmut cleaning up after Yusuf, grudgingly and with increasing anger;
and all the while, Yusuf wastes his time chasing skirts instead of looking
seriously for work, and spends Mahmut's money on a toy for a nephew Yusuf is
emotional, untidy, impulsive, and vulnerable. Mahmut is rational, logical, self-
confident and a demanding control freak: the right-brain, left-brain dichotomy
beautifully played out by two actors who say more with a look, a gesture, a frown
than any words can convey. But, Mahmut is not completely emotionless: he
still loves his ex-wife who tells him that she's off to Canada with her husband-to-
be. Mahmut affects a distant and confident friendship with his ex, and makes sure
that she is okay about going. He wishes her well. He says goodbye. He leaves the
coffee shop where they were talking. Later when she calls to say a last goodbye, on
the way to the airport, Mahmut goes there and secretly watches as she leaves. The
poignancy of the emotion on his face, as she disappears through a door, is worth
the wait. All in all, this is a standout piece of work by the two main
actors and the director, Nuri Ceylan. Some might argue that the pace is too slow;
but life goes slowly for much of the time, especially for those who are alone. The
camera work is relatively simple also: choose the scene, set up the camera and
lighting, and let the actors move across the scene, enter the scene and leave the
scene, all the while keeping the camera still. There were a few panning shots, some
high-angle tracking shots, a few rural scenes but much of the film is shown as
though on a stage with a fixed camera and a wide angle lens. Except for TV and
radio music within the story, there is no music sound track. And, there are those
many long silences as the two men sit and watch TV together and/or engage in very
limited conversation. I saw this movie on TV so I was amused to see
that, on a few occasions, I was watching TV as they were watching TV also. The
silence in the movie matched the silence in my house (I was awake, all others in
bed); my chair and position matched that of Mahmut's as he watched TV. Quite eerie,
giving me a sense of almost 'being there' with him And, I guess I was, in a
sense. I'll say no more, because I want you to savor the other scenes
that I haven't described. It's not a movie for everybody, for sure. More than any
movie I've seen, it shows just how much we die when we are all alone just as we
are all alone when we die. Mahmut's face, as it fades to black in the final scene,
will stay with me for a long, long time... Highly recommended for
serious movie buffs.
When you're watching Distant you know you're not watching a French movie, there's
little sex and it's mostly elliptical and people don't talk that much here, there
are a few lines scattered here and there and a couple of important conversations,
just to let you make sense of what's going on. It doesn't look American either,
there aren't any car chases or shoot-outs or violence, unless you consider the
killing of a mouse an act of blood or the daily tension of getting by a subdued
catastrophe. At times, the relatively long-held medium-distance shots may remind
you of 'contemplative' Asian cinema, but just reminds you, the director doesn't
push things to the radical minimalism of some Taiwanese filmmakers but then again,
this is not a Taiwanese movie, it's a Turkish movie. I don't know what that means,
I don't even know if that's supposed to mean something. The movie
doesn't have a plot proper and yet, those few lines, those somewhat long-held shots
and that often mitigated tension gradually build a sense of something happening, a
sense of 'plot', for lack of a better word, that grows on you. By the end of the
movie you may get the feeling you're going to miss those two cousins who have many
things in common but are worlds apart.
For those who are like me and are used to watch and enjoy high budget Hollywood
films, on huge screens with a surround audio, this film seems to be so distant.
However it surprised me how close can it be to any human while I watch it. It is so
natural that you feel like nobody wrote a scenario or nobody directed it. You are
the director and you are writing the scenario while you watch it. For me, the time
I spend on watching a film is the only time which I go to another world. This film
is the first sample for me which shows that it is not always a must to watch
millions of dollars of budgeted films, surround audio capabilities to go to another
world. This films sends you to another world (or maybe makes you return back to
yourself) without millions of dollars of budget, or technical capabilities. I felt
like that I'm reading L'etranger from Camus.
Hysterically painful; perhaps the kind of movie Chekhov would have made had he made
movies. What's really funny is that the two cousins have so very much in common
(many descriptions of their relationship on this site are dead wrong). What's really funny and uncomfortable about these characters is that they just
can't bring themselves to talk to each other - or anyone else! It's horrible. If
you've ever been too shy, worried, self-involved, or just plain scared to talk to
someone (and who hasn't?) you'll definitely see yourself in this film. And it won't
be pretty. It holds a mirror up to the audience and says, "If you don't
like what you see... change it".
It's probably a year since I saw Uzak, but it has left strong memories of the two
main characters, jaded photographer Mahmut and his naive cousin from the village
Yusuf. It's a long film with very little dialogue and a quite limited
plot. This has evidently annoyed a fair few viewers. But the film constructs such a
painfully believable portrait of Mahmut and Yusuf that there's just as much
emotional tension as in the paciest thriller. Just to be clear, there's
no padding in this film -- in the long pauses where no one speaks there as much
happening in the characters' emotions (and in yours, watching them) as you could
bear. Go to see it awake and alert, and you'll be gripped rather than
anaesthetised. Uzak rings true in so many ways, and that sincerity is
probably its greatest accomplishment. People don't grapple with events and
problems, so much as with each other. In fact, in the whole film, there's probably
not one point where the main characters (Mahmut, Yusuf and Mahmut's ex-wife Nazan)
are not opposed. Much of it is true the world over: country cousin
Yusuf's perhaps wilfully naive expectation that a job on a ship will drop into his
lap; Mahmut's urbanised cynicism and unwillingness to sympathise with Yusuf. Other truths are more-specific to Turkey: Yusuf's incomprehension that
Mahmut might be tolerating his stay with gritted teeth; Yusuf veering between macho
ambition and wide-eyed awkwardness when he tries to get to know a woman. Uzak is undoubtedly a pretty bleak film, and one Ceylan's strengths is not
to beat us over the head with the themes he explores. For me at least, I believed
entirely in the behaviour of his characters. All the little failed attempts to
connect and petty cruelties ring so true. And yet I didn't leave with a message
that "The world is like that", but instead I got "This is how we sometimes treat
each other."
One of my favorite movies. I like horses, I like happy endings, and I like Walter
Matthau. I miss him and am glad to have a great film like this to remind me why he
was so wonderful. Watch it with your kids (or your horse). The story of
an old hard boot horse trainer with kids, and down on his luck. If you have ever
had or appreciated horse racing you will appreciate the rags to riches storyline.
It may be a little below "Seabiscuit", but not a lot. The story is the same one,
except it is the quarter horse version. Well acted, correct racing terms and
equipment, and nice racing scenes. Don't take my word for it, get it and make up
your own mind.
Reading some of the other reviews of this film, i was reminded of both good and not
so good aspects of it. But overall, i have to say it is one of the better films i
have seen from any number of genres or countries recently. More than anything else,
it avoided many of the typical traps of more recent international cinema, like
taking nice pictures of landscapes or being 'hip', 'fun' or imitating American
films like pulp fiction. The film is unique in many ways. For one thing, it is a
film about relationships in which sex plays no role (unusual, especially for
foreign films). It is also a film about two men's relationship to each other (also
unusual - not a 'buddy film', no homosexual tension, no ego/phallic competition).
It uses little dialogue, but communicates a tremendous amount. It is a simple
story, yet full of complex details which are easily understood by any human being
and universal in their relevance. I did not find the film dark or depressing
(everything would seem this way if you watch Hollywood happy ending films all the
time), but rather a true reflection of human emotions. For instance, in the scene
where Mahmut realizes his cousin is gone is you see both his feeling of relief,
that the cousin is gone and yet regret, that he pushed him away. Who has not felt
such ambivalence - when losing a friend or lover, or in some other situation? It's
rare to get these kinds of real human emotions displayed on film in a non-cliché
way. As far as culture is concerned, or this being a Turkish film, i feel it
strikes the very difficult balance between being a 'Turkish' film - about realities
which more apply to that place (the greater struggle to make it in a Turkish city
versus a European one; the greater contrast between country and city), and a
universal, human story which didn't necessarily have to be set in Turkey. In this
day and age where people around the world are consuming culture and fetishizing it,
this film does not try to entice us as 'Turkish', nor does it try to communicate it
as a 'harsh reality', or 'that's how Turkey/Istanbul IS'. And yet the cultural
elements are there. I think the comparison to 'lost in translation' that somebody
made is quite good. Everyone, at least in the US, was raving about that film. I
personally thought it was mediocre at best. It was well put by someone as a vague
story which supposedly was supposed to deal with 'disorientation' that happens to
people living or traveling overseas. Even if the film was supposed to be humorous,
the characters and their motivations or crises were never clear (even for a
'lighter' film or comedy, this is necessary). And i found myself being treated to a
typically 'orientalist' story of the alienated Amerian overseas. Going back to
'Distant', as for the idea that this is bad acting, or too slow, or has no plot,
I'm sorry but people who say this know nothing about film making and maybe nothing
about being human, no offense. You do not have to be a film aficionado or cultural
connoisseur to appreciate this film. This film will be two hours of your time well
spent!
I am very thankful that the small college town of Abingdon, Va.- near Bristol, TN.
and home of the famous Barter Theatre where Gregory Peck once acted- managed to get
an art film festival togather and show this film there. Abingdon is two and a hour
hours from where I live, but the trip was worth it in every sense of the word.
UZAK/DISTANT is an amazing, brilliant, jarring, emotional, captivating film. As a
Turkish-American, this film was not only a testimony as to what life in Turkey is
like; but on a larger scale it tells the world of what it is like to be Turkish
whether one lives in Istanbul, Berlin, Montreal, New York, or Omaha. It may be two
hours in length as opposed to five minutes, but this is effectively our Bob Marley
song. There are so many wonderful scenes in this film. It is very difficult to
choose just a random few. But, for me, one telling scene takes place in a Beyoglu
(downtown Istanbul) cinema. The title character, played by Mehmet Emin Toprak who
sadly died in a car accident shortly after this film's completion, follows a very
attractive young woman down a staircase to the cinema's main auditorium. She goes
into see "Vanilla Sky." As the image of Tom Cruise is reflected from a glass, we
sense that Turkish men are competing with Tom Cruise for their own women's
affections even though Tom Cruise is nowhere to found in Beyoglu. The scenes shot
across the Bosphorous shores are also quite revealing as they symbolize the beauty,
yet desperate empty gulfs, which are a painful fact of life in Turkey. In this
film, the gulf separates lovers and families. A simple, empty packet of Samsun
(Turkish brand) cigarettes and a dying mouse jump off the screen the way seagulls
did in the 1982 Serif Goren-Yilmaz Guney film "Yol." Many of Guney's films,
including "Yol," "Suru- the Herd" (1978- completed by Zeki Okten) and "Baba-The
Father" (1971) have been considered by many to be the best Turkish films ever made.
Without Guney's sometimes overblown social-political anger (especially in his last
film, the 1983 prison drama "Duvar-The Wall"), "Distance" captures the essence of
Turkish life quite remarkably. This is a crowning achievement for a director who in
my view can already be proclaimed as the Turkish equivalent to directors like
Tarkovsky, Bresson, and Ozu. I can't wait to see his other films!
It has taken me about a year now after seeing this film to write about it. Lord
knows I have wanted to, after witnessing it I knew I saw something I hadn't seen
before but wasn't sure why. Now after reflecting for quite some time I know, it's
these characters that even now I still can't stop thinking about. Distant briefly and slowly tells the story of a relative (Yusuf) who comes from
the rurals to live briefly with a well off to do photographer (Mahmut) in the city
in hopes to find employment. However it becomes clear that after Yusuf hypothesizes
the idea of being a sailor and his employment prospects dim, that he's really
searching for something else, some sort of purpose in his life. Through
all this soul searching we are taken through seasonal surroundings that are filmed
exquisitely. The context in which they happen makes the scenes more powerful in 2
particular ones when a girl Yusuf has been following suddenly meets up with her
significant other, and the look of Yusuf's face as he looks into a basket of fish
and the shot and light that reflects off his tortured face. That scene in itself
has to be one of the most gorgeously filmed pieces I have witness in I don't know
how long. In the end Mahmut has his own demons too, but ends up
confronting his relative that he is not really trying to find a job and is forced
to ask him to leave, in a scene that is very simple but has the feeling of true
heartbreak. What the viewer is left with is lots of reflecting and
pondering for these 2 people who everyone can see a piece of themselves in. You
should not be put off by the pace of this film it is truly worth every single
breathtaking second. Rating 10 out of 10.
People must learn to watch what is up there on the screen. This is a great film
that is based on a slow, careful gathering of details which serve to establish the
personalities of these two men. The passivity of Yusuf (Emin Toprak), the country
cousin, is well described by his fear of talking to women. He has at least three
chances to start a conversation with a young woman and loses all of them. He has
many decades of bachelorhood ahead of him, and maybe unemployment as well. Mahmut is a different case. He got out of the small town by working very hard (we
imagine), and his resentment of slackers like Yusuf is palpable (he leaves crumbs
on the expensive carpet--the slob!). We are shown a group of friends talking about
Tarkovsky among other things, and we note that Mahmut feels regret--but only slight
regret--that his work has become commercial over the years. The gulf between the
cousins just gets wider and wider. The mouse trap theme is wonderfully vivid, it
brings out the compassion and confusion of Yusuf, and the cold-blooded problem
solving of Mahmut. I was reminded of two classic films of men driving
each other nuts: Les cousins by Chabrol (the rich boy with Hitlerian pretensions
played by Brialy is always in my mind) and Kiss of the Spider Woman (William Hurt
can't figure out why everybody's so mean). Nuri Bilge Ceylan takes his place among
the dozen important directors now active. I just hope that in future he will come
to rely on collaborators, instead of directing, writing and shooting his films
himself.
Uzak (2002), a Turkish film shown in the U.S. as "Distant," was
directed, produced, written, and filmed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan. This movie is a gritty and somber version of the clash between a "city
mouse," Mahmut, played by Muzaffer Özdemir, and a "country mouse," Yusuf, played by
Emin Toprak. Both men are superb actors, and the plot allows them to
demonstrate their acting skill. (Tragically, Emin Toprak died in an automobile
accident shortly after the movie was completed.) In most country
cousin/city cousin tales, the contrast between rural and urban life styles is
portrayed in a humorous fashion. In this film, there's little humor or even warmth.
Both men have lost touch with human society. Mahmut 's work as a commercial photographer for a tile company gives him no satisfaction. He
has divorced a woman he clearly still loves, and has no satisfying human
relationships. Mahmut has lost his job because of a factory closing in
his small town, and doesn't have the skills or the energy to find work in the city.
His human interactions are primarily confined to silent observations of the other
people who cross his path. He's clearly a warm and caring person, but can't express
these qualities in an urban environment. The cousins don't relate well
to the world, and they don't relate well to each other. Neither makes an effort to
act in a way that would provide an opportunity for bonding or closeness. In a sense, this film portrays an opportunity wasted. Conceivably, each cousin could have provided at least part of what was lacking in
the other's life. Instead, they steer parallel unhappy courses. The two men are
distant throughout, which is a situation suggested by the film's title. One of my friends mentioned the masterful way in which Ceylan builds detail upon
detail. These details ultimately tell us more about the characters than we might
have learned by simple exposition. Uzak was shown as part of the
Rochester Labor Film series. It's not a "labor film" in the traditional sense of
that genre. It is a labor film because it demonstrates the harmful effects of
unsatisfying work (Mahmut) and unemployment (Yusuf). This is a quiet,
absorbing, dark film. Although it doesn't make for happy viewing, I walked out of
the theater realizing that I had seen a truly creative and important movie. This film is worth finding and seeing!
While sleeping, Mr. Eko is assigned by his brother Yemi (Adetokumboh McCormack) in
a dream to go with John Locke to disclose the meaning of the "?" symbol. With the
pretext of chasing Henry, Mr. Eko brings John with him and they find a second hatch
called "Pearl" underground the question mark symbol marked on the field, where a
video explains that the other hatch is a psychological experiment and people
behavior pressing the buttons of the computer every 108 minutes are actually
subjects. Meanwhile, Jack unsuccessfully tries to save Libby. In this
episode, John Locke loses his faith in the island when he finds that they have been
monitored in the hatch. The disgusting Michael sees the anguishing Libby wishing
that she was dead, while Hurley, Jack, Kate and Sawyer are suffering her pain, in a
deep emotional contrast. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): Not Available
In this episode, Locke and Eko go searching for the "?" symbol that we saw during
the lock-down on a previous episode. Michael, having shot Ana Lucia and Libby,
struggles with his actions as Libby inches closer to death. The most
interesting thing about this episode (I think). Is during the commercial break.
Locke and Eko find a hatch under the plane that killed Boone in season one, and a
new training video ends with "Copyright, The Hanso Foundation, 1989" In a following
commercial break, a rather bizarre and nondescript commercial advertises "The Hanso
Foundation" (a planted commercial), and the website advertised (www.sublymonal.com)
leads the visitor through a world of information about life on the outside of
LOST's storyline. A must see for all fans!
The second "Mr. Eko" episode has somewhat less interesting flashbacks than the
first ("The 23rd Psalm"), but in just about every other department it is one of the
best episodes of Season 2, advancing the series' mythology/background as well as
the characters. A new Dharma Initiative station - The Pearl - is discovered by
Locke and Eko, and the orientation film that they find and watch inside completes
Locke's transformation from a believer ("Orientation" - after the end of the film:
"We're gonna have to watch this again") to a doubter ("S.O.S" - "Did you push that
button, Henry? I need to know") to a non-believer ("?" - after the end of the film:
"Do you want to watch this again? - "No, I've seen enough"). Terry O'Quinn's
performance is powerful as usual ("every single second of my pathetic little life
is as useless as that button"). Meanwhile, Eko takes his place as the man who
becomes sure that he was brought on the island as part of his true destiny, which
is to continue pushing the button. Other high points of "?" are a startling, unique
dream sequence where person A has the dream as being person B (this is the kind of
bold idea that the current season of LOST could use much more of), and the haunting
scene of Libby's last word before her death, and the way Jack and Hurley cannot
possibly know its true meaning. ***1/2 out of 4.
An Eko-centric episode the "?" explores the aftermath of the tragic events that
rocked the castaways in the previous one. As the main characters John, Locke,
Sawyer, Kate and Hurley come to terms with the incident in the hatch, Locke and Eko
set out to find out where Henry took off to. As it turns out Eko is on a mission of
his own trying to figure out the symbol ? which Locke had drawn on his sketch. We
see flashes of Eko's life in Sydney as a priest who comes in contact with his
brother through a stranger. We also witness the tragedy that struck the hatch boil
down to a room temperature as Michael continues to remain a mystery. An
excellent LOST episode with many interesting turns.
NORTHFORK is above all a masterpiece of widescreen cinematography. For this alone
the film is well worth one's time. The stark, wide open plains and badlands of
eastern Montana are captured in the spare, muted earth tones of autumn or early
spring. The gigantic grey cement Fort Peck Dam is the film's protagonist. The film
comments both subtly and not so subtly on about a dozen issues of Western
Landscape. The dialogue can be trying at times, yet the images and concepts are
powerful enough to lift the film. The 1950's period works so well here and is
executed so well. I think that the passing years will be kind to this film.
Another of the endless amount of cookie-cutter 'Kickboxers Fight to the Death for
the Amusement of Wealthy Scumbags' films that there were so many of in the 90s...
Y'know, the ones created by taking the words 'Death', 'Blood' and 'Steel' and the
words 'Ring', 'Fight', 'Match' and 'Cage' and putting them in a random generator!
Saying that though, Death Match is a pretty good entry in the over-used genre,
thanks to its exciting fight scenes and the surprisingly good acting of its
kickboxer cast. The story concerns two buddies - ex-Kickboxing World
Champion John Larson (played by pug-faced Middleweight Kickboxing Champ Ian
Jacklin, probably previously best known for his awful performance as the main
villain in Ring of Fire 2) and Nick Wallace (Nick Hill, a likable guy probably best
known for the role of street-fighter Sergio in Bloodsport 2) who work the L.A.
docks loading crates onto ships. One discovery of a boxful of guns and a brief
fight later, our two heroes are jobless and propping up an L.A. bar. Sensible John
Larson decides to head North and look for a job; headstrong Nick Wallace has heard
of a guy paying good money for fighters to fight in private kickboxing matches.
"Why should things change?" says John, " If you need me, i'll be there."
Predictably enough, it isn't long before Nick has gone missing and his good friend
is fighting in the deadly 'ring of death' trying to find a lead to his missing
buddy. Sure enough, there are no prizes for originality here, but like i
said before, this films strength lies in its action, its cast of real-life fighters
and the fairly good performances it manages to wring from them. Ian Jacklin in
particular surprised me. Previously i'd just seen him as the bad guy in Ring of
Fire 2 and in bit-parts in tripe like The Steel Ring, and i've always been quite
amused at how bad an actor he is (good fighter though!). But in Death Match, he's
pretty good! Given a decent script and a haircut, he proves himself to be quite the
charismatic leading man! And his friendship with Nick is very well portrayed.
Jacklin and Hill have a nice chemistry and you really believe these two characters
care for each other. Enough for one of them to lose a job, travel halfway across
the country and risk death to save the other - I wish i had a friend like that! It was also nice to see Matthias Hues as a villainous henchman with a
little more depth than we're used to seeing from his many 'villainous henchman'
roles. However don't be fooled into thinking he's the star just because he's on the
video cover (with, it seems, his head stuck on the body of Michael Bernardo from
the cover of Shootfighter) - he is good while he's on screen, but he isn't on
much.. On the negative side, the film is pretty slow when there's no
fighting going on, with lots of unnecessary scenes (whats with gangster Jimmie
Fiorello's pointless story about his grandfather??), and the end fight is
disappointingly short, but on the whole i enjoyed it! Plenty of fights, most of
them good. Isn't that all we martial arts really need? And of course eye-candy,
here in the lovely form of the very pretty Renee Ammann. All in all, a pretty
entertaining kickboxing movie.
I loved the movie "Northfork". I knew nothing about the movie before watching it.
Therefore, I had no outside influence or information to guide me in what I was
seeing unfold on the screen. In retrospect I would advise anyone interested in the
movie to watch it if for no other reason than the quality actors who appear in it.
Do not read anything about the plot, story line, or evaluation of the movie. In
fact STOP reading anything further in my comments although I believe they are
general and would not spoil the movie for you, I don't want to diminish the value
of the movie to you. Find your own path of meaning in this film or it is diminished
in its potential. In general, I found the 3 benign strangers in
Northfolk puzzling. As the movie unfolds, they could qualify as three entertaining
escapees from a mental hospital or, the dreams and hallucinations of a sick and
feverish young boy, or three angels "sent" to find the "lost angel". The
sick and perhaps dying boy works to convince the three "strangers" to abandon the
search for the lost angel, become his guardians (mother & father), and take him
safely far away from Northfork (no less than 1000 miles). He even declares that he
is the lost angel to try to manipulate them all to be his guardian. Only one of the
three responds to the boy on a positive basis. The other two have no real
enthusiasm or passion for this involvement. The priest who is nursing
the sick boy demonstrates a depth of caring for people and a deep conviction toward
his faith. He transcends the desolation and emptiness of Northfork and its people;
he is the light of goodness and hope to both Northfork and to the movie
viewer. Near the climax of the movie, the boy and new guardian journey
over land to a field where a plane waits. They board to find the other two
strangers also on the plane; in fact one is the pilot. The engines start and the
plane takes off. Who are the 3 strangers? If only one stranger was
interested in helping the boy why were all three on the plane? Where is the plane
going? Did the other two find the "Lost Angel"? Is there a lost angel and if so who
is it? Who are the six men dressed like undertakers? If all of this is just the
sick boy's feverish dreams, how did one of the 3 strangers end up reaching out to
help one of the men dressed like an undertaker when he jumped and hit his
head(neither the boy or strangers had contact with these men)? One or
two sentences written under the title telling people what this movie is about is a
tragic mistake (this is not a spoiler, it's statement about advertising only). So
if you haven't seen the movie, Northfork, the questions above show only a few of
the interesting and fun forks in the road of thought when you view the film
Northfork. If you read the advertising summary of the plot of the movie before you
watched it previously, maybe you ought to look at some of the questions above and
watch it again... I know I will. Terry
After some further thought about this film, I find it's far too easy to dismiss
this as the Boy's dream. I have actually received some spiritual strength from
Northfork.......Angels do exist....we definitely are entertained by Angels....most
of the time we aren't even aware of it..... At a point of spiritual and emotional
turbidity in my life, I personally really needed this film. Yes, as I wrote before,
it speaks to so many......can't wait to get to Heaven... "Being so sick
of all of the FX and Formula stuff, I found this film to be genuine Cinema. All I
can say is it touched me in so many ways, that I still am sorting it all out. North
Fork is a wonderful film. One that brings the viewer's mind out of the gutter and
into the heart. The spiritual aspect is so very intriguing to me. Pay attention, as
you'll need to use the brain and heart God gave you to follow the story. I think
it's possibly a bit over the heads of some, but I feel those are the individuals it
speaks to most importantly. I want to view it several more times, just so I can
take it all in! The Industry needs to study this film to realize we do
exist. My thanks to all involved in the making of this film."
I recently attended Sundance as I have often done in years past and was treated to
the small pleasures of the edgy little indies, the glut of dark comedies and the
now predictable portraits of dysfunction. But then I saw Mark and Michael Polish's
'Northfork' and I remembered why I so fell in love with the movies in the first
place. 'Northfork' sweeps across the screen with visionary daring and harkens back
to the seminal early work of Terence Malick and the existential landscapes of
Antonioni. It's an impossible film to easily explain which is one of its many
strengths. Suffice it to say it's an adult fairy tale with many carefully layered
levels of meaning. It reawakened my imagination and cast an imposing shadow over
all the other films I saw this year. It is a work of meticulous craftsmanship and a
sophistication of writing not seen in most American movies. I plan to revisit this
film several times when it comes to my neighberhood theater. For it is a beguiling
piece of magic and mystery, a haunting work where one can roam the plains of
Montana in search of angels and the very nature of heaven and earth. The cast
performs this luminiscent piece with striking conviction particularly James Woods
and Nick Nolte who remind us of the nerve and daring displayed throughout the
course of their careers. Maybe 'Northfork' will help us find a new wave of American
cinema where excellence in craft and writing become more the norm than the
exception. See it when it comes your way and take your friends for the questions
will be many and the thoughts and feelings spurred by seeing 'Northfork' will
awaken memories of great movie once seen in your past and now hopefully may be
returning with the advent of the Polish Brothers.
At first glance a film like Northfork, a town set to be flooded in 1955 and a group
of 6 characters who are sent out to evacuate the remaining townspeople, could be
just an ordinary film. As we soon meet a remaining priest taking care of a sick
child, a greedy land owner, we could be set up for a simple story we could all
easily digest. However, when one is first introduced to this film, you notice the
amazing wide open cinematography and a scene involving a church hall missing a wall
that opens up to the pastures and scenic view of the mountains with cattle grazing.
It soon becomes clear that after this scene and a few of the towns peoples
introduction, that this is no ordinary film and no ordinary story, it is something
very special and unique. At first glance things are not as clear, but
the cinematography and landscape that the viewer is witness to is stunning, and the
characters that inhabit this small soon to be extinct area are just in word
amazing. It's what can either draw you in closer to this qwerky film, or either
have you bored sitting there waiting for something to happen. The films
deep spiritual and dream like qualities, give it a slow and methodical approach
which I am sure will bore some viewers, but if you are patient with it and see the
bigger picture, the film is great to witness. Rating 8 out of 10
Imagery controls this film. The characters, although interesting, ultimately take a
back seat. The first scene I remember is a framed black and white shot of the
ocean, that then opens to full screen and color. The bubbling of the water gives
way to a small coffin that breaks the surface. The theme of the movie here, being
that death can be accepted and brought into the realm of the living. Water as an ultimate consciousness, as a tool of God, is used to here to force
people to get their "houses" in order (Judgment Day). The dead have to be accounted
for and lifted to a better place. Whatever one has left unresolved or unsettled,
will be washed away. There's no clinging on to the past, to a buried memory of what
was. This movie has been compared to O, Brother Where Art Thou, and the
threat of water and its use as a cleansing force is similar to that film. What's
different in this movie is that the coming of the water is knowable and so, again,
the emphasis is on what needs to be done with the here and now. I agree
that the some of the scenes are reminiscent of a David Lynch work. Take, for
example, the dinner segment with the deep-voiced and androgynous waitress. One gets
the same surreal feel from the setting and odd character as one does with the
backwards talker in the scene from Fire Starter. The difference is that Lynch
attacks us with the image to express the psychological processes of a troubled
character, whereas this film seems to use surreal elements to create a moral
message. The men in black suits can't have anything they want-they must be patient
and accept what is available.
It is a rare and fine spectacle, an allegory of death and transfiguration that is
neither preachy nor mawkish. A work of mature and courageous insight, Northfork
avoids arthouse distinction by refusing to belong to a kind. Unlike the most
memorable and accomplished film to impose an obvious comparison, Wim Wenders' 1987
Wings of Desire (Der Himmel über Berlin), it sustains an ambivalence in a narrative
spectrum spanning from the mundane to the supernatural. This story of earthly and
celestial eminent domains in the American West withholds the fairytale literalness
that marked its German predecessor in the ad hoc genre of angels shedding their
wings with obsequious sentimentalism. Its celestial transcendence, be it inspired
by doleful faith or impelled by a fever dream, never parts ways with crud and rot.
This firm grounding redounds to great credit for writers and directors Mark and
Michael Polish.
The stark, cold landscape of Big Sky Country, with its majestic snow-capped
mountains juxtaposed to barren plains, is put to poetic use here in this Lynchian
fable/slide picture show about death and melancholy from the young and talented
Polish Brothers (who previously treated indie movie fans to the bizarre and
fascinating "Twin Falls Idaho"--a film about a young woman falling in love with two
brothers who happen to be Siamese twins). A little orphan boy is dying, and a town
is about to flooded in the name of progress (in the form a damn and hydroelectric
power plant). With its eerily pleasing music score, minimalist dialogue and
character development, and uncanny fantasy sequences involving some very unique
angels, the Polish brothers put their focus on what every good film artist knows a
film should be about, the moving pictures...the images, the scenes...paintings of
deep beauty captured on celluloid. This is best to be viewed late at night so that
the haunting imagery can linger in your mind and wash over you as you drift off
into sleep. The fact that all of this was done on a shoe-string budget of less than
two million dollars puts Hollywood with their bloated film costs and hollow movies
to shame and indicates something grand to come from the Polish brothers in the
future.
Michael Polish's hypnotic "Northfork" is a film that will stay in one's memory for
quite a long time. This exquisitely crafted movie that Michael and Mark Polish
wrote, is visually one of the best things that came out last year from the world of
independent films. The movie is splendidly photographed by M. David Mullen, with a
haunting score by Stuart Matthewman. If you haven't seen the film,
perhaps you should stop reading here. The idea to set the film in
Montana was a great coup for the Polish brothers. Never has the majestic views of
the country and mountains been so vividly captured as in "Northfork". We don't need
any color! The beauty is in the dark tones of the film that enhances the story of
the desolation in this remote outpost. At the center of the story is
Irwin, the sick child under the care of the mysterious Father Harlan. This boy is
seen in his bed where the kind priest is administering the medicine for his body.
But is he really there at all? We watch him interacting with the odd group that we
first encounter around the cemetery. There are two freshly open graves. Will one of
them be for Irwin? At the same time, another plot line plays parallel
to this first theme. We see the six men in black that have come to the area in
order to remove from the area as many people as they can. This will be the bed for
the man made lake that will be created. Their reward is one acre and a half of lake
front property if they move a certain amount of people. The third story
line centers on the mystical group composed by Flower Hercules, Cup of Tea, Cod and
Happy. They are following a possibility of a link to an angel that has been injured
in this area. When Irwin meets them at the cemetery, he offers to help, only if
they take him away at least a thousand miles from here. We watch as the quartet
examine the feathers the boy has placed among the pages of his bible. Could Irwin
be that angel? The closing sequence show us all parties leaving
Northfork in different directions. The men in black riding their automobiles,
perhaps going home to enjoy the newly acquired properties given to them as a
reward. The mystical group is seen boarding a plane and taking off for a higher
place. We also realize that the child in Father Harlan, in spite of the medicines
and the care he received from the saintly figure, has died. Michael
Polish got one of the best ensemble acting from all the principals. Nick Nolte, as
Father Harlan turns a low key performance in his portrayal of this kind man. James
Woods, as Walter, one of the men working for the developer, does a fine job. The
biggest surprise is Duel Farmer, who makes an excellent impression as Irwin. This
child actor, with the right guidance, shows great promise. The mystical
group is brilliantly acted by Daryl Hannah, Robin Sachs, Ben Foster and Anthony
Edwards, the man with the funny spectacles. Peter Coyote, Mark Polish, Ben Foster,
and the rest of the cast are flawless under Mr. Polish direction. The
beauty of the film relies in its simplicity. Mr. Polish's vision will haunt one's
memory. The images of Montana, as perhaps an unreal landscape is one of the best
things in American films in quite a while.
The third film from the Polish brothers is their best, most beautiful, imaginative
film yet. Though many audiences will have a problem with Northfork's lack of
traditional dramatic structure, "Stick with it, Jack!". The plot is difficult to
summarize, so just know that the story includes: agents trying to evacuate a city,
God in a cowboy hat, the selling of angel wings, and a sick orphan (but it all
works). M. David Mullen's extraordinary photography makes almost every frame
exciting and wonderful to look at. The performances of the actors, working with the
Polish Brothers' inspiringly offbeat script, are pitch-perfect and give the film
its emotional punch. The strong-willed audience member will be moved by the
mythology and folk tale of the story, the comic and moving actors, and finally the
incredible courage and command that Michael Polish shows behind the camera. Again
all of these incredible and seemingly disjointed elements come together
magnificently in one of the most incredible things you should run out and
experience. A great, great, great movie!!!
It's a shame this movie is rated PG 13--it is really quite suitable for anyone--
though young kids might not follow it too well. It belongs to that
wonderful genre of serio-comic ghost/angel stories that would have to include
everything from Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life" to Wenders's "Wings of Desire." The photography is stunning, the acting first rate, and--wonder of
wonders--the tone is uplifting. My only criticism is that there is not
much ambiguity in the film. The two interwoven stories seem intriguingly mysterious
at first; but they resolve themselves a little too nicely for my taste. As the
director points out in his commentary on the DVD, all the ingredients of Irwin's
story are on his bedside table. The symbolism is just a trifle too pat for
me. But what a lark! My favorite scene has to be when the relocation
team tries to get breakfast at a diner. This is practically theatrical in its
magic--a tour de force of witty acting--subtle, playful, and positively rhythmic--
coupled with striking cinematography and an acute eye for the grotesque. "Northfork" is funny, touching, gorgeous to look at, magical (with the
above reservations) and has not one single car-chase. An easy nine
stars.
This is a decent effort for a B-Movie Martial Arts actioner. Ian Jacklin, a former
North American cruiser weight Kickboxing champion, is the lead and acquits himself
well in the action scenes. The muscular Matthias Hues gets a chance to add more to
his Martial Arts bad guy persona in this film than in all of his many others and if
you are a fan of The Teutonic Titan, rent this movie now! Renee Griffin
is also noteworthy as the romantic interest in this film. She starts off with
attitude but soon warms up to the hero and they make "The beast with two backs" in
a very stylish fashion. The fight scenes are good in the American
tradition (NO Hong Kong acrobatics here!) with added realism from having Benny "The
Jet" Urquidez playing himself as John Larson's (Jacklin) trainer. All in
all this film seems to have more sub plots than most in its genre so you get MORE
of a story.
"It all depends on how you look at it we are either halfway to heaven or halfway
to hell," says the priest Rev. Harlan in "Northfork." The Polish brothers' film is
an ambitious one that will make any intelligent viewer to sit up, provided he or
she has patience and basic knowledge of Christianity. The layers of entertainment
the film provide takes a viewer beyond the surreal and absurd imagery that is
obvious to a less obvious socio-political and theological commentary that ought to
provoke a laid-back American to reflect on current social values. The film's
adoption of the surreal (coffins that emerge from the depths of man-made lakes to
float and disturb the living, homesteaders who nearly "crucify" their feet to
wooden floor of their homes, angels who need multiple glasses to read, etc.) and
absurd images (of half animals, half toys that are alive, of door bells that make
most delicate of musical outputs of a harp, a blind angel who keeps writing
unreadable tracts, etc.) could make a viewer unfamiliar with the surreal and
absurdist traditions in literature and the arts to wonder what the movie is un-
spooling as entertainment. Though European cinema has better credentials in this
field, Hollywood has indeed made such films in the past in "Cat Ballou", Lee
Marvin and his horse leaned against the wall to take a nap, several decades ago.
"Northfork," in one scene of the citizens leaving the town in cars, seemed to pay
homage to the row of cars in "Citizen Kane" taking Kane and his wife out of Xanadu
for a picnic. The film is difficult for the uninitiated or the impatient
film-goerthe most interesting epilogue (one of the finest I can recall) can be
heard as a voice over towards the end of the credits. The directors seem to leave
the finest moments to those who can stay with film to the end. If you have the
patience you will savor the layers of the filmif you gulp or swallow what the
Polish bothers dish out, you will miss out on its many flavors. What is
the film all about? At the most obvious layer, a town is being vacated to make way
for a dam and hydroelectric-project. Even cemeteries are being dug up so that the
mortal remains of the dead can be moved to higher burial grounds. Real estate
promoters are hawking the lakeside properties to 6 people who can evict the
townsfolk. Of the 6, only one seems to have a conscience and therefore is able to
order chicken broth soup, while others cannot get anything served to them. At the next layer, you have Christianity and its interaction on the townsfolk.
Most are devout Christians, but in many lurk the instinct to survive at the expense
of true Christian principles, exemplified in the priest. Many want to adopt
children without accepting the responsibilities associated with such actions. At the next layer, you have the world of angels interacting with near
angelic humans and with each other. You realize that the world of the unknown angel
who keeps a comic book on Hercules and dreams of a mother, finds one in an
androgynous angel called "Flower Hercules." While the filmmaker does give clues
that Flower is an extension of the young angel's delirious imagination, subsequent
actions of Flower belie this option. You are indeed in the world of angels--not
gods but the pure in spiritand therefore not in the world of the living. The
softer focus of the camera is in evidence in these shots. At another
layer the toy plane of Irwin becomes a real plane carrying him and his angels to
heaven 1000 miles away from Norfolk. The final layer is the social
commentary"The country is divided into two types of people. Fords people and Chevy
people." Is there a difference? They think they are different but both are
consumerist. To the religious, the film says "Pray and you shall
receive" (words of Fr Harlan, quoted by Angel Flower Hercules). To the consumerist,
the film says "its what we do with our wings that separate us" (each of the 6
evictors also have wings-one duck/goose feather tucked into their hat bands but
their actions are different often far from angelic as suggested by the different
reactions to a scratch on a car). The film is certainly not the finest
American film but it is definitely a notable path-breaking work--superb visuals,
striking performances (especially Nick Nolte), and a loaded script offering several
levels of entertainment for mature audiences.
A dreamy, stunningly atmospheric film takes place in a small town of Northfork,
Montana in 1955. The government officials arrive to evacuate the town about to be
inundated by a new hydroelctrical dam. There are the other visitors in the town,
the angels from another time but they only seen by a dying boy Irvin. A local
priest (Nick Nolte in a quiet heartbreaking performance) takes care of the boy.
Irvin pleads with the angels to leave the place with them... There is
some unearthly quality in the film, some dignified mourning and sublime sadness
when you suddenly realize the inevitable finality of everything - humans and their
relationships, cities, countries, civilizations, the whole world as we know it.
Death and birth have something in common - we go through them in the ultimate
loneliness. I cannot recall the film that affected me in the same way
and as deeply as "Northfork" did, the film so beautiful and so tender, so quiet and
so powerful, so heartbreaking and so moving. Even now, after several weeks since I
saw it, tears come to my eyes when I only think of it. After I saw it, I
had to talk to somebody about it. I sent a PM to one of my friends and I asked,
"Please tell me what I just saw?" And my friend replied with the words, "You just
saw one of the greatest films of modern times. One of these days others will see
the light."
When Northfork debuted at the Cannes Film Festival, many people didn't like it
because they felt it was boring and too slow. While I agree that it was slow (one
of the slowest movies of the year), in no way was it boring. As Roger Ebert said,
`there has never been a movie like Northfork.' I usually don't agree with Ebert,
but for once he speaks the truth. Although John Sayles' Sunshine State may have
some of the same immediate themes, nothing that I have ever seen or known of can
even compare to the striking originality of the Polish Brothers' Northfork. Northfork is a perfect example of how many times it's better to trek an
extra few minutes to go to an art-house film instead of the latest Jack Black
movie. The plot isn't some hackneyed, cookie-cutter plot; it's just so strikingly
original. A small town in Montana named Northfork has a dam nearby that is about to
be taken down. Therefore, the entire town must be evacuated. Some people, however,
just don't want to leave. In a side plot, a young orphan (Duel Farnes) is very sick
and bedridden; he's being taken care of by Father Harlan (Nick Nolte). The boy
imagines himself as a fallen angel, so to speak, who help him out through his time
of sickness. Although much of the movie is straightforward, some of it
could give David Lynch a run for his money. There's odd weather patterns, a weird,
wooden, huge dog thing, and symbolism that would make Fellini proud. It's not as
overall confusing as a Lynch film, but it's still quite odd. That's what makes
Northfork so great: it's so out of the ordinary and yet so simple and plausible. Northfork has a magical feel to it: it's almost like you're watching
something you're not quite sure what it is but you feel entranced by it. As I said
earlier, I agreed with Ebert on how this movie is unlike any other. However, I
disagree when he says that it is `not entertaining'. He goes on to say it's just
ènthralling.' Perhaps he just thought he should give it good reviews because
everyone else is, but in lieu of how slow it was, I still thought it was very
entertaining, something many dramas now can't do. Northfork may not be
the quickest movie or the most popular movie, but if you can get to and through it,
you'll be extremely surprised, as I was. My rating: 8/10 Rated PG-13 for brief sexuality.
The Polish brothers are unique film artists, and they've really pushed the envelope
here. A fantasy that has points in common with "Wings of Desire," "Northfork" tells
the story of a '50s era small town in the middle of nowhere that is two days shy of
being inundated and submerged thanks to the U.S. government's desire to make a
reservoir on the place where the town stands. It's a wry parable about loss and
remembrance, featuring angels, dreams, premonitions, and the most hilarious
government reclamation functionaries since "Repo Man." The performances are all
outstanding, especially Nolte and Woods. I've noticed in reading down some of the
comments that there are people who were offended simply by the fact that the Polish
twins use elliptical storytelling tactics, and I want to say, that's one of the
things that makes this film so great: its willingness to embrace the mysterious as
an aspect of everyday life. David Mullen's cinematography is stunning. Highly
recommended; if you've suffered a meaningful personal loss, such as the death of a
parent, I would even call this film necessary viewing. - Ray
It's pretty evident that many of your nights were spent alone. If you watched 5
minutes of the actual show instead of watching the commercial you would have seen
one of the greatest television shows in Canadian history being made. Too bad you
would have been watching it alone. Probably the reason you hate it... no game. Keys
to the VIP is hilarious, light and funny. Guys are going to eat this show up. My
game is tight and I can hardly wait to get on this show. The chicks were HOOOOOT
and the clubs kicked ass. I'll be watching every week. It makes me wonder why more
great shows like this one aren't being made. Now it's clear that the talent in
Canada has the ability to produce American quality television.
Don't mind what this socially retarded person above says, this show is hilarious.
It shows how a lot of single men are in a bar atmosphere, and also shows that women
are not as gullible as men think they are. The contest aspect of the
how is really cool and original. Its not the standard reality show that we are all
used to now a days. Give it a chance everyone, we are only one episode
in, we finally have some Canadian programming that isn't absolute crap. As
Canadians what do we normally get, Bon Cop, Bad Cop, or Corner Gas. Come on people
show that we are all not as prudish as the previous reviewer. Way to go
Comedy Network, giving a new show a chance. The panel is funny and the contestants
so far are pretty good.
Keys to the VIP, an original series by the Canadian Comedy Network
(comedynetwork.ca) scored big with this entertaining, yet inspirational gameshow.
This show is hosted by four funny, good-looking guys who judge others on their
'game' (ability to pick up women). Each episode features two guys who go head-to-
head in various pick-up games. There are three different sections and the winner
scores a night as a VIP in an exclusive Toronto night-club. Being a guy,
I naturally find this show hilarious. We all know that it's hard to confront women
and watching these guys do it naturally sparks the curiosity of men. The guys who
compete on this show might even give you a few pointers -- if you pay attention.
I don't know what the last reviewer is talking about but this show is pure
entertainment. Basically 2 dudes are put in competitions at a club to pick up girls
in 3 different scenarios. They mix up the scenarios for each show so it is not the
same every time. The panel of 4 judges is not afraid to call people out or admit it
when they recognize game. They will break down what the guy did wrong, and what
they guy did right. Some contestants are weak, some are strong but what happens is
always entertaining. If you are a guy that goes out, you can relate. I've seen weak
game, I've seen strong game, and this show is for real. No doubt.
For all losers who gave it negative review,its because you probably have sex once
in 2 years,or you are in LTR with one girl for years. And guess what ? She is going
to cheat on you when player like those on that show approach her somewhere.Off
course any male who is not as good as these guys are going to hate them and hate
the show. And that one chick who thinks this show is meant to mock these guys.. its
more actually how to show clueless man how to pick up woman.What these guys are
doing it way better then what most man are doing-not approaching at all.For anybody
who has open mind I recommend to read the book "the game" by neil strauss.It deals
with similar theme as this show
I think it is a brilliant show with cool talking heads and very cool action. 2 guys
who pretend to be masters in women seduction demonstrate their skills at different
night clubs and 4 experts (pickup artists themselves) comment on them, choosing the
winner. Their jokes are amusing, and some participators are really fun to watch.
More so, this show really teaches men how to get in touch with women, lots of
expert's comments are useful while you may see how it works in the field. Actually
I think this is one of the best TV shows and I totally recommend this to all men,
who like women. ps/ pardon for my broken engrish.
This show is absolutely fantastic. It provides all the great drama and romance of
teen shows like The OC and Dawsons, but it's a whole lot funnier. It's a show with
morals and values, without everything being sugar coated and sanitised (ala 7th
Heaven.) We don't have sororities or fraternities in Australia, and our university
system is completely different, so I have no idea how accurately Greek life is
portrayed. But I don't care! Because this show is my new favourite! Any writer that
can make me love a racist, homophobe confederate flag-waving Bible basher must be
genius. And Cappie is my new Pacey. Sorry Josh Jackson, you've been
dethroned!
There are too many people on this board who have obviously missed the subtle wit of
this series. This show is great because it's a hilarious parody of
itself. Guys who are self-proclaimed studs are given a fair chance to convince us
of their seduction abilities until they "hit the field" just to expose their
complete lack of "game" on national TV it's absolutely hilarious and the guys who
are actually skilled are extremely compelling to watch as they effortlessly seduce
the pretentious women that frequent these trendy nightclubs! It
celebrates unique charisma when deserved and mocks delusional douchebags when
deserved. Either way, it's always entertaining because, unlike other dating shows,
it perfectly captures the authentic awkwardness and excitement of a "pickup". I
highly recommend this show to anyone with a sense of humor.
this has to be one of the best and most useful shows on TV. keys to the v.i.p.
demonstrates some of the best seduction techniques and the humor that goes along
with the techniques that are not up to par. to the person who wrote the negative
comment, i only have one thing to say. stop hating on us because we are better
looking and have more game then you. have you ever seen the inside of a club or do
you just watch it on TV. and your so called female friend. she is not attracted to
us because if guys like me saw her in the club, we would just walk right by and
talk to the hot girls, like the ones on the show. STOP HATING watch keys
to the V.I.P. and improve your game
I can't say this show is perfect. Perhaps all the previous commenters remember the
old Tuesday 10:30 slot taken up by the childish humour of butch Elvira Curt
("There's a space shuttle humping a 747!"). Oh the glory of scrambling to hit any
button on the remote to make it change. Face it, comedy can't pull a
Showcase and create the comedic genius of the truly Canadian Trailer Park Boys. But
hey, they try. This show is by far one of the better original shows.
However, none of the following will find themselves laughing at the apparent
"players" who showcase their stupidity in picking up girls: a) "Dumb"
Girls - Obviously, they can't realise that they are just like the girls on the
show. Oblivious. Jump on the man meat, you can call yourself a whore tomorrow and
get his name. He looks good, he must be popular and nice. HAHAHAHA!!! Oh but you'd
never do that! Nobody would... if they knew it was happening b) Unsocial
guys who think women like nice guys - Obviously seeing these guys succeed at what
you fail at or don't even get to experience is going to make your primal rages
boil. Watch more closely, they get shot down most of the time. They say stupid
crap. c) Girls with respect for one another - Obviously seeing your
separate distinctly female species get caught up in real world situations is wrong
wrong wrong. Nobody gets played. Women are not objects, they can't be played,
because they are all very faithful angels who are going to clubs to converse
politely with one another without fear of guys trying to pick them up. Oh wait... hmmmmmmmm As much as EVERYBODY will say that this show is
not funny, and that it doesn't teach you anything, I have to take the opposite
side. The show is very good at detailing the way relationships work for both men
AND women. The way they think, and the way they think each other think, and social
hierarchy. Its funny to see and hear the guys make absolutely idiotic comments to
things the women say ("My grandfather died recently" "Oh... well are we having fun
tonight?"). Besides, its a club. The place people go to have fun, and
get laid. No matter who you are, you're going to a club to get or give attention to
someone. Guys go there to test their game and pick up girls. Girls go there to
flirt with guys and find the one that sweeps her off her feet the best. Lighten up!
 If you're a guy, learn a thing or two about different approaches and
the different effects they have. If you're a girl, learn what these "studly" man
whores really think like, and learn to tell them apart from genuine guys. Next time
you get broken up with by one of those douchewads, realise its not because of him,
its because you're dumb and thought he was the greatest guy ever when he was quite
clearly a dick to you the whole time
Sure, it seems like there is only about 17 minutes of actual content in each
episode, but it is certainly fun to watch. You might find yourself cringing in your
chair as buddy sticks his foot in his mouth and gets shot down, or chuckling and
shaking your head when some ridiculous line actually works. The panel of hosts have
more of a good-natured, friendly (dare I say Canadian) style of commentary compared
with cutthroat US reality programming. I think the people who complain about this
show don't get the joke. They are taking the show more seriously than the show
takes itself. Keys to the VIP is a great caricature of reality shows, sports TV
culture, and the club scene. I hope they do another season, and I'd be interested
to see if a US version appears. It's certainly a fun, original premise.
This is a great show despite many negative user reviews. The aim of this show is to
entertain you by making you laugh. Two guys compete against each other to get a
girl's phone number. Simple. The fun in this show is watching the two males try to
accomplish their goal. Some appear to hate the show for various
reasons, but I think, they misunderstood this as an "educational" show on how to
pick up chicks. Well it is not, it is a comedy show, and the whole point of it is
to make you laugh, not teach you anything. If you didn't like the show, because it
doesn't teach you anything, don't watch it. If you don't like the whole clubbing
thing, don't watch it. If you don't like socializing don't watch it. This show is a
comical show. If you down by watching others pick up girls, well its not making you
laugh, so don't watch it. If you are so disappointed in yourself after watching
this show and realizing that you don't have the ability to "pick-up" girls, there
is no reason to hate the show, simply don't watch it!
The show itself basically reflects the typical nature of the average youth;
partying and picking up chicks is the common weekend goal at the clubs. People
frown upon the show due to its "perverted" idea of picking up girls using technique
and strategic characterization, but truth be told, practically every young guy is
out doing it at the club. Overall, the show really appeals to the younger
population, as we like to see the outcome of a "player's" performance at the club,
as the show offers a comical approach made possible by the judging panel. 10/10; a cool, fun and thrilling series that allows the audience to really
interact. Good Job Boys.
The fact that reviewers feel very intensely negative towards the show is an
interesting fact all its own. If you dislike it so much, don't watch it. Certain reviewers assert that you have to be dumb, dim-witted, or plain old
primitive to enjoy this show. Au contraire, my friends. I am not claiming that all
the contestants are smart. There are smart ones, and there are dumb ones. But I
WOULD argue that they probably have a higher average IQ than the average reviewer
on this website. Thats right, I said it. There is a lot to be said for the science
of seducing girls. I'm sorry, but please withdraw all sticks out of your asses, and
realize the reason you hate these guys is that they threaten you. Those
oblivious to social sciences, and more specifically, the science behind mating are
clearly going to miss the boat completely. One thing is clear: The clubs
aren't the only places to meet girls. I personally think that the worthwhile women
don't even go to clubs, so that they won't fall prey to men like the ones we see on
the show. But what are men like these???? Apart from the ones whose games stink,
they are the epitome of men. They are men who meet women in the most difficult
situations. These are men who take ownership of their own sexuality. These men
don't beg for their girlfriends to not break up with them, and these men don't say
"OK" to the phrase "let's just be friends". Sound familiar???? In fact,
these are the very guys you're afraid of when you take your special long term
girlfriend to the club. We all are. These guys know what women like. (again, only
the ones who have "game") And even the ones who are bad...they are worth
a laugh! If you have gone out to a club, and actually interacted with
the people around you, you should find this show entertaining. Look, I
am at a loss for why there is so much hate for this show. My best guess is that it
aggravates the insecurity in men who have had bad experiences in clubs, or
threatens men who believe women are beautiful self-less creatures who just want a
nice guy to buy their attention. I personally love this show. It is pure
entertainment, and best of all, its REAL. It is a very perceptive take on the most
recent state of sexual psychology. Sex roles have never been so different from
before, and this show provides a very real view of that, I think it
actually takes some intelligence to take away something positive from this show.
 This show appeals to a certain target market, and if you're outside of
that, then I guess you shouldn't tune in to the show. We could say this about any
other shows though, couldn't we? Grow Up, ApolloHelios
I'm sure all of the Canadians on IMDb are all too familiar with Canadian content,
and how much of it is... well, shall we say, lackluster. There are a select few
Canadian shows that are actually worth watching, however, this is definitely one of
them. Simple premise. Two guys picking up girls in a bar with certain
guidelines and rules, add in some witty and clever commentary from a group of
surprisingly likable self-proclaimed "Alpha Males" and you have yourself some very
entertaining programming. Each episode is solid. If the "players" are sub-par,
there are some awkward moments to be had, and there is some gentle fun poked at
them. If the "players" are good, it leads to moments that you just have to stand up
and applaud, and some comical praise lavished at them. The premise is
kind of trashy, I know, and as a guy who usually takes pride in the fact that I'm
elevated himself above typical, terrible reality television, it takes a lot for me
to admit that this show is actually funny and enjoyable. One thing that
must be pointed out is how The Comedy Network did a terrible job marketing this
show. For the longest time, I didn't even know the premise, and all I knew was that
there was somehow a shirtless guy who "loves cougars" involved. However, after
actually watching the show, I was surprised by how surprisingly slick it looks for
Canadian content (despite a pretty lame opening credits sequence). So give it a
chance. I have yet to find someone in the target demographic (18-30 year old males)
who have actually watched the show (and not just the annoying commercials) who
hasn't liked it. Bring it back for a third season, Comedy Network. It
actually has a good premise, as opposed to some other Canadian shows you've had
(cough*girls will be girls*cough). I usually reserve 10/10 ratings for "works of
art," but I just have so much fun watching this show and I think that it has been
unfairly judged my many, that I just had to.
Keys to the VIP is one of the most entertaining, informative and hilarious shows
that is on television right now. The idea is original, and well executed, as it
manages to preserve the reality aspect, but still remain entertaining. All of the
judges have a razor wit. They're not the nicest at all times, but if you're looking
for comfort, go watch a chick flick. Say what you like about validity of the show,
but it is absolutely real. I know people who have competed on the show, and they
have confirmed this. If you want to laugh, watch this show. It is on of
the best comedy shows ever made.
keys to the VIP is BS. rob cavaliere vs Justin in season two. I went to school with rob cavaliere and Adriana Doria. you may remember her
as the last girl he was "picking up". this was when the "angry girlfriend" came by,
they made out and "left the club together". They were good friends at father
bressani chs in woodbridge. whether or not rob planned it or they asked
him to do it, men should know that what they are seeing is not real and the guys on
here are douche bags. especially that episode. one more line to fill
space.
As someone who was in a Pan-Hellenic sorority, I wasn't sure what to expect when I
tuned into this show. After seeing so many over dramatizations in "made for TV
movies" and the craziness of the reality shows, I was curious to see if Greek would
be able to show the true College and Greek life experience. I was very
pleasantly surprised at how the show was able to give the viewer the satisfaction
of identifying the ever-familiar characters of this genre, but it was also able to
add depth to the characters. Greek life isn't just about parties and petty
conflict. Although those things happen within Greek Life, they also happen in any
other social or professional circle throughout a person's life. To characterize it
as some exclusive experience to those in a Greek Organization would be false. Most
of the story lines and situations taking place in Greek can and do take place
everywhere, in every circle of friends, on sports teams, in real life. But I've
watched both episodes and my "little sister" whom I'm still very close to and I
have spent both episodes laughing and being reminded of how they've truly captured
the spirit of our college years and experiences. I liked how the second
episode showed how the characters struggle with the other facets of their lives;
school, relationships, goals, etc. Cappie telling Rusty that school comes first and
going to your brothers for help, that was very true to life. You can't stay in an
Organization if you have bad grades. The way Rusty got his assignment to his
professor was far fetched, but it was entertaining. Even the dynamic between Casey
and Rusty; It happens, you grow up and whatever your relationship with your
sibling(s) was, it changes so you must adjust. The bottom line: Greek is
a great show, great entertainment value, and enough "real life" in there to be
believable and definitely worth the viewers time.
I thought this movie was awesome and the two guys nick and aaron are hotties!!!!! I
wish i could watch it over and over. I loved the plot and whole concept of the
movie. It is great and I wish i had taped it last night.Nick I love You!!!!!!
I am from Texas, and live very close to Plano where the actual deaths occurred, so
I might be a bit biased in saying that "Wasted" is a film that you just can't get
out of your head. Stahl, Phoenix, and Paul all play their characters
very realistically. You truly believe that they are everyday high school students
who just happen to be heroin addicts. The drug content is handled very graphically
as well - although everything that happens in the film serves a purpose, and each
moment the characters spiral further downward is heartbreaking. I definitely
recommend this film to anyone. Once you watch it, it sticks with you!
black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f.
street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff
that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't
be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks
and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks
like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted
there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t.
abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke
but should be something else... no big deal.
I saw this a good while ago, but i just cant get over it. I have looked everywhere
to try and find out where i can get a copy of it but i have not been able to get a
hold of it. I really reccomend this movie and if anyone has any info about how i
can get a copy then let me know. thanx
I watched this movie the night it premiered on MTV. Usually to me MTV Movies are
kind of stupid but this one was so good. Summer Phoenix is an amazing actress and I
thought that Nick Stahl was good too. If MTV started showing more movies like this
I would probably enjoy the channel a lot more.
Spoiler begin The movie focuses on three friends, Samantha (Summer Phoenix), Chris
(Nick Stahl), and Owen (Aaron Paul). The movie starts out with Sam and Owen as the
drug addicts, and Chris, the track star, as the one who takes care of them. As
things get increasingly worse at home for Chris, he asks Sam what the drug is like.
Sam is out of rehab and sober by this point and tells him it makes everything
better. Chris then catches up with Owen and they start using. It takes chris two
times till he is a " full time member". After some trouble with a dealer and a
confession to Sam, she gets in again. So begins the downward spiral for them. Chris
od's when he breaks a promise to Sam (I want some of the movie to be a surprise).
He dies, Sam gets in to college to be an Architect, and Owen gets arrested. so ends
the story Spoiler ends. minor spoilers throughout Nick stahl
is amazing. He will have an Oscar one day. His portrayal of Chris was
Heartbreaking. He was the only one that felt real in the movie as far as drug use
goes. Aaron Paul who played Owen acted as if he were on speed not heroin. Summer
Phoenix was fine, she is talented but what can i say Nick Stahl stole the movie.
His drugged eyes, his slow movements, everything was perfect. The
writers needed to show withdrawls in the movie. That is a main reason why people
don't want to quit. Other then that there are hilarious scenes (the mall scene, and
the Backstreet boy scene,man Stahl nailed the reactions right on the head.),
Touching, sad scenes (Like the scene between Sam and Chris in her bedroom after he
gets beat up, i bawled, and the park scene.). It was realistic too. Like S am using
again when Chris wanted to flush the drug down the toilet, and Chris using again
after he goes to Own's, even though he had been clean for two weeks, the pull was
too strong. it is all realistic. Watch the movie for a great cast,
great music, and a semi- truthful account of drug addiction.
This movie was amazing. Never before have I seen such a film that brought me to the
harsh reality of drug use quite like this one. There is no glamorizing, sugar
coating, or glorifying heroine. This movie shows the true struggles, pain, and loss
people go through when dealing with this drug. Good film, decent emotionally packed
acting, and a great storyline. A much watch! 
I just saw this movie tonight(5th Nov. 2005)for the first time. I wanted to watch
it cause I saw the basketball diaries(Leonardo Di Caprio) and loved that but this
was far more heavy going. I think it had a good depiction of drugs to an extent. I
empathize mostly with Nick Stahls character, probably because if I someone I was
crazy about was on that stuff I'd want to help them get off it. A promising student
and athlete who spends all his time training and studying-well it's understandable
that he'd want to try teenage life(the crazy side of it) and in his efforts as what
begins is helping his friend he ends up addicted because he wanted to see what it
is all about and because of his horrendous family situation which results in his
most tragic death. A truly sad film but one flaw i noticed is that you don't get a
good enough insight into the damage it does to families but apart from that,
excellent performances on a truly heartbreaking movie.
I wasn't planning on watching wasted when I saw the MTV preview but since I had
nothing better to do or watch on a Sunday night I watched it. Wasted was
no Requiem for a Dream but it was a very good movie considering it was made by MTV.
One thing that drew me to watching it was Summer Pheonix the sister of the late and
wonderful River Pheonix stared. I suppose talent runs in the Pheonix family because
she was good and so is Jaquien though niether are River. Nick Stahl also gives a
great preformance as a junky jock. There isn't much else to say about wasted. It
was a dark depressing and insightful look into the lives of three small town
junkies. I recomend it to those who like the subject. 8/10
I saw this movie yesterday night and it was one of the best made for TV films I've
seen. It was very well directed and the acting was superb, very convincing. The
music was good and the cinematography was beautifully shot. Take out the
hopelessness out of Requiem for a Dream and you get wasted. An excellent depiction
of the world of drug addiction and its consequences given in a very open way in
wich anyone can relate to. cudos to mtv for giving us a good flick for a change
from !*$*% like Crossroads.
I am so excited that Greek is back! This season looks really eventful. Im glad that
Casey is trying to get serious about school but is still involved in the sorority.
Its really funny that she wants to go into politics & that they're highlighting her
'scheming talent.' I loved Calvin's new haircut! It makes him look more mature.
They should shave Cappy's head, as well. All the guys are hot but Calvin is
definitely the hottest! I cant wait to see more of him! I'm especially interested
in what happens between Calvin, Adam, & Rusty! I also love Rebecca. She's really
pretty. I actually think that Rebecca & Calvin should hook up. go for it, Calvin!
Join my team!
What can I say? I couldn't sleep and I came across this movie on MTV. I started
watching it with every intention of changing the channel if it started to get lame
as so many anti-drug movies do but I got sucked into this movie and I couldn't stop
watching. Nick Stahl did an amazing job with his character, and in my opinion he
really made the movie something worth watching. I was interested in purchasing the
soundtrack to the movie (or even the movie itself) and MTV.com was no help at all,
but believe it or not Amazon.com is taking pre-orders for the August 5th release of
the movie on DVD. I know I had a hard time tracking it down, and I'm sure other
people might have had the same problem. I'm buying my own copy so I can drool over
Nick Stahl while bawling my eyes out at the same time thanks to the emotional
storyline!
This movie is about three teens who have been best friends for the longest time,
and go on the most messed up ride of their life. When Heroine becomes the choice
drug in their town, these three teens find themselves wrapped up in it all. This
movie portrays heroine addiction very well, and is something you can't stop
watching. MTV has never been the best at doing made for tv movies, but this one has
to much good content to not watch it. I enjoyed this film, at the beginning I
thought it would be the worst movie I've seen, but then as it went on it got
better, and I couldn't turn away.
being a high school student,i have to take a health class. this year, the topic is
drugs. we learn about the harm they can cause a person. from what we talk about, i
still believe and know that drugs can really mess a person up. anyway, my teacher
wanted us to watch this. naturally, we groan and start to sleep, but like the rest
of my class, i actually did enjoy this movie. it was totally real, and not sugar
coated at all. the characters were amazing and believable. even the plot was
outstandingly realistic and believable. what i liked about this movie mainly was
how it got the point of the effect's drugs can take on an abuser, and the
consequences the person has to deal with. everyone reassures themselves that
nothing bad will happen to them. well lets get serious. anything can happen in a
small town, even to your best friend, like Sam and Chris. this movie shows it. a
person can really learn a lot from watching this. it was pretty effective.
The acrobatics mixed with haunting music, make one spectacular show. The costumes
are vibrant and the performances will just boggle your mind! Simply amazing!
Wow, don't watch this thinking it's going to be a relaxing circus evening! It will
keep you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Circus has never been more
colourful, more exciting and more breathtaking! The whole concept is truely
amazing. You're taken into the world of Cirque Du Soleil and are left with a
thousand thoughts when you leave. There's only one thing left to do: get the CD
and/or DVD and live through it again and again and again. Get addicted! It's well
worth it! Must be next to the most beautiful thing on earth and one of Cirque Du
Soleil's best programmes.
This performance leaves you with no wishes. We saw it in Offenbach, Germany, and it
is breathtaking. We only got the cheap tickets at the far back but still had a view
over everything that happened. If you ever get the chance to see this live then GO!
It is worth the trip and if I were you I would wait a good half an hour after the
show to 'cool down'. The performances are breathtaking and all around the tent
there are colourfully dressed performers that are there to distract, help, smile
and generally make the whole tent come alive. The music - live music!! - is as good
as the CD-version: perfect! I bought a DVD later but the show that was filmed had
less colourful costumes. It's the atmosphere in the tent that sweeps you from your
feet. A great trip for old and young, and a great film, too
I purchased this video on VCR tape in a good-will store for US 50 cents. I have
taken quite a few videos I purchased back for them to sell to others after I viewed
them considering the 50 cent cost as a rental. This is the only one that will never
go back. It is an explosion of artistic talent, color and sound. I don't know if I
should calls it circus, dance, or both. It is bigger than life itself. They will
only be able to do this well for just a few brief years in their life. These are
the performers for the performers. If Gene Kelly and Burt Lancaster were alive
today and saw them live they would be awe-struck. I would lend it to others to
watch but I know if I do that I will never get it back.
I had the pleasure of seeing Saltimbanco live before seeing the video version of
the show. While nothing can compare to actually being there, the people behind the
video did an amazing job of capturing the flavor, the feel, the sensation and so
much more. The wonderful performances of Saltimbanco's stunningly amazing troupe
are beautifully captured throughout. The video flows as smoothly and artfully as
the production itself. A wonderful experience.
This has to be one of the most beautifully morbid films I have ever seen. Merhige
has created a living painting that unfolds with horrific violence, sex, and a
minimalist retelling of the life of Jesus Christ. The high contrast and thick layer
of grain make you question yourself as to what you are really seeing at times, but
the use of texture, combined with the extreme contrast, create an incredible
viewing experience. This film is not for everyone. I think you have to keep an open
mind and not be so quick to condemn this film for its content, which if extremely
rough, but does make a fairly important statement about creation, god and humanity.
Whether this film is a work of art, or shock value trash is open to discussion.
if you are dating a girl that is into wicca! many parts of this movie
were killer and the feeling you get from this movie while watching it and
immediately after is enough alone to sit through it all but some things really
bothered me about this film that i cant really put my finger on... i
definitely think that this movie is one that any art student or photography student
should see b/c of the camera style and graininess that ive never seen but that is
just it...it looks like an art student made it and the plot if there is any is so
jumpy that you really need to be on a lot of drugs to get just what is going on
...I cannot believe I was hooked on this show instantly, after seeing the first
scene I was in it deep. Anyway, first of all the guys are hot, Cappy,
Evan, Calvin, Fischer, Cappy, Heath, Cappy etc. Secondly, the girls are
cute, sexy, smart and are not afraid of being called bitches. I like that. Which at
the same time doesn't make them mean and greedy, just realistic. Third
the relationships are so great, especially Casey and Cappy. Lately every show turns
very away from it's original path and people end up with someone who wasn't even in
the first season. Cappy and Casey's relationship is true love, a kind that lasts.
They loved each other throughout the years and it didn't end when a guest star
appeared. In todays world maybe it's kind of unbelievable for two
people to love each other for a long time but it happens. And people define each
other in college so I knew exactly who I wanted to be with in college. Just like
Casey and Cappy. I HOPE THERE ARE MANY MORE SEASONS OF THIS SHOW AND I
HOPE WE CAN SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CASEY AND CAPPY NOW THAT THEY WILL
PROBABLY STAY TOGETHER, at Thanksgiving... Love this show
Thank God for the Internet Movie Database!!! When I first got this movie I watched
it every night just before before bed and was getting something different out of it
every time. But no matter how I sliced it, it came up disturbing. The black and
white and all the twitching really freaked me. You stare at the screen unsure of
what you are looking at, and just when you think you got it, it becomes clear and
it's something completely different. The imagery is VERY disturbing, twitching and
straight razors do not sit well with me in any movie. Still everytime I watched it,
I was interpreting it somewhat differently (there is no dialogue, ya know), so I
decided to check the IMdB for the plot summary. Boy that throws me for a loop, I
had no idea that was supposed to be God. Now I'm going to watch it with this in
mind and see what happens....
Begotten is black and white distorted images. It looks like it could have come from
the nineteenth century. However, the sound is crystal clear, minus the sync and the
addition of calm nature sounds. This movie was very critical of the
struggles of life. It shows a single mother and child in a violent world that
thrives on the innocent. The mother is very oblivious to her surroundings. This
leads to lots of torture, pain, and death. You may watch it many times and see
different symbolisms, plot devices, and basically "what does it mean?". If you appreciate art in movies then you will love it. Otherwise, don't bother.
Begotten is one of the most unique films I've ever seen. It is more, to me, a study
of sound, light and dark, and movement than a real story. The type of thing you see
as a video instillation at the museum of modern art than a film enjoyed at the
local theater. I'm not going to try to interpret the images of the mother nature,
the beasts in cloaks, the twisted and tortured body of her "child". Some things
just defy interpretation.
I loved it, it was really gruesome and disgusting. I thought that the tearing of
the human flesh was thoroughly provacative. the way that it was depicting the human
crucifix about Jesus Christ was really interesting. The tearing about limbs and
jaws was awesome brutally gruesome. Don't watch this if you have a weak heart, you
wouldn't be able to stand it.
Anyone who correctly identifies the opening images as God killing himself without
reading the end credits certainly deserves a free ticket to a rest home in
Transylvania. I would imagine this as being a favorite movie at "Twin Peaks" dark
lodge on movie night if time existed there. I would think that a better title might
have been, "How much fun can you have with someone who's almost dead in the forest
with only neolithic technology?" The answer, it would seem, is quite a bit. So,
despite the silly "God Killing Himself," the uber-pretentiousness (an apt phrase
taken from a previous letter), the more clearly "Alistair Crowley - Hi, I'm the
Beast, deal with it!" than Christian cosmology (I can't believe another viewer had
the thick-headedness to see the Judeo-Christian Bible in this)... despite all of
that... this is a daring, important work that most people should not see. I am both
impressed and creeped out that it was made at all.
First of all, this is an art film and a good one at that. I loved the presentation
and way it was shot. Very cool. Certain scenes were some of the more graphic horror
sequences I've ever seen. This film did scare me, not because of suspense or shock,
but because I was deathly afraid that I'd soon see something REALLY appalling. That
did happen in a few places, but mostly at the beginning. This film also dragged and
the 74 minutes seemed long. However, if you're into film you have to see this. To
date, I've seen nothing like it. 8/10
not really sure what to make of this movie. very weird, very artsy. not the kind of
movie you watch because it has a compelling plot or characters. more like the kind
of movie that you can't stop watching because of the horrifically fascinating
things happening on screen. although, the first time my wife watched this she
couldn't make it all the way through... too disturbing for her. runs a bit long,
but nonetheless a worthwhile viewing for those interested in very dark movies.
I absolutely like this film a lot. It is not very entertaining, but it's a feast of
bizarre and stunning images! There's no dialog ,only some background sounds and
noises. If you are into something completely different and original, and enjoy the
obscure and bizarre...then you might like this work of art. Ik looks like a film
made with the very first camera ever made ,in a time where strange human-like
beings live and perform their bizarre habits. God has killed himself with a razor
and gave birth to Mother earth. Mother earth impregnated herself with God's semen
after an act of fellatio, and gives birth to a son "Flesh on Bone". What follows
are inhuman acts of ritualistic torture, rape and murder for purposes we do not
know....or do we?
This kind of angst can only be inside a young person who seeks very seriously his
religion and his place in this world. As the text in the beginning of the movie
says, these pictures are dead: They are the past already, and have been right from
the moment when the product was ready. But that is only for the maker of these
"products": Maybe to somebody, who is in the same frame of mind (I think very many
people, at least of those who are seriously interested in religion, go through the
same terrible angsts and doubts in their personal development). And that, of
course, is the reason that art is made in the first place: Identification and
consolation amongst fellow human beings. This film uses very well the
"classic" technics of the experimental cinema. And this is where those technics are
to my opinion in the best possible use: As an instrument in telling stories and
creating atmosphere to them, not just as a pure abstractions or as an end in
themselfes. Those "tricks" have already been made many enough times. Some other
movies that I imagine have influenced/inspired this director, are "Eraserhead" and
"Nosferatu". It's interesting how these technics make this movie totally timeless:
There is nothing contemporary in this movie. Or nothing from any other specific
time either. It could have been made a thousand years ago. It is
interesting in this story how these people treat this new born holy child: They use
it selfishly in their own purposes, and don't even try to listen to him. They beat
him, rip off his intestines and castrate him. They drag his (living) body forcibly
from place to place. And they do the same kind of violence to his mother. The story
also reminds me of the Borges' short story "El informe de Brodie". Also the
critique towards the practices of the Christian institutions reminds me of the
great "El Topo". Unpleasant watch at times, but beautiful. Very simple,
thought and concentrated. Very strong movie, almost too strong. The whole human
energy has been concentrated to this. Also this movie shows that when you have the
passion and ideas, you can make a movie with a round zero budget. But I
have to admit, it was a bit hard to watch for a "contemporary" viewer like myself,
because of the experimentality. It was so slow and demanding. But after all, worth
the suffering. I have to give ten points just for the effort that somebody makes
this kind of movie.
What this movie is not: Cool, Entertaining What this movie is: Visually
Interesting, Difficult to get through, Intentional I feel that this
movie puts the viewer (if he or she is willing) through a clip of time where they
experience a world without language. Much like how animals must experience the
world. You don't really watch this movie as much as you witness an awful series of
events in what "feels" like real time. Consistently, it goes on much
longer than is comfortable. This movie could be edited down to a 20 minute short
and it would be a totally different movie. It would be cool and entertaining, but
the experience would be lost. I have seen a lot of cool movies, but I have never
experienced one like this. If you can get your head in the right place for this
one, you should be able to really appreciate (but likely not "enjoy") what they
accomplished here. 10 out of 10.
i love this show. i hate when it goes to season finale because it feels like
forever until the season starts again!! i have followed this show since its pilot
then all the way threw from where rusty starts college and see's Casey his sister
to now where he's dating Dana.. love this show cant wait until Monday night!! Also
i am so glad that cappie and Casey finally got back together that was driving me
crazy!!! As for Evan and rebecca i hope they get back together which it just feels
like they will by the finale. i just looked it up about the main part of the cast
and i am so SHOCKED that Casey Cartwright(Spencer Grammar)is Kelsey Grammar's
daughter!!! that just surprises me so much and the other thing that's a huge
SHOCKER is that she was born the same year as me and that she was born on my baby
brother birth date with my year and i had been watching her the whole entire time
and had no clue!!
Sui generis. Folks, I'm not going to lie to you; Merhige is a one or two hit
wonder, but what a film (it almost excuses SUSPECT ZERO). I'm also not going to
pretend to understand it completely; half of what makes it what it is is trying to
second guess what the hell they are doing on the screen because of the
chiaroscuro. Richard Corliss says, "It is as if a druidical cult had re-
enacted, for real, three Bible stories -- creation, the Nativity and Jesus' torture
and death on Golgotha." That's not a bad description, but there seems to be more to
it than the seemingly one-to-one religious correspondences. There's an
environmental theme right up near the surface -- note that toward the end (after
the barrenness of the landscape) there are large pipes not unlike those on a
construction site. Oh no, he's going to say look at how people are raping mother
nature. One rarely sees a dead metaphor in action, and with this much hyperbole,
but to see it acted out is way grislier than language implies. And yeah,
if you just want something to sync with a death metal soundtrack, it does have the
requisite atrocities. But as for myself and others like me, it's an important art
film that should merit a Criterion collection release. Ranks right up there with
Murnau's FAUST. ~ Ray
God cuts himself with a straight razor, afterwards, he gives birth to mother earth,
which then gives birth through gods semen, son of earth. This is a one
and a half-an-hour movie that sort of depicts a dark version of how god created the
world. Its surreal, dark and poetic. The most important aspect of the film to me is
the visuals. Its shot in a very grainy black and white film, using both slow-motion
and normal shooting. Sometimes even fast film and stop-motion. The scenes are long
and dragged out, that sets a very weird mood. No sounds were recorded when filming
(i think), sound effects were added afterwards, such as criccets, water and other
ambient sounds, repeated over and over. As you might understand this movie is
certainly not for the impatient person... I often felt it was similar to
David Lynch's Eraserhead, only this one is even harder to understand, and even more
dragged out, but that's okay for me, I like that kind of stuff. Its certainly not
entertainment (at least not the Hollywood kind) so if your going to check it out, i
recommend you set yourself up for it. Be open minded, and except something like the
end of 2001: a space odyssey.
This is not a story. It's a bunch of psychic needles reaching for your
subconscious. If you wait for a story you'll be bored. But if you give yourself
over to it you'll be inside it's dreamworld within 10 minutes. The vague but
disturbing images of pain and torture in a desolate landscape leave room for your
own fantasies. The strange soundtrack that gives you the feeling of isolation, the
visual echoes of the crucifixion of Christ, the pulsating light and deep dark
shadows, they all reach to your subconscious to fill in this mind-space. I found
myself trembling and unable to escape in front of my television. It was like
dreaming with eyes wide open. A strange nightmare, a bad trip, a religious
experience... it touched me deep inside and marked me for live. It freed my mind
and gave me one of that rare experiences of loss of personality, and merging with
the world of archetypes. A little freedom for the soul. A violent freedom
however.... Not a nice movie, but a very strong and unforgettable one. Literally my
text has no spoilers. For me the great surprise of this film was the unbelievable
intensity of it, and describing this can be understood as a spoiler. The less you
know about this film as you watch it, the better.
There have been many (well, more than a few in any case) attempts over the past 30
years to create film that has an "otherworldly" appearance. Supposing that this is
a Film Director's wish to distance himself from other movies, or simply to gloss
over the low-budget and shabby look, "Begotten" is on the top echelon of this
pile. Apart from the peerless "Eraserhead", anyway. Merhige's
painstaking process of artificially degrading his film changes it's structure
completely (imagine what this film would have looked like in glorious, standard
Technicolour) - It can almost be envisaged as an artifact from another, unknown
culture. Some images are so far removed from what we expect to see on the screen,
they disturb mainly as they are dislocated. This is not "Last House On The Left"
disturbance, more like leaving-your-cave-for-the-first-time-and-seeing-the-sun
disturbance. Watch this Fever-Dream if you get the chance, and relish.
Remember, they make other, more standard films every day. They can wait.
A warning to potential viewers of this experimental film: the nature of the imagery
and the effects are such that this is one of those types of films that should
really be seen ON film, projected. The pixellation created by digital transfers
sucks a lot of depth and adds a lot of noise to already abstract and grainy film.
However, since this movie is pretty much unavailable in any format, I suppose
you'll have to make do with what you can. Anyway, this most excellent
artistic endeavor comes courtesy of the guy who would eventually give us Shadow of
the Vampire. It's a dark and dirty film of the genesis of the elements (as far as I
can glean from the character names) through a process horrifying and surreal.
Begotten is a very good example of what is known as abject art, a stylistic
approach that seeks meaning through the visceral more than the thematic. And visceral describes it. Not very much stuff happens in the movie
technically, but the levels of emotion it'll put you through are innumerable. The
very repetitiveness of some of the imagery creates a mesmerizing catch over the
senses. The sound editing and score in particular are immaculate, and serve the
imagery incredibly well. Fans of this film would do well to check out
the collections of short films released through Other Cinema DVD, Experiments in
Terror I, II, and III. Movies such as these make me more and more certain that the
realm of true horror resides in the abstract, abject, and non-narrative, rather
than in spooky tales of ghosts and axe-murderers. --PolarisDiB
Begotten.The magic.The Terror.The slight boredom. That "Begotten" is for
acquired tastes goes without saying,you don't just happen to watch it unless your
friends are real art-house movie buffs.You must dig the weird,the macabre,the
bizarre.You must dig cool flicks.And you must dig to find diamonds. "Begotten" is one of the most visually dazzling and mystifying films ever known
to man.The visual part is something to behold,something no one can prepare you
for.But since the film is devoid of any type of dialogue,the visual part is pretty
much the only part...."Begotten" is a visual film.The soundscapes created for the
film are magical and groundbreaking but still....the sight of it.... God
commits suicide in a particularly gory scene then from his corpse rises Mother
Earth who impregnates herself with God's semen and gives birth to Flesh on Bone,a
retarded child.She then abandons him,and he gets tortured by heathen-like
creatures.Mother comes back (to save him?) but she and her son get murdered by the
horrible creatures. The film is about the meaninglessness of life,and
about the fact that we come to this planet to suffer and to die,and that when
something dies something else is born etc.Nihilism. The film's no.1
quality is of course the visuals,the setting,those haunting images,this other-
worldly quality....After you're done watching,you feel like an alien.It's THAT
mesmerizing. When people say it should last 30' instead of 70' they're
right.No they're not,it could last 40'.It's just that everything happens to such a
slow pace.In fact,the plot summary I provided is all that happens in the film,like
no kidding.Still,it's....I don't know....Glorious... ...Like a flame
burning away the darkness...
Begotten is certainly an experience, and a out of the ordinary experience at that.
The use of colour is fascinating and at times, frustrating. A LOT of what happens
on screen is incredibly difficult to make out. Your view is either obscured by a
sudden bizarre change in colour and tone, characters in the way and random cuts to
the sky. The sound is very haunting and a welcome addition. It really aids the
nihilistic and hopeless tone that smothers this film. As for what
Begotten is about, the "rape of the environment and rebirth" theory feels pretty
accurate to me. But I wouldn't spend a lot of time focusing on the meaning, it's
virtually unimportant. It's clear the director didn't want to explain anything. He
simply presents it as it is, and if you want to search for a meaning that's up to
you. Watching Begotten is definitely not a walk in the park, but I was
captivated from the opening. It really is like watching a person's worst nightmare.
What we see is at times distressing and very unpleasant, but there is a surreal
dreamlike beauty in there. If you're an art-house/experimental fan and you haven't
yet seen Begotten, make it a priority. I doubt you will ever forget it. I sure know
that I won't.
E. Elias Merhige's Begotten is a one of a kind, surreal depiction of the mankind's
treatment of religion. There are a couple of different ways you can interpret
things, but the plot itself is simple: A god disembowels himself, and out of his
corpse springs mother earth. Mother Earth then felates the god's corpse post-
mortem, and then impregnates herself with what remains of his seed. Following this,
she gives birth to a messiah figure who quivers, presumably in infancy, but
possibly with terror at being brought to life on earth. This all takes place in the
first 15-30 minutes, and after that, the rest of the film consists of robed figures
dragging the messiah (who is incessantly quivering, or seizing) across a desert
landscape. The robed figures pause only to brutalize the messiah, then continue to
drag him around. There are a couple of ways to interpret this, depending
on your level of optimism and your world view. It can easily be interpreted as a
bleak nihilistic atheist allegory about the total lack of apparent power that
Christian "deities" can be perceived as having in a modern society that only
invokes their names to advance its own selfish goals. Or you can interpret it as a
postmodern pro-Christian allegory, in which you view the film as being about how
mankind has twisted Christ's message around so much that it's original purity and
innocence can no longer have relevance in a world where that message and image are
inappropriately used to endorse everything from interpersonal violence, to war, to
totalitarianism. The visuals of this film are phenomenal, and you will
not see anything like it, period. If you can, watch the original VHS release, I
recommend it. I'm not sure if the visuals are changed on the DVD, but I have seen
clips of this streaming on you tube and the effects are seriously diminished. On
the VHS version, Merhige achieved TOTAL BINARY CONTRAST. Meaning, there basically
aren't any mid-tones except for some grain in some of the shots. Other than that,
this film offers the rare opportunity to see PURE white and PURE black, and the
result is stunning, hallucinatory, and quite unsettling. This film makes Film Noir
look positively washed out and mediocre. The shots fade into each other in a
surreal manner that recalls Un Chien Andalou without completely aping it, for an
effect that has been called a filmic Rorschach test. That being said,
the film can certainly try a viewer's patience and commitment. There isn't any
dialogue for starters. The only sound throughout the film is a fairly constant loop
of crickets chirping, peppered occasionally with the gurgling and death rattles of
the dying deities, and an amelodic droning synthesizer texture. Personally, I find
that the film is best enjoyed listening to experimental industrial music like the
instrumental NIN remixes from the Downward Spiral era, more abstract
noise/experimental music like F*ck Buttons and Odd Nosdam. It also works quite well
with apocalyptic black metal. Basically any music with extreme textures and/or
hypnotic rhythms. That's one of the most amazing and versatile aspects of this
film, it is PRIME for postmodern re-contextualization, like projecting it during a
performance of avant-garde music, or composing avant-garde music to accompany
it. Once the messiah figure is born, there really isn't much change for
the rest of the film, meaning that you are basically sitting through at least 45
minutes or more of the messiah figure being drug around the desert and beaten. It
looks bleakly beautiful, but there isn't really anything new unfolding. It helps to
cement the filmmakers intentions of communicating that for thousands of years now
people have been using Christ's name and image for personal benefits, but can be
tiresome to a casual viewer or someone with a short attention span. Basically, if
you are looking for a modern horror film with suspense, look elsewhere. If you are
looking for a unique film experience, and you aren't particularly fond of
mainstream Hollywood cinema, this could be your quivering messiah.
I want to preface this review by saying that I have no idea what "Begotten" is
truly about. All I really know is that in the beginning God kills himself, in turn
birthing Mother Earth, who proceeds to impregnate herself with God's semen. She
then births a son. The rest is pretty subjective, and you have to interpret it in
your own way. How I chose to interpret the film was this; God killing
himself signified the start of the scientific revolution, when people started
questioning the doctrines imposed by the church, like the geocentric view of the
universe and etc. Mother Earth symbolized people starting to think for themselves
and reject the church's "it happens like this because God says so" views. The
Tribal people were the church lashing back at them, trying to force Christianity
down their throats. I'm not exactly sure how Son Of Earth fits into all of this.
Mother Earth and the Tribal people seemed to be fighting over him, so maybe he
represents the freedom of people or something to that effect. I have no
idea what the final parts of this movie are supposed to mean. Bludgeoning, raping,
then dismembering Mother Earth and Son Of Earth and grinding them into the ground
like a mortar and pestle could mean anything, but that is where the fun of this
film lies; You can interpret it any way you want. There doesn't have to be a
definitive meaning to it, you can let your mind wander. Sometimes you don't even
know what you are supposed to be looking at because it is shot in a weird angle or
it is too fuzzy. The only thing that disappointed me was that I was
expecting a truly terrifying film. I was going into it thinking I was going to get
a phone call immediately afterward with a foreboding "seven days" warning. What I
got was pleasantly different. It was not scary at all, but it stirred my
imagination. Trying to decipher the movie's cryptic message was a creative
challenge. There were many scenes that were in fact beautiful. Mother Earth just
after she was born and the final shot of the forest path come to mind. So overall I would have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It is
certainly the most abstract movie I've ever seen, but that's not a bad thing.
E. Elias Merhige's existentialist experiment in the enduring is definitely one hell
of a boring watch. This is like something Alexander de Large was forced to watch in
"A Clockwork Orange." But, despite just how unwatchable this film really is, it is
a success. If you are reading this and have not already seen the film,
then it is too late. For me, at least, the payoff (after 3 separate viewings with
lots of break in between mind you) was seeing the list of characters *after* the
story was told. That's when the simple message hit home. But i wonder if Merhige
could have told a 5 minutes story in about 30, instead of 78. However,
seeing as how the cast of credits is displayed prominently on the front page for
this movie, the cat is already out of the bag and you surely will only appreciate
this film if you appreciate existentialist film making from the early 20th century.
Even then, you might puke. 4/10 (but i commend Merhige for crafted a
piece of art, even if it is unwatchable)
When I sat down to watch Greek for the first time, I wasn't expecting a show with
complex characters, intriguing plot lines, and impeccable writing... but that's
exactly what I got. Greek follows several college students who are in
the Greek system at Cyprus Rhodes University. Rusty Cartwright enters Cyprus Rhodes
as a Polymer Science major who aspires to be in a fraternity. His older sister,
Casey (the show's center and soon-to-be-president of Zeta Beta Zeta, the most
prestigious sorority on campus), isn't exactly supportive of his plans. In fact,
none of her friends even knew she had a brother until he set foot on the college
grounds! On top of dealing with the fact that her dorky younger brother has been
forced back into her life, Casey's boyfriend Evan Chambers (soon-to-be-president of
THE fraternity on campus, Omega Chi) is cheating on her with a new ZBZ pledge
(Rebecca Logan), diabolical ZBZ president Frannie is pressuring her to stay with
him, and she still has feelings for her slacker ex-boyfriend Cappie (president of
the party house on campus, Kappa Tau). These characters are joined by Calvin Owens
(an athletic, intelligent friend of Rusty's who happens to be gay), Dale Kettlewell
(Rusty's die-hard Christian and "possibly racist" roommate and best friend), and
Ashleigh (Casey's quirky best friend and confidante). Throughout Greek's
two seasons (or four chapters) viewers are often reminded that college life is not
black and white, but "in shades of gray from here on out." Every character makes
their fair share of mistakes, but every one of them has redeemable qualities. Casey
and Cappie have a complicated, but beautiful, relationship throughout the series.
Rusty, Dale, and Calvin's friendship is not always perfect, but they manage to
survive every obstacle that is thrown at them. Even Frannie, Rebecca, and Evan (the
show's "villains") are shown as human every once in a while. Greek shows
college students at their best, worst, and in-between. It is a show that reveals
college as what it truly is: a four-year adventure where one's morals, beliefs, and
willpower are tested, compromised, and sometimes even changed. Greek has
at least one season left, if not more, before it ends. I cannot wait to see where
the characters end up next. Greek is not your typical ABC family sitcom. If you
want to tune in to a show that shows the truth behind human motivation, Greek is
the show for you.
Even though it doesn't really matter to the film, this is a Creation myth. God (a
convulsing, bloody figure in a chair) cuts his organs out with a straight razor and
dies in His own filth. Mother Earth rises from his corpse and impregnates herself
with his seed, giving birth to Man. It is, however highly unlikely for you to
figure any of this out without reading a synopsis first, and it's not especially
important to the film that you do, as it's more a surrealistic art-house imagery
thing, all in inky, processed black and white. A sick, bleak atmosphere is created
with the stark photography and minimal sounds (mostly water dripping, groans,
scrapes, etc.) but each scene goes on a bit too long and so does the film as a
whole. This could've been great as a short film, and the God killing himself scene
was excellent and extremely creepy, especially being the first thing you see, but
it's hard to be patient when it goes on for so long and you don't even know what
you're seeing for much of the time. Still, a good film for the original
style, images, atmosphere and content.
I first heard of Begotten when a girlfriend of mine picked it up in a "cult
classics" section of my local video retailer. She knew I liked obscure artsy movies
so I rented it and brought it home. It sat on my TV for a couple of days and then I
put it in the VCR just before going to bed. I thought that maybe I'll see what it's
like first then devote more time to it the next day. What followed was that it
actually woke me up. I sat through the entire film and loved it. After I went
through the closing credits I watched it again. Only after you see the closing
credits do you get an idea of who is who. After you know that you can watch it
again with renewed appreciation. Don't listen to the people that tear this movie
apart. It's not for everyone. If you're someone that doesn't like reading subtitles
than this movie isn't for you (not that there are subtitles, there's no dialog at
all). If you're someone that actually owns Rush Hour 2 then this movie isn't for
you. This movie is truly original and inspiring. It does what other
movies have never done. It looks like nothing else and is bolder than just about
everything out there - from 1989 to the current date. You can tell that everyone
involved in the making of this movie truly love the art of what they do and
understand what can be captured in cinema form. If you're looking to be
"entertained" then the movie isn't for you. However, it is pure escapism in some
extreme way and in film form. It's like someone attached wires to my head and taped
one of my worst nightmares. But this nightmare makes sense if you really sit and
watch the images, dissect the action of the actors, and don't sit there noodling
your guitar passively but watch and not blink. People compare it to
Eraserhead but Begotten is so much more. I'm not joking when I say it is my
favorite movie. It's an important film, visually stimulating, mechanically
inspiring, and hypnotic. One review I read about it is very true though, "no one
will get through Begotten without being marked."
The visual effectiveness of this film is unmatched by anything I've seen. And the
work required to make achieve it must have been incredibly long and tedious (you
don't just stick "Kodak Grainy Film" in your camera to get this look). Don't watch
this film to be entertained, watch it to be visually stimulated, watch it to be
challenged and provoked in your thoughts on film and any other topic that comes to
mind, religion will likely be one thought. 
Don't watch this film while, or soon after, eating. Having said that,
Begotten will stick with you for the rest of your life, like it or not. Based on
the nihilistic philosophy that life is nothing more than man spasming above ground
(to paraphrase the title sequence/introduction), this will more than likely contain
the most intense and grisly imagery you'll ever see in a film. There is
no dialogue, only image after image describing the cycle of life. The film's
combination of stark black and white photography compounded with some truly creepy
background sounds work to drive home the maker's message. The movie
begins with God (portrayed as a bandaged and obviously insane man) slicing open his
torso with a straight razor and subsequently dying in his own filth. After his
death, Mother Nature emerges from his corpse to impregnate herself with his blood
and semen and gives birth to Man, represented by a maggot of a human convulsing on
the earth. The landscape is a barren waste, populated by hulking
shrouded humanoids who eventually happen upon Mother Nature and Man. After a slew
of violent scenes depicting the rape of Nature and destruction of Man, these
humanoids proceed to pound the remains of the corpses back into the ground, and the
cycle of life begins anew. I actually rented this from Blockbuster one
night, based on the cover art and hype content, but this is definitely not a
Blockbuster-type film. Don't expect narrative, dialogue or any pulled punches. This
is intense imagery based on a dark subject. I give this movie some high
marks for the filmwork and audio, but I don't think I'll be watching it too often,
if again. I like my movies dark and unique, but this one is exponentially more than
I expected.
I saw 'Begotten' last night, and I'm of two minds on the film. On one
hand, I appreciate it for being the total invert of a Michael Bay film. No
dialogue, extremely stylized grainy B&W photography, some of the most genuinely
horrific imagery ever set to film, and a very compelling use of sound (which nobody
else seems to have really picked up on yet). It's a reflection on a theme, and it
dares go where most filmmakers do not not only in terms of images, but of
production and concept. It's a movie that most people don't understand, and if you
read through these comments you'll find a lot of people whose lack of ability to
figure this film out results in them shrieking about 'pretentiousness' with the
fervor of a gibbon rattling the bars of its cage at feeding time. It genuinely
shocked and disturbed me, and the last time a film managed to do that was a while
ago. On the other, this is a thirty-minute short that sprawls out to
over an hour and a half. I understand that there might be artistic merit in using
repetition and monolithic pacing as a bludgeon, but in this case it just doesn't
help everything hang together. Imagine being approached by a ragged man on the
street who grabys you by the shoulders and says something that completely confounds
the core of your being... but then, instead of leaving your shattered and gibbering
in his wake, he just keeps talking and talking and talking. By the end of the
movie, I found myself glancing at my watch now and again. This is not
entertainment, people. This is disentertainment. This is how you deprogram people
who just watched "Glitter." If you watch movies to be entertained, this will
frustrate, confound, and possibly anger you. You don't approach 'Begotten' like a
chocolate cake you want to eat because it tastes good. You approach it like
something on the menu you have never heard of before, something you see furtive
glances of through the kitchen door, something that's dark and glistens and
twitches on its platter; something you order not because it will taste good, but
because you just have to know what it's like.
I was surfing through IMDb one day, when I stumbled across "The Curious Adventures
of Mr. Wonderbird." Noticing how obscure it was, I decided to set off looking for
it. Thanks to Digiview, it didn't take me long, so I bought it for a dollar, and
when I got home, I watched it, although I must say, I was quite impressed. Three of the paintings in a king's apartment, a shepherdess, a chimney sweep, and
a self-portrait of the king (who is just as selfish and sadistic as the actual king
himself) come to life one night while the king is sleeping. The shepherdess and the
chimney sweep escape, while the painting of the king calls the police in order to
capture the couple. Fortunately for the couple, Mr. Wonderbird comes in to help
them, often mocking the police and the king. The back of the DVD case
describes this film as "a surreal visual delight and an underrated entry in the
history of classic animation." I couldn't agree more with it, considering that much
of the backgrounds look rather bizarre, and many of the characters are weird, which
include the depressed citizens of an underground city and hungry lions that are
calmed by the music of a blind man (who kind of looks like Andy Warhol), not to
mention Mr. Wonderbird himself is somewhat eccentric. The film is very creative and
mostly fun to watch, and its only flaw is that it can be slow moving. But overall,
this film was very good, and it comes recommended by yours truly. Grade:
B+ (Awesome)
I just picked this up in a decent if not outstanding DVD version for one dollar at
Wal Mart. Run out and buy it. I'm fairly sure that this
version is the short, incomplete version released against the animator's wishes in
the late Fifties, but even so, at a buck it's an *incredible* bargain. This film was syndicated in small chunks as a serial to local TV stations in the
early 60s for the kid's shows that almost every station ran on weekday afternoons
in those days - "Mr Bill and Bozo", "Monty's Gang" (Channel 4, Greenville SC) and
"Captain Grady" (channel 13, Asheville NC - which is where i saw it). It made such
an impression on twelve-or-so-old me that i immediately recognised it when i
spotted it in Wal Mart tonight and grabbed it. Wonderful. You should get
it.
One of the great tragedies of life is that Disney is so very successful at
everything that they do. If they were not, we might have more unique little gems of
animation such as "The Curious Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird." The story is that an
evil king has usurped the throne of a place called Up-And-Down-Land (I could have
the name wrong). He is hated by everyone. His favorite hobby is shooting birds, and
at some point in the past, he presumably killed the wife of Mr. Wonderbird (a bird,
played with typical flair by Peter Ustinov) leaving him with four young chicks to
raise. Meanwhile, we see that another of the evil king's hobbies is painting. He
has done three paintings in particular: a self portrait, a painting of a
shepherdess (which he has fallen in love with), and a painting of chimney sweep (of
whom he is jealous). One night, the shepherdess and the chimney sweep climb down
out of their paintings and run away together. The self portrait of the king climbs
down out of his frame as well, and does away with the real king (You think I'm
making this up? Its the real plot) and sends the royal police force after the young
lovers. Mr. Wonderbird then assists the lovers in attempting to escape the King's
forces. The plot is wonderfully surreal, and the setting Up-and-Down-
Land is an incredibly imagined place, full of towering buildings accessible only by
elevators. Its an equal mixture of the worlds of "Metropolis" and "1984" and the
drawings of Dr. Seuss. Watch it for a very unique viewing experience
that doesn't fit the standard formula for most animated features.
WONDERBIRD, certainly an unbelievably refined cartoon, drawn in a deliciously
oldfashioned way, and sensationally oldfashioned in almost any respect, takes
place in a kingdom ruled by a mean and heinous monarch; accordingly, the kingdom,
or at least what we seethe surroundings of the king's palace, seems devoid,
uninhabited. A few inhabitants there areaway from the Sunin the
withered underground city. An advicecall it an allegory, call it a
parable, only do not call it a fable. Because IMDb encourages prolixity,
and maybe for other reasons as well, I will add that this cartoon is the work of
the great Paul Grimault.
(Review is of the original 1950's version not the restored 1980's one) In a land
where the king likes no one and no one likes the king a shepherdess and a chimney
sweep from two nearby paintings come to life and run off. A portrait of the king,
who loves the shepherdess, kills the real king and takes his place. A huge bird,
the wonderbird of the title, acts as a hero of sorts and helps out our two
lovers. This is a strange strange movie... no surreal, very very very
surreal. The style of the background is very European while the
characters are Fliescher meet Warner but early arty Warner of the non major
characters. They move in both realistic and cartoon like manners. This
is an odd movie and it takes a bit to get into it but Peter Ustinov as the bird is
a riot, his kids and the puppy are wonderful. There are cops in rubber ducks and a
bear design that makes you smile. And there is deep philosophy in the
film, about the existence of a world out there...out beyond a Metropolis
subterranean city. This is a really neat movie. There is something just
so odd and unique about it that rewards you if you stay with it for the whole ride.
Its not perfect but what the hell. This is a movie to search out. If
your local bargain DVD bin has the capcom version (paired with Alice in Paris) buy
it. It should run you under ten bucks, probably around five and the price is
absolutely worth it especially when you realize it comes with two full length
cartoons, two short cartoons and several neat commercials and other fun things.
I have watched two episodes so far, I really like it. Even though I am no longer in
college, it makes me miss the wonderful college life. I wish that I spent a little
more time socializing. I kind of identify myself with rusty. When I was rushing a
fraternity, my big brother was not like Cappie at all, I wish that I had a big
brother like him. So if a show like this can actually make people to identify
themselves with the characters, then it is a pretty good show. It is
more realistic than American pie with less explicit sex jokes. Can we also call
this a younger version of "desperate wives?" some of the writers must be Greeks
themselves, the story seems to reflect somewhat of the real fraternity and sorority
life. It was shot in high definition. And they actually filmed outside instead of
inside of studios. so the picture quality is very good. They could easily make this
a good film. Unlike a movie which can only last a few hours, I can have about 45
minutes of fun watching it free on TV weekly. The casting is excellent,
the actors are about the right age, and they are new and fresh, so that makes them
more real. This show practically is about everyone. There are Asian and black frat
boys and sorority girls in the show as well. It is almost a little shocking that
they had a little story about two guys in the fraternity had sex in first episode,
then tried to hook up again in the second episode. I don't think that I have seen
anything like this on TV before. This show somehow reminded me about a Warner bro's
TV show of teenagers called "Young Americans" which got canceled in early 2001. In
that show, a girl who dressed like a man kissed a guy, and that guy thought that
she was a male homosexual. Greek life can be fun, but on the same time,
students have to study for exams, etc; by the time when people actually have some
free time in their lives, There is no fraternity of sorority for them to join any
more. I don't know how long this show will last, sooner or later, those people will
have to "graduate" college, too. Maybe they will find some new actors for another 4
years of fun college life!
'Water' (2005), the final part of Toronto-based Indian film-director Deepa Mehta's
elemental trilogy has been finally completed, almost ten years after the release of
the very first controversial element, 'Fire' (1996), which was followed with a
slightly lesser controversial sequel '1947: Earth' (1998). Mehta made her
directorial debut with a 24-minute Canadian short film 'At 99: A Portrait of Louise
Tandy Murch' (1975), but it was her Canadian feature film about the life of Indians
living in Canada that brought her fame back in east, her country by birthright,
'Sam & Me' (1991). Recognition internationally came in the way of 'Camilla' (1994),
starring Bridget Fonda, along with the actress who in 1990 won an Oscar in Best
Actress in a Leading Role category at the age of 80, paving the way for middle-aged
actresses to still have hope, for her portrayal of a stubborn old Jewish woman in
'Driving Miss Daisy' (1989), late Jessica Tandy. 'Camilla' dealt with a
friendship between two women from two other ends of the human lifespan, a
May/December friendship. 'Camilla' was Tandy's last picture; she died the very same
year. International fame followed Deepa Mehta in 1996 with the release
of the controversial 'Fire', which spread with rage among the false patriotic
consciousness existing Indian extremist. Having already explored friendship between
two women in 'Camilla', in 'Fire' Mehta went a step further to portray a more
intimate relationship between two lonely neglected women. Set in modern day India,
the suburbs of the capital city of New Delhi, it shows two brothers and their
wives, the elder brother (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) having joined a weird Hindu sect
leads a life of celibacy, faithful to his guru of sexless existence. The younger
brother (Javed Jaffrey) is having an extra marital affair with a Chinese woman
(Alice Poon). Thus, both the wives, Shabana Azmi playing the elder brothers wife
and Nandita Das the younger wife, find themselves neglected in their own way. One
forced to lead a celibate life, thanks to her husband's eccentricities, and the
other whose only interaction with her husband is through sex, and nothing more.
Living in a world of in-laws and being the only two outsiders in the family, having
nobody else to confide in, the two women fall in the arms of each other. Thus comes
the issue of lesbianism. If there were an outside man's shoulder to cry on, there
most probably would have been chance for them to fall into the arms of a man, but
having no one else to confide in, their need for each others support is quite
obvious. It does not necessarily state that all neglected women would end up taking
lesbianism, it just happened to exist with regard to the two women in this context.
All in all, the movie is excellent, and delves far deeper than just two women
rolling in bed. The key focus isn't lesbianism in the movie, but the plight of
modern day neglected Indian wives, even in the capital city, the two female
characters just happen to have a sexual relationship. Two years later,
Deepa Mehta's second installment was the element of mother earth, released in India
by the name of '1947: Earth',yet another excellent movie by a great director, this
time in the Hindi language, unlike 'Fire', which was made in the English language.
 Now Deepa Mehta has managed to complete the trilogy, despite a lot of
problems, having released the final installment recently, 'Water'. No doubt it
would be just as great as the other two.
Heard about this film a long while ago and finally found it on ebay for five bucks.
I wasn't expecting much but wow, was I ever surprised. It's a story of a boy and
girl in love trying to escape an evil king who wants the girl for himself and takes
place in a huge castle, reminds me of ICO for PS2 because some shots gave you a
sense of vertigo.Sounds pretty standard but this movie is insane! It's hard to
believe such an original animated feature was made in 1952. Also, the king was
probably one of the creepiest character's I've seen in a long time, with a feminine
walk, weird eyes (usually crossed), and a soft but scary voice. The only problem I
had with the film was that the boy and girl had no personality and hardly even any
lines except for calling for mr. wonderbird (A large talking green bird)to save
them. The animation was fantastic in most areas but some cells were missing from
some scenes which sucked. It's incredibly original with flying police and giant
mechs and even laugh out loud funny at times, it's a real shame this is such an
obscure title because it's really a good film. Check it out sometime.
I just want to comment to the woman above, that the movie DOES credit Beethoven in
the begging. In the beginning credits they show it. Thank you. I think this is an
amazing movie. They picked just the right music for the mood of the movie, the
animation is wonderful, and they picked the voices for the characters very well. It
teaches children to never give up, and to always have hope. Princess Annika doesn't
give up , and it shows children that they can do the same. The movie also has humor
in in for all ages, parents and children, to laugh at. The colors in this movie are
great, and kids can really feel good while they are watching it. I watched this
movie for the first time, now I am a huge fan, and I'm sure your child will be too.
Walmart sells tons of Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus stuff, so your child can
continue to enjoy the movie even when they aren't watching it. Thank You!
For a kid's movie, this is great. As an adult and mother, I enjoyed watching the
movie with my daughter. There is a lot going on in this movie. The following
*might* be considered a *spoiler*... Barbie learns courage and learns not to judge
others so quickly in this movie. She also learns not to give up hope and to master
her anger. I loved the sense of teamwork you get from watching Barbie and her
sister and friends solve the puzzle. There's nothing in the movie I found offensive
or inappropriate for young viewers. In fact, I felt that the moral messages of the
movie were superb and well done. The animation was pretty good. I really
enjoy the ice-skating scenes and think that they were very well done. There's a lot
of action in this film, so I suspect that most kids would enjoy it... not just the
ones that are really into Barbie. My daughter actually picked it out because of the
Pegasus. She loves horses. But she enjoyed the movie very much. My daughter is
autistic, and was able to sit through the whole movie and enjoy it. She really
liked the action scenes and any parts with horses involved. One thing
that I was thinking about was that many people object to Barbie (and Ken) because
they are so beautiful. Yet, I think that kids, just like adults like to look at
beautiful people and things. It's natural. As adults, we enjoy watching beautiful
movie stars too. It's wonderful though, that the Barbie character and her
"boyfriend" have a lot of personality. While it's fun to watch pretty people, it
grows old if there is no substance behind the pretty face. Overall, I'd
say this is a great movie for kids and parents will enjoy it, too. :)
For once a Barbie movie that is good. I'm 18 and a embarrassed to say this but I'm
hooked on these movies. I hated Barbie when I was younger but the movies I love.
Shiver is so cute and I've fallen in love with him. He's so cute as the polar bear
and totally in love with Aiden. Oh man I'm in love with Shiver. I love Annika
determination not to give up on hope and eventfully it works. I love this movie and
hopefully they will be other good ones. Barbie & Swan Lake is other brilliant
movie. I would recommend this movie to children of all ages (even boys) because the
movie is that good and I'm hard to please. Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus is a
movie that is enchanting and exciting.
I would have to say that in general Barbie Movies have impressed me. I have a 5
year old Barbie fanatic niece and she watches them all the time so needless to say
I have seen quite a lot of Barbie these holidays, but I am not sick of them. This film, visually, has a lot to offer, especially the backgrounds, and
the animation of the characters has improved with each new movie. One thing I
noticed in particular was a vast improvement in the animation of Barbie's hair in
this film. It has a lovely range of excerpts from classical music and I think that
this is great, as it exposes a new generation to the classics. This film is well
worth ago, especially if you have young relievers. They will be entertained for
hours!
My 5 year old daughter is very into the Barbie series of movies. I've had mixed
feelings about that - not wanting her to buy into the whole Barbie-doll image of
things, and recognizing that the movies are a marketing ploy to convince young
girls to buy more dolls and make more money for Mattel. This morning though she
asked me to watch this movie with her, and - it being a lazy Saturday morning and
with not much else to do - I agreed. I don't know if the movies have been made to
help market the dolls, which seem to be losing their appeal a bit from what I've
heard or if the dolls are there to market the movies (or, more likely, a bit of
both) but whichever is the case, I have to admit - somewhat to my surprise, this
wasn't half bad. It's a fun and imaginative story full of magical places
and people and memorable characters (both good and evil.) Essentially, Annika
("played" by Barbie) has to find a way to build a "wand of light" to reverse the
evil spells of the wizard Wenlock, who among other things has turned her sister
into a flying horse and her parents into stone. The animation here was pretty good
- not Disney-calibre (if one thinks of Disney as the standard to aspire to) but
generally pretty good, and while the movie is obviously tailored to young girls
rather than middle-aged men, I still found there were enough twists and turns to
make me wonder how it was all going to turn out. It's true that there were some
holes in the story, or at least some logical inconsistencies, but again one must
remember the target audience, who wouldn't really think of such things. This is an
all around decent family movie. 7/10
Normally I try to avoid Barbie films, but this one was unmistakably awesome. Kudos
to the graphics and character voice overs. It all flowed well. This enchanting tale
is a great spin off of others, but is well worth buying! I don't have kids, but the
kids I babysit, (including boys) find it intriguing and love the extra features on
the DVD. I honestly don't know why this is rated so low, but for kids, especially
your Barbie lovin' 8 year old will love this. Its not straight forward and
predictive like most movies are. This "childrens" film has excellent morals and
shows teamwork. It has no swearing, bits of romance (if your old enough to figure
it out) and beautifully written storyline. Thats why I am giving it a ten out of
ten!
After all these years, I am puzzled as to why Julie Brown (West Coast) isn't a
household name or a hugely famous comedic star. She is one of the funniest females
on the planet. In this spoof, she takes on Madonna who is one of her favorite
targets. She is Medusa, a hugely successful singer, like Madonna who also happened
to have documentary "Truth or Dare." Julie Brown spoofs Madonna as Medusa who came
from Wisconsin, the land of dairy and beer. I remember the segment where she went
to Wisconsin to visit her family and a grave. I don't remember if it was a parent
or her pet. I remember somebody saying that Medusa did nothing original. She was
just copying others. I have to say that I hope this spoof documentary is available
on DVD somewhere. Julie Brown was at her best mocking and spoofing others.
This parody is cleverly done: from the songs (Express Yourself becomes Expose
Yourself, Like a Prayer is now Party in my Pants and Vogue is now Vague) to the
fake interviews of the cast of the show, this movie is hilarious. Remember Madonna
saying she didn't know about the rain season in Asia? In this one, she doesn't know
about the volcano season. It is a precious jewel. They got a lot of money on that
spoof, and it pays off. Highly recommended!!!
This is one of Julie's greatest tributes to music, alongside her "Trapped in the
Body of a White Girl" album. To quote the great Medusa "Dare to go bare, just wear
your underwear, you'll get a ride home everytime" - Wow!!! Now that is some good
advice. "You can dance, at my party! Yeah, justify your dance shoes!.....You're
invited to the party in my pants. Yeah come on boy let's dance, at the party in my
pants" Julie Brown is hilarious!!! It is almost sad that this video is only 51
minutes long, but every minute is awesome!!!
I watched the pilot episode for this one with high expectations, having just
graduated college and moved on to "real life". I was not in a fraternity, but a lot
of my best buddies were, and I got to partake in a lot of the partying that they
did in their house, so I know what goes on to some extent. This show is
obviously a dramatization, not a documentary in any way of Greek life, or college
life for that matter, although it does hold a lot of truth, albeit exaggerated for
the most part. If you watch the show for the value it contains as a TV show, and
nothing more, it is very entertaining, much like movies such as Old School,
Porky's, Animal House, etc. If you watch it expecting it to chronicle all of your
experiences in your own college life, you will probably either be left wanting
more, or mad that they over-dramatize a lot of events.
"Medusa: Dare to be Truthful" is an outrageously funny parody that is a fine
companion to the original, "Madonna: Truth or Dare". Julie Brown's brilliant
creation skewers Madonna's highly entertaining documentary (although it wasn't
exactly daring, insightful, candid, or truthful) with a faithfulness to detail,
right down to the packaging. I highly recommend this for Madonna fans, Julie Brown
fans, or anyone who enjoys sharp and clever parody.
Julie Brown hilariously demolishes Madonna's attempt at a rockumentary with gut
ripping humor and truly original and catchy songs that rival Madonna's own.
Cinematography and sets are top notch. Kathy Griffin and Chris Elliott
offer their own injections of comedy that enhances and compliments this film.
Appearances by Bobcat Goldthwait and Wink Martindale, as themselves, is an added
bonus. It's hard to tell if Brown's performance is meant to insult or
playfully tease Madonna, though I hardly think the Material Girl would find humor
in it. My Favorite line: "Why don't you come here (to the Phillipines);
all they eat is dog and I'm a vegetarian."
This movie was a riot, it pokes fun of "Madonna - Truth Or Dare" in all the right
places. I love Madonna & I love Julie Brown. How could I ask for more..Julie's
spoof of "Vogue", entitled "Vague" was hysterical.. "Kelly LeBrock thinks she's
great, she's just cold boogers on a paper plate". "Brooke Shields, Dawber, Pam
personality of Spam"!! I could've died! And just wait till you see what she can do
with a watermelon!!
I really liked this movie. I watched it last night on the Public Broadcasting
System. The part I liked about it was the fact that they dealt with issues of today
not in the future or the past. They basically had some terrorists take a van or two
and rent them out to be car bombs. I think what the movie could have showed was
people in different countries at the same time. It did show the fact that England,
or any other country, isn't prepared for an attack on the magnitude that they
showed. I have never heard of any of the actors or actresses in the movie so I
can't really say if they are normally their parts. After the movie, they had this
panel of experts talking about if something like that could happen here in the U.S.
It was a thought-provoking discussion!
Before seeing this picture I was quite skeptic, I don't like movies with an agenda
nor do I appreciate being scared into thinking like the writer. I was also afraid
this would be like the 2-part mini-series "10.4" which had a far-fetched concept,
little relation to the real world and very poor execution. At the beginning is
says: "This film is fiction, but the events portrayed and the information about UK
emergency planning are based on extensive research"; and the general feeling is
that you're not being sold on an idea, but that you're being taught a lesson in
civil awareness. The message that is being conveyed is obvious from the start: It
is coming and we're not prepared. The use of real places and a scenario which not
only could happen - There are plans for when it does - all add to the disturbing
effect the movie will have, on even the most cynical of viewers. The movie's
perspective is that of the society and it stays away from heart-breaking personal
moments, which won't convey the message, so none of the Romeo-Juliet drama we're
used to.
Seeing this film brought back to me memories of 9/11. The first thing I remember of
that morning was seeing TV pictures of an airplane flying into a large building,
and my immediate thoughts "Must be a preview for a new Tom Clancy film". This was not a Tom Clancy film. This was certainly not a British version of
"The Sum Of All Fears". The typical Tom Clancy film or novel has a relatively small
cast, a linear plot, and usually some sort of resolution. This film had neither.
Sure, what I saw directly on screen was a small cast, a plot, and a vague
resolution, but, like 9/11, the point was that reality was so much larger and more
complex. I work in systems planning, and the reality of the disaster
preparation exercise, and the disaster itself, is painfully obvious. It's
impossible to prepare for a disaster like this, nor will it be any more possible to
deal with this when it happens. From the argument between the police
(Not enough is being done to prepare) and the politicians (Giving everybody on the
tube a gasmask would cause panic), to the constant loudspeaker announcements (You
are in no danger to your health, but don't go home before we decontaminate you),
and (Don't eat, drink, or smoke before we decontaminate you), I was on edge during
the entire film. Not the slightest urge to channel surf. This film was
90 minutes in length. It could have been twice that, and still not shown all the
possible details. Instead, it left enough unsaid to allow each of us to imagine the
details, each of us in our own way. That made it so much more real to me, than any
Tom Clancy film. I lived in London once, and just off the Edgeware Road.
And I took the train from Waterloo station many times. As I watched Dirty War, I
kept telling myself that this is only fiction. Right now. Allah and
Jehovah willing, this film will remain fiction, and sometime in 20 or 30 years, my
nephews may watch this film and remember the early 21st Century, and the panic we
felt too much. Hopefully to the same degree as I feel currently, when viewing
memorabilia of the Cold War with the Evil Communist Regime of the mid-20th Century,
and remember "Drop and cover" exercises in school.
Dirty War is absolutely one of the best political, government, and well written
T.V. Drama's in the 25 years. The acting is superb, the writing is
spectacular. Diry War reveals the true side of why we are not ready to
respond to a Nuclear, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attack here on
American soil. Dirty War should be made into a major motion picture -
It's that good! I highly recommend this great drama to everyone who desire to know
the truth. This T.V. drama reveals how British Intelligence (MI5 & MI6)
attempt to expose a terrorist plot and conspiracy to destroy innocent victims
-because of England's involvement in the Iraq War. The scenes of
different parts of London, England are also spectacular. Dirty War is a
must see!!!
The film is partly a thriller and partly a public-service announcement when seeing
the events through the perspectives of politicians, terrorists and of course
victims. In this smart drama lessons are given about contamination and surviving
chaos while meantime the backstage look at the way crisis is managed prompts
viewers to distrust guardians and to be scared by assailants. The film, originally
aired on BBC, gets to arouse effectively doubts on official prepareparedness.
Performances are proper, understated though never terrific. The flick is just a
beginning, a provocative start leading to a larger discussion but it gets to work
in my opinion, giving the right thrills and causing the audience to reason and to
ask itself questions.
This movie was really interesting... it also is quite shocking as the similar
events of the movie occurred only 10 months after the movie premiered. it was interesting seeing the problems that could be encountered and realistic
enough to show that no matter how prepared you think you are - you aren't. if this
was made for an American audience - it would be different because they would have
used this as a full propaganda film and not as a wake call which the BBC did! it
still is propaganda, in some extend - no film today with these themes can not be -
but it dealt with the issue successfully. a film that should be shown in
all terrorism/counter-terrorism courses but will not because it shows faults which
is not allowed to be acknowledged! A great film in which the BBC took a few risks
and unfortunately, London does not need a fictional tale any more, due to the
reality of July 7 2005.
I lived in London most of my adult life before I moved stateside so missed this
film when it came out and only saw this now on HBO. I disagree with anyone who
thinks this should have been a Hollywood production, the UK team gave it a chilling
and foreboding atmosphere from day one and I was on the edge of my seat for the
last 30 minutes wondering what was going to happen to my home city. And of
course,nine months after the film comes out 7/7 happens. Yes, the truth is stranger
than fiction. Having lived in both countries, it is also clear the likelihood of
this happening in the UK is much greater than in the US, muslims live in ghettos
and isolate themselves in the UK, in the US they assimilate much more readily.
I must say I thought the show Greek would be really ridiculous and stupid. Since I
am part of a sorority I didn't want them to make Greek organizations look
bad.... but I think Greek is hilarious. Yes, they do have the
stereotypical sorority and fraternity but it's not mocking but just cute
humor. All the characters are pretty likable minus Rebecca Logan (I just
can't stand her), Casey and Rusty have good chemistry as brother and sister. Then
there is Cappie. Who doesn't love a guy like Cappie haha His character brings so
much to the show. Rusty's room mate, Dale played by Clark Duke, is hilarious as
well. It's definitely fun to watch so tune in for season 2. I can't wait
till it is back on!!
This is a pretty good made for TV flick of the 'what if' variety. As in, what if
terrorists exploded a 'dirty bomb' in a big city, in this case, London. Lots of
poking at folks that say 'we're all set in the event of an emergency' that then
reveal that they're not exactly telling the full story. And is anyone prepared for
something like this? You can bet not. This shows the material for the bombs being
smuggled into the country, the making of the bombs, the secrecy and double lives
that the people behind it lead, etc. It also shows public servants (i.e., firemen)
giving their all to save people when they aren't getting any help, when the
government doesn't want to send anyone else into the affected area. Also shows how
woefully inadequate 'preparations' are for any such occurrence, as the government
talks everything up but then stands there with their mouths hanging open as the
tragedy unfolds. And could this happen right here in the good old USA? Well, unless
you've been living in caves for the past 20 years something already has, to an
extent, and don't bet that anyone would be prepared for something of this nature.
This is fairly realistic and yes, even scary. Well worth seeing but just hope
nothing like this ever really happens. 8 out of 10.
Daniel Percival's "Dirty War", a BBC production made for television was shown
recently on cable. The film has a documentary style in the way it goes after the
people that caused the near holocaust in one of the big metropolis of the world,
London. In fact, this film, produced in 2004 is almost a cautionary tale of the
events of the following year, in which terrorists set explosive devices in the
public transport that killed innocent people that were in the wrong place, at the
wrong time. The film impresses for the pace the director and the
production team gave to the project. There are no dull moments in the movie as we
watch the preparation by the terrorists and the people that are following their
dirty work. Although the inevitable happens, it's amazing just to think what would
be the consequences if a real 'dirty bomb' was planted in such a densely populated
area. The last images of the film have a chilling effect. The mob scenes
and the way the whole area is contaminated send shivers of fear, thinking how it
could possible happen anywhere.
Well this movie certainly was in keeping with the current times. No happy endings,
super-heroes, or miracles here. Just down-to-earth fiction to stimulate our minds
along the lines of terrorism, and what-ifs. Kudos to Percival and Mickery for an
excellent screenplay and superb direction by Percival. Films like this are needed
to keep us aware of what is out there. If every peace-loving man and woman on earth
reported obviously suspicious activities I believe terrorism could not thrive. This
movie showed just how hard it really is to subvert these terrorists, even with good
intelligence. Even though the film is a bit propagandist against Islam (the use of
a Muslim police officer as a main character) I believe it was entirely realistic.
There was meant to be shock-value in the bombing incident. As a very clever tool to
relay the humility and indignity of people caught up in an attack such as this,
they showed full nudity of women being decontaminated post-attack. It didn't take
me long to realize that this was meant to even further instill into the viewer that
thought, i.e., we are not in control of everything in a situation like this.
Although this took place in London, with the usual high-level British acting, it
makes a statement for any part of the world. Great movies don't have to be
blockbuster epic productions, and this movie is very very worthy of viewing.
The BBC and HBO teamed up to create "Dirty War", a 90 minute TV movie about a
terrorist "dirty bomb" attack in London. The film gets down to business quickly as
it packs both the terrorist and the government anti-terrorist efforts into the film
leaving little room for human interest subplots. On the terrorist side we follow
the bomb from the smuggling of radioactive materials to assembly to deployment to
detonation. On the government side we see PR and training exercises, intelligence
gathering and analysis, interdiction, post-detonation response, and follow up. The
film also imparts a sense of how Al-Qa'ida type terrorist cells are organized, the
radical Islamic terrorist mentality, and terrorist strategies. A sort of anatomy of
a "dirty bomb" incident, "Dirty War" will answer many questions lurking in the
minds of a public becoming ever more aware of this insidious threat. (B)
i just wanted to say that when i was young my favorite t.v show back in the day was
night heat. I loved the characters and the plot of the show. I thought that it was
an excellent show and still do to this day. I enjoy watching the reruns and I am a
big fan.I love the way the characters played off one another.I would always stay up
late to watch my favorite show with my mother who also was a big fan. Now I can
enjoy watching my show again and listening to the theme song.Which I thought was a
cool song for the show.My favorite characters were Scott Hylands and Jeff Wincott.I
enjoyed watching these handsome guys take down the bad boys.
This lasted several years despite the late hour it was on. Like a lot of
80's crime dramas, it looked cold. Both physically and figuratively. This isn't a
bad thing though. And the (obviously) low budget actually worked in it's favor.
Gritty during a time when 'slick' was in. Allan Royal's wraparound
segments as the news writer gave it a slight edge. The only actors I
remembered were Scott Nylands (Earthquake) and Tony Rosato (SCTV). The cast of
barely knowns was a good thing because one could see the group as a whole and not
as a bunch of people supporting a 'star.' And yes, that's a young Clark Johnson
(Homicide) in a recurring spot. I hope a DVD release is in the future.
Someone out there wanna get on that?
I Feel the Niiiiiight Heat! I feel your HEEAAAAAAAAAART-beat! Something ain't
right!" Theme song written by B.J. Cook from Skylark- David Foster's old band and
wife. She also wrote the memorable theme from CBC's "Airwaves." OH Night Heat! What
a program! Well-written, well-acted and totally classic. Crime solvers and a good
team and a dash of humour at the end. I'd like to think this is really what
detectives do/did. Giambone was a real favourite! On a Canadian tip, I learned
EVERY Canadian actor's name and style from guest spots done on Night Heat. Everyone
passed through the Night Heat set and like Law & Order, it was story-driven so you
could just watch and enjoy without a lot of character melodrama.
i thought this was a beautiful film. it is not my favourite of his films -
chungking express holds that spot - this one is quite different from anything else
i have seen of his. it is slow (but not annoyingly so) - it takes its time and
ponders the characters.. there is minimal movement in the frame - the camerawork is
wonderful. the acting is great. the film feels like a long warm comforting drink.
The plot of "In the Mood for Love" is simple enough: A married man and a married
woman (though not to eachother) slowly develop a romantic attachment to one
another. The film's pace is numbingly slow and precious little actually happens
between the two. Yet the backdrop of Hong Kong in the early 1960s and director Wong
Kar-Wai's keen sense for capturing the beauty of the setting as well as the
principal characters make this film a joy to watch. Actors Tony Leung and Maggie
Cheung are both excellent and Wong Kar-Wai has done an extraordinary job in
capturing the feel and nostalgia of the past (something so many films and directors
try to do but usually fail miserably). There are so many little details that add
charm to the film (a trademark of the director) and the colors and cinematography
are what send this otherwise simple story over the top as a marvelous cinematic
achievement. 9/10.
For those who like their films full of exploding planets and extreme violence, this
is definitely not one to see. In fact, there is very little plot at all (or, at
least, very little that could not be summarised in a few seconds: A meets B. Mr A
falls for Mrs B and has an affair with her. A and B then fall in love and wonder
(at great length) whether to have an affair themselves). This is
Cantonese Visconti. Story there is none, but what you DO get is a succession of
wonderful images and poignantly trivial music which convey the slow passage of the
central characters' emotions. There is also the chance to see one of the world's
most beautiful women in a succession of stunningly elegant outfits. For my money,
it's worth seeing for that alone. How could this woman ever have been an action
heroine? She looks as though she has stepped straight out of the pages of Vogue.
I'm not a big TV person... but when I saw the premier episode of Greek, I couldn't
wait until next week! I don't miss the show for NOTHING! THANK GOD for
DVR! LOL I'm in love with Cappie... he acts like a bad boy, but he is so sweet...
Everybody has their own character so, we have pretty much all types of people. You
could still throw in a Hispanic and a chubby persons. I didn't go to
school in USA, so, I never liked the idea of frat houses and stuff like that, so,
when my husband told me about the show I didn't pay attention, until he asked me to
watch it and since I didn't have noting better to do, I agreed. I laughed SO hard
the first night that I just needed to keep watching it. So.. i'm with
the other people that voted for this show to continue on! I will hope for a second,
third and who knows how many more episodes! Its a really good show, very funny and
entertaining!
Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its
imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best
Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of
many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the
director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be
seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes
accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a
certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize
the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only
Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so
brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The
story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the
1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at
the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the
cinema.
The notion of marital fidelity portrayed in the film seems outdated today, but it
is exactly the main characters' adherence to that notion which makes the entire
story so touchingly tragic. It is this notion that ennobles them and allows them to
stand out, to, as they refer to their respective spouses, "not be like them". As Tony Leung said in the film, love just happens. There doesn't need to be
a rational explanation as to how it happens, it simply does. Despite their not
wanting to stoop to their respective spouses' level, it happened. Fidelity, social
mores, and timing all conspired against this relationship coming into fruition.
Simply being in love is far from enough. I had the misfortune of sitting
beside a young couple (still in university from the snippets of conversation they
kindly shared with me throughout the entire film, and uninitiated to the pains of
lost love and missed opportunities). Their gross inability to digest the subtleness
and the deeper emotions evoked made me realize just how much a film such as this,
as well as other Wong Kar Wei's work, is wasted on the local audience.
The Chinese film title of "In the Mood for Love" is "fa yeung nien wah." It can be
interpreted as "those blossoming years (that once were)." The whole film
is a well-composed piece. A complex love story told in simple visual approach.
Writer-director Wong Kar-Wai has choreographed a dancing of the hearts - it's she,
it's he, it's love. I can hear Galasso's theme: dum dum-dum, dum dum-dum, and the
strings - almost like heartbeats. A piece with prelude, stanzas, and
epilogue. Director optimized the use of music (Michael Galasso's score,
Nat King Cole singing in Spanish, and Chinese songs/tunes). The rhythm and lyrics
prompt viewers to what she and he is feeling/thinking rather than verbal dialogs. I
can hear Nat King Cole giving us the clues: "Aquelloojos verde" (that thing,
fling, eyes green) plays when the two meet, and "Quizas, quizas, quizas" (perhaps)
when she's undecided. Nostalgia pervades throughout the film. Design
details plentiful: handbags and ties; Japanese rice-cooker novelty; the ridged
pattern green glass cups & saucers and plates (I remember Dad treasured those at
home); mahjong session; kitchen area; bedroom furnishings; the thermos for the
take-out noodles that she swings when she walks. Maggie Cheung, slender and
shapely, looks exquisite in those fashionable patterns & colors of the traditional
Chinese woman clothing - 'cheung sam'. Every change of her dress denotes another
day, another time in the story. Wong Kar-Wai is resourceful that way. The scenes may be of the same place, but it's of a different mood, advanced to
the next stanza. Up and down the stairs to the won-ton noodle stand. Standing by
the wall around the corner to the apartments as the rain pours. Along the corridor,
back and forth, to his writing corner. Trivia: So she helps him with his
writing of his martial arts novel. Maggie would be able to help as she's been in
kung fu/martial arts movies. "Eastern Three Heroes" 1992 is a fun action movie with
Maggie Cheung (Thief Catcher Chat), Michelle Yeoh and Anita Mui as three super
heroes fighting evils. If you appreciate Tony Leung's performance, don't
miss "Chungking Express" 1994 (in the second segment - romance rhythm with a
difference), and "Happy Together" 1997 (an intense, emotionally colorful painting
of friendships, faith, and fate), both written and directed by Wong Kar-Wai. Being able to understand the Cantonese and Shanghainese dialects, and
having visited the official site, I realized the epilogue was not quite completely
translated. Here's sharing my version of the Chinese captions: It was
kind of an unbearable encounter All along she has kept her head lowered Giving him
a chance to get closer He didn't have the courage to be closer She turned around,
walked away. That time and place had come to past. All that belonged, no
longer exist. _______ Those vanished years, seemingly separated by a
glass gathering dust, can see, yet cannot grasp. All along he has longed
for all that's past If he can break through that dust-gathered glass He will walk
back into the times long vanished. ________ Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood
for Love" brings to mind the simple poetry and wisdom of Rumi, the Sufi philosopher
- the 'inner and outer,' the 'spirit and body' of life, love and living. [Resend. Revised. ruby_fff 2/22/01] 
How do you describe perfection? In-the-Mood-For-Love! Maggie Cheung and Tony Leong
practically dance on the screen and give stellar performances that stay with you
hours after you've left the theatre. Every scene in the film resonates with the
powerful combination of superb cinematography and shot selection, top-notch acting,
and the sensual soundtrack. Nat King Cole singing in French absolutely sets the
tone for the whole movie. Maggie and Tony look marvelous, with Maggie slinking
about in some truly glorious cheongsams and Tony always looking dapper. I've seen
this movie several times already, and everytime I see it I find something new to
rave about. Love it!
Sensitive, extremely quiet paced love story between a married journalist and his
young and atractive neighbor, she too also married. They lived their love for a
time but the obstacles and the fear of hurting their families and children invites
to a separation. A reflexive look on delicate question like love, friendship, honor
and loneliness, always present in human lives, whether you are an American or a
Chinese. I give this a 7 (seven)
One of, if not THE most visually beautiful film I have ever seen in my life...there
is so much to learn here in how to play with the camera, color, costumes and set up
a shot. The work that went into the official film web sites in English and French
also give you a good idea of the sheer beauty contained in the film.
Having seen many of Wong Kar-Wai's other movies (Happy Together, Fallen Angels,
Ashes of Time), I knew what to expect coming in to the theatre; the cinematography
would be lush, the use of space and perspective would be varied, the acting would
be superb, and at least one of the characters would be consumed by an ineffable
loneliness. These are, after all, precisely the techniques that make Wong Kar-Wai's
art what it is. What I was not expecting was the degree to which I was drawn into a
film that some reviewers dismissed as "unfinished" and compelled by characters who
"seemed consumed by ennui." I find it interesting how people can be so
utterly unmoved by a film that so vividly displays emotions and settings many of us
take for granted or work ardently to forget: the overwhelming sense of grief
stemming from being betrayed; the guilt aroused by the thought of becoming no
better than the betrayer; the mundane yet profoundly intimate moments of
relationships, where the need to express oneself verbally is utterly superfluous.
This is what Wong Kar-Wai attempts to portray in the film and what he achieves so
well. Too many Americans are consumed by the need to have every moment
of a film filled with stock dialogue; witty banter, disaffected sarcasm and
overwrought confessions seem to be the pinnacle of the "best" American film has to
offer. Wong Kar-Wai sees things very differently. Instead of the character needing
to keep the audience apprised of her every feeling, perception or belief, Wong's
characters make their feelings and understandings known clearly by facial gestures,
body positioning, and, yes, silence. If viewers merely contemplate this
film from the standpoint of character development and action, then they may be
disappointed by what it has to offer. If they are willing to let themselves try and
intuit what the characters are feeling, then they may feel quite differently about
what Wong has to offer them.
"In the Mood for Love" a teasing allegory of loneliness and longing. Here is a film
without sex, or even kissing -- and it is no doubt one of the sexiest and definetly
the most thought-provoking and psychological romance I have ever seen. Telling the story of two people who coincidentally, live in the same apartment,
and are a door away from each other. The film, like and unlike "Random Hearts," is
about how two people come together via the affair of their two lovers. Only once
they receive this news, they take the time to think about the consequences of an
affair, and each other's feelings towards having just broken-up -- and whether or
not the two people are willing enough to fall back in love. What's
terrific about the film is the way director Wong Kar-Wai, presents each character's
way of dealing with loneliness. With Maggie Cheung's character, he'll show her, in
a repeated montage: leaving work, going home, watching her neighbors gamble, head
to the noodle shop, leave the noodle shop, and bump into her attractive age-equal,
played by Tony Leung. This is a clever, if not subtle and knowing technique to
present loneliness. For it is when you are alone, when you find yourself falling
into a loop. This movie worked for me because I can identify with that feeling.
as with many of Wong's films, a lot of people find them to be boring and confusing.
Well i like them and i like this film too. I went out and rented it on dvd and i
watched it 3 times. It is a very subtle movie that provides an intoxicating
experience. for those who did not enjoy it...... you just wasted 2 hours of your
life.... too bad...muhahahahaha.
WHAT AN AWESOME FILM!!!!!!!! I came out of the theatre feeling stunned. The film
that I had just seen was one of the best films I have seen in my life. I had my
eyes glued to the screen. It's very symbolic, visually lush, beautifully shot, and
gorgeously told. It's basically about two people who move into a flat and live next
door to each other with there partners, who are assumed to be having an affair with
each others partners. Assuming this, our two heroes act out what they think their
partners are getting upto. There is an obvious repression of feelings for each
other, with the use of vouryistic camera work, body language, and symbollic
stairways. It's a visual feast, and hard not to like. Some of the story gets
slightly confusing but that's nothing. The ending is one of the most beautiful (and
anti-hollywood) endings I have ever seen in my life, and visually amazing. The
films haunting score adds to the mood. I highly recommend this film to anyone with
an open mind, and respect. What a superb film.
I just recently stumbled upon this show when ABC family had an all day marathon
before season 2 premiered. I remember seeing previews for the show back in 2007,
and thought it would be short lived, and not very well written, because it was on
ABC Family. Never doubt an ABC family show! This show surprised me in
the best way possible. Not only is the show well written, story lines are
realistic, funny, and enjoyable. I was expecting a lot of talk about relationships,
something like "this guy dated that girl who dumped me for that kid... etc." But
this show is anything but! The characters are appealing and you really feel a
connection between them all. There is a lot of chemistry between the actors, and
they can really make you feel like the stuff is happening right before your
eyes. Don't doubt this show, it is truly enjoyable to watch... and get
hooked on ;)
For a long time I did not know weather I liked this film or not. This is
surprising, because I usually do know, but because the film did not go anywhere, I
was a bit confused. Two people move into a somewhat communal household
setting. Finding their spouses constantly working or away on business trips, their
attention, out of sheer loneliness, wanders to each other. After a platonic love
affair, the male lead played by Tony Leung Chiu discloses that he has a mistress on
the side. Su Li-Zehn, played by Maggie Cheung is hurt, even though their love
affair has not been physically consummated. Chiu leaves the country, only to come
back years later, when everything has changed. For the cynic's part, the
film is correct. By never actively or actually touching the part of love, but only
approaching it, the film, admittedly says more than so many others have on the
subject. It is also true, I think, that nothing good could have come if they did go
on to have the affair. At least that's the feeling I get. If we are to
believe it, however, when Garica Marquez writes that "...love is a state of grace;
not the means to anything but the alpha and the omega, an end in itself," then this
film falls miserably short of this, as do all others. Or, if you are inclined to
entirely incomplete minimalism, hits it right on the mark. What films in history
have achieved, approached, or sustained this phrase, if for only a short while? My
honest feeling in memory is that about two. When Harry Met Sally suggests
effectively this romantic perfection; and the getting is all in just getting there.
It is interesting that in When Harry Met Sally, this is done in the course of
wooing, rather than in its attainment. Can't anyone say anything good about love
after it has been achieved by two individuals? Nicholas Spark's recent film The
Notebook comes closer to this perhaps than any other film; are we to believe that
once love is achieved it flies of the radar only to exist in perfection in some
other dimension, or, more true perhaps, becomes latent vehicle for other ends?
 In the Mood for Love is an honest film,with gorgeous and generous
cinematography worthy in all respects of the best that Almodovar has to offer, yet
all it manages to say in the end is that "Life is sometimes like this." Now this is
by no means a diffident thing to say, especially if said well, but the problem
really comes at the end of the last act when Kar Wai Wong tries to round out the
film by relating, only for the second time, a broader historical theme that plays
in the background of the relationship which has just taken place. This is a worthy
effort, and the variation on the musical motif played throughout the film is rather
brilliant, but the theme's relatively spare indictment plays too little to have
much more than a superficial effect on the holistically inclined audience, leaving
the viewer to split the difference, a mistake in any film. A director should know
where he is going, and how to get there. But in all honesty, it is only one wrong
turn. However, as anyone knows, all it takes is one notable imperfection to spoil
the perfect barrel of honey. The effort, though, is definitely worth
while; trying to let a historical theme broaden and round out the film and raise it
beyond the micro-meaning of the couple, but without any real foreshadowing, it is
the crucial mistake. In a word, and unfortunately, it is too little too late. It is
also, I think, too much of a challenge for the non-Asian viewer not familiar enough
with China's history to appreciate completely this sweeping stroke.
Beautiful, emotional, and subtle. I watch this movie at an art center with a
smaller screen in a film room with 95% of senior citizens. I wish bigger cinema
like Lowes around here would show it. Great cinematography by Wong and Christopher
Doyle. Since I understand cantonese, it's a lot easier for me to understand the
movie. As simple as the story goes, many English speaking viewers didn't get the
whole story. Three old ladies next to me keep yapping and have no clues about the
movie. Spoiler; They were surprise when I mention that Mr. Chow did
sleep with Mrs Chen and they have a son. She went to Singapore trying to tell him
but didn't. Spoiler The mandarin translation of the movie
title actually means flowery like moment or memory. The phrase usually used to
describe beautiful and wonderful memory that was inpermanance and short. The whole
movie pretty much fit the title. Not to mention the flowery "Cheung Sam". My favorite scene was definately the street corner in the alley. It looks
so beautiful, the sun shining on the old and faded wall, at night in the dark, in
the rain, truely a poetic moment. I felt a strong sense of intimacy of their
relationship seeing them standing against the wall and talk quietly. I felt a
terrible heartache when Mr Chow was rehearsing his departing moment, and Mrs Chen
cried on his shoulder.... Bravo Wong Kar-Wai! As much as I like this
one, Chungking Express still top my favorite. However, I'll give this one a 10 as
well. As a point of reference, CTHD only got 7. If you love art, you
will love this movie. Don't miss it.
Kar Wai Wong's incredibly impressive romance that is to me, perfect. Set in 1960's
Hong Kong. As we are shown, this is set in a turbulent time. Tony Leung and Maggie
Cheung play Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan. A man and a woman who meet each other
in a Hong Kong apartment, in which they both move in. Chow Mo-wan works for a
newspaper company. Su Li-zhen Chan is a secretary. Two very different people. Chow
Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan create a special bond after they both find out their
spouses, constantly away are committing extra-marital trysts. With each
other. The characters of Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan are nothing
short of amazing. Both Leung and Cheung manage to strike such amazing chemistry
with one another, it's better than any Hollywood romance that is put out today.
Combined. The film is all about the focus of the two leads and their feelings after
the infidelities of their partners. Kar Wai Wong manages to create such strong
character development between these two characters, you really start to feel for
them. Leung and Cheung are both wildly amazing, are better than any Hollywood
pairing shown on the screen today. Combined. There's nothing much else
to describe Fa yeung nin wa other than beautiful, energetic romance that also
features a moody, atmospheric piece with gorgeous cinematography. So much elements
of this movie help create it to be flawless. As well as Kar Wai Wong and the
acting, the cinematography from both Christopher Doyle and Pin Bing Lee is
haunting. Beautifully understated. The shots from Kar Wai Wong help makes your mind
create a world of it's own. A world that creates these characters. Original,
melancholic and nostalgic. This film is incredibly unforgettable. The
costumes created by Kar Wai Wong regular William Chang are absolutely beautiful.
Cheung, who wears an elegant, ankle-deep, beautifully patterned dress in every
scene. She's a scene-stealer. Her costumes say a lot about her character and an
emotion is fitted in all of her dresses colours which are vividly and smartly used.
Highly original. Chang, also the production designer creates a brilliant setting
for the movies moody piece. Especially with the help of the marvellous music used
in scenes and masterful film editing, again by Chang. William Chang seems to be
incredibly versatile and is an unsung hero for this movie. Overall, this
movie is one of the best from this millennium. Incredibly compelling and filled
with nostalgia. The shots are mesmerising and haunting. Kar Wai Wong somewhat
proves to be a master at the top of his game. The acting; music; cinematography;
editing; production; costume and direction all help create ONE small, little
perfect film. A masterpiece in romance film-making. Visually spectacular. Overall,
a masterpiece to film-making. A film that reminds me of old classic Hollywood, was
the one that never was. Never forget Fa yeung nin wa. I know I won't.
this film is wonderful film for students of film. in mainstream American film it is
common to see stylistic techniques used to draw the audience into the movie. in
this film, the director uses stylistic techniques to push the story forward. this is a love story that offers no sex. to be honest, i can't even recall
the characters kissing. rather, the plot focuses on the emotional ties between the
two characters. i would not recommend this film for everybody. it is not
very accessible. it is very slow moving and the subtle. it is a difficult film and
mostly not entertaining. i would reccoment this film to people who want
to see something different. it is a piece of art. the soundtrack is most beautiful
and visually, every frame is a photograph. and most beautiful of all, it's not
visually stimulating for the sake of being visually stimulating. every frame
illustrates a little bit more of the story...
SPOILER ALERT!!! You can listen to Wong Kar-wai's movies like a radio
play: Invisible vibrations between the characters, the rooms where they stay in,
the rhythm that presses them ahead, attraction and dislike - the whole spectrum of
the atmosphere is played back by the sound track. The dialogue is mostly completely
unimportant. The narration is similar to a childish amorous look at a
beautiful woman and a sad man whose sorrows are noticeable, but helpless. "In The
Mood For Love" is told from a child perspective, but the child never appears as a
narrator. The aesthetic of the film is developed by an extreme light and color
dramaturgy, harsh cuts, an unattached, almost documentary camera and a complex,
unobtrusive sound. The genius use of Nat King Cole's "Perhaps, Perhaps,
Perhaps", whose mysterious power grows the more often it is repeated and the
melancholic waltz helps in the graceful choreography of the two protagonists.
Maggie Cheung in her beautiful dresses is brilliant, the perfect vis-à-vis to the
handsome, stylish Tony Leung. The audience assumes a romance between them, but Wong
just sees sad resignation. The two potential lovers are revolving around each other
like satellites, knowing that they never will share the same orbit. You wish that
they will find each other. They won't and the emotional power of their non-love-
sex-relationship makes the movie immensely fascinating. It is about
broken luck and unspoken love. In all of Wong's films these are the leitmotives.
Love, whether it comes too early or it comes too late to take the one and not the
other person. The yearning of the characters that is never satisfied, their
loneliness, the mourning, and the luck that they experience when it is too late.
In Hong Kong, 1962, the editor Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) and his wife, and
the secretary Su Li-Zhen Chan (Maggie Cheung) and her husband simultaneously move
to an old building. Each couple has just rented a room in apartments on the same
floor. Their wife and husband stay most of the time away from home, and Chow and
Li-Zhen have the same habits: they like kung-fu stories and noodles and soap from a
restaurant nearby the building. Their close contact becomes friendship and a sort
of platonic and repressed love. Later they realize that their mates are having an
affair, Chow falls in love with Li-Zhen, but her shyness and probably repressed
condition of married woman keeps her love in a platonic level. 'In the Mood for
Love' is a very slow, beautiful, melancholic and romantic love story, with a
wonderful photography and soundtrack and a very unusual edition. The film had not
had a screenplay, and the actors were never sure about what they would be shooting.
Later, the director edited his story based on the footages. When Chow moves to
Singapore, there is a gap of many years in the story until 1966, when its
conclusion is intentionally open and not well defined, leaving questions such as
who is the boy with Li-Zhen. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): 'Amor À
Flor da Pele' ('Love on the Surface of the Skin')
Beautiful film set in 1962 Hong Kong about a man (Mr. Chow) and woman (Mrs. Chan)
who become close friends when they suspect their spouses are having an affair.
Stylistically, the film is also beautiful. Wong Kar-Wai uses a lot of slow motion
and close-ups on parts of the body (feet, hands, waist). The film itself has a
reticence and properness that suggests its time period. It's sexy without showing
everything. Wong Kar-Wai also doesn't allow the audience to see what the spouses
look like, suggesting that Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan should be together. Smoking is
even made to look elegant with close-ups of the curls of smoke. A really lovely
film. Just prepare yourself for the ending. 
WARNING: SPOILER,SPOILER,SPOILER!!!! This is written for filmgoers who
may have walked away from "Mood for Love" perplexed and confused about paths the
main characters choose in life. From reading other comments and reviews it seems
that many viewers and critics missed some very important details which may have
prevented them from enjoying this delightful tease of a movie. We are so
use to seeing blatant SEX in narrations that we forget that there was a time when
filmakers would suggest the "dirty deed" by simply showing the slack-mouthed
couples ride off in a sleigh or haywagon only to return into the next scene with a
bulging gut or a fat toddler stuck to the hip..."Meet your child". The
director chose the same nostalgic approach in telling the story of Mr Chow and Mrs
Chan. Last warning...SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER Mr Chow fools Mrs Chan into
showing her real emotions when they rehearse his departure forever. Next scene: Mrs
Chan leans her head on Mr Chow in the taxi and says "I do not want to go home
tonight". Translation: "Let's Do It" Why then did the couple just not do
the modern thing of dumping their cheating spouses,get a divorce,raise their love
child and live happily ever after? The answer is that this whole story takes place
in Hong Kong during the Sixties. A bastard would live in a bleak life of shame if
he were the child of an adulteress;whereas,a "legitimate" child could live a tragic
but noble/honest life if his mother chose to raise him away from his cheating
"father"-the invisible Mr Chan. In short,Mr Chow and Mrs Chan sacrifices their
relationship for the future of their child. That is why Mr Chow,upon
learning that Mrs Chan lives alone with a little boy gives a knowing smile and ends
his dreams of making Mrs Chan his Mrs Chow. He then,also realizes why Mrs Chan went
to all the way to Singapore to be with him,only to reconsiders at the last momment
and leave..,choosing to never see him again.(But not before taking some unnamed
keepsake) Mr Chow lives with this wonderful secret with no one to tell. No
one,except for a crumbling temple wall and of course we the viewer,...but only if
we listen carefuly.
Set in 1962 Hong Kong (in turbulent times, as we are informed), this extremely
intimate story of a failed romance between a two married people tied to their
traditions manages to recall the essence of old Hollywood in scene after scene of
lush colors, evocative yet restrained sensuality (as opposed of the requisite
sexuality and occasional nude scenes which has become part of the norm of a romance
in film), and the use of facial expressions to suggest subtle changes in mood or
communication. It's not hard to see the influence of Marguerite Duras here, since
she is known for minimalism in storytelling as well as describing powerful drama
using the art of verbal and non-verbal conversation between two characters with a
strong bond as well as the use of re-enacting scenes that could eventually take
place in both the characters' lives. From Hiroshima MON AMOUR to MODERATO
CANTABILE, her pen is strongly visible here from the moment we enter the cramped
rooms of Mr. Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs. Su Li-zhen (Maggie Cheung) to the last
scenes which explain the intensity of regret that he feels as he recalls the
opportunity which was lost in reaffirming this relationship. The plot
even resembles something that Duras could have written: Mr. Chow and Mrs. Su Li-
zhen, neighbors in a tenement apartment while both being fairly successful
professionals, begin to discover in the most banal of ways that their spouses are
cheating on them, and they discover quite naturally, it's with each other. The
question is, should they act upon what they also feel towards each other or not be
like their partners? Every scene plays with the notion that at any moment they will
give in to each other, and at one point, it is suggested that eventually they do
though as intrusive as the camera is in detailing to us their encounters (which
seem to occur on a daily basis as seen by the frequent changes of Cheung's
dresses), we never see it. And just as not seeing either of their spouses heightens
their own love story, not seeing them carry through with their attraction makes the
eventual separation even the more bitter because at every moment we want for
something to happen -- some catalyst -- and the only one which comes is when Leung
reveals to her that he loves her, followed by his quietly brutal revelation that
she will never leave her husband, which implies that neither will he. It also gives
us a glimpse of what culture and timing can do: from a Western point of view, a
consummation of their romance into a more solid, lasting affair would have been
possible especially in the 60s, but as it's Hong Kong, cultural values are markedly
different. Performances here are of the high order: it's very easy to
play a torrid love affair, but to continually play a repressed, platonic
relationship that is brimming with desire only barely suggested is hard and makes
all the sensuality more cerebral than palpable or visual. Cheung and Leung smolder
and their blighted chemistry lingers long after the credits have rolled.
The most attractive factor that lies in this masterpiece of a film is not the
beautiful lead actors. It isn't their outstanding acting and sizzling chemistry
either. To me, it is the mis-en-scene of the entire movie. The settings,
the lighting, the props... all add to the mood for love between the main
characters. A whiff of smoke from Chow's cigarette tells us his state of mind, the
ever-changing tight-fitting cheongsams of Lizhen reflects the constraints of
decision-making, the ruins of Angkor Wat ties in with the deteriorating
relationship of the two leads. The excellent use of mis-en-scene gives
the film just the right amount of feel needed to flesh out the complicated nature
of the characters' relationship. The film leaves the audience fruitlessly yearning
for more.
So when I first saw commercials for Greek I did have a few questions to how they
were going to approach Greek life, if they were going to give away sacred frat and
sorority secrets, if they were going to focus on the brother and sisterhood a
fraternity or sorority brings, or what most college kids think of Greek life as a
huge party. Luckily, it covered everything. The story plot was great, it
gave you a character to love, hate, someone you want to be like, someone you don't
want to be like, and of course a crazy roommate! It was one of my first
looks at what writers believed Greek life to be like, and I can honestly say they
hit the nail pretty dead on. I love how one of the biggest things they
covered throughout the season was the relationship between Rusty and his crazy
roommate. Its hard enough moving away from home, and being forced to live in a
small room with someone you don't even know, then come to find out.. you have
nothing in common. Probably every college bound freshmens worst nightmare. Rustys sister Casey was pretty much the typical girl on campus EVERYONE is
jealous of. What didn't she have? Oh thats right.. Evan all to herself. Rebecca and
Evan had an "affair" early into the season, which made you feel fairly sympathetic
for Casey. Her character evolved, and her relationship with Rusty became more and
more loving and outgoing. Cappie is one of the most fun loving
characters, and absolutely insane. One of my favorite episodes included him getting
completely trashed at a strip club, and Rusty having to call Casey to bail them
out. I like how they addressed the issue of gay people in Greek houses, Calvin was
a very real feeling character, and I really respected him because he stuck to his
standards. So Jen K was fairly crazy, but she actually liked Rusty. It was
surprising and I continued to question her from the start, but of course, I did
want it to work out between her and Rusty. I am definitely looking
forward to the return of Greek. It takes you into the truth of Greek life,
something that a lot of people look past. One of the biggest things that frats and
sororities are known for is parties and drinking. Greek is a great show, and the
characters are easy to relate to.
Two people living in the same flat complex find their partners are having an affair
with each other. As they try and piece together how it happened, they also embark
on an emotional journey that aches for a resolution Building on his
previous success with Happy Together and Chungking Express, Wong Kar Wai gives us
this rather old fashioned and marvellous story of reawakened passions, yearning and
unrequited love. Possibly, In the Mood for Love is not to everyone's
taste. It wanders in rather lazily at 98mins: not particularly long for a film, but
it appears longer because not a lot really happens. But this lazy feel conceals a
quite tightly constructed film. Most of the story is cunningly woven around a
series of set piece role plays, where the characters act out presumed scenarios
between their respective spouses, trying to work out how the affair started. I say
cunning because, of course, this makes it difficult for the audience (and the
characters) to tell what is "in-role" and what is genuine. If all this
sounds rather arty and self-conscience, that's because it is. Unashamedly so. And
it is played to perfection by two of Hong Kong's finest, Maggie Cheung and Leung
Chui Wai, with some excellent support from Ping Lam Siu and Rebecca Pan. It is also a virtuoso performance by Wong Kar Wai, who treats the audience
to a sensory, and sensual, overload. Bringing together Christopher Doyle (who later
deployed his lush, over-ripe style on Hero) and Pin Bing Lee (whose beautifully
understated style can be seen on Springtime in a Small Town) was cinematographic
genius. It has all the bold beauty of Doyle, without, frankly, the Athena-poster
cheesiness of his work on Hero. The music, as always with Wong, is prominent. From
Nat King Cole singing in Spanish, to the haunting strings of the main theme, it
perfectly matches the eclectic beauty of the images. All in all a top
film, whether judged on plot, acting, cinematography or soundtrack. Similar to, but
more accessible than, Wim Wenders' Wings of Desire, this is a beautiful, old
fashioned story about love lost and regained. And watch out for Tony
Leung's hotel room 2046, which presaged Wong's recent film of the same name.
I won't bore you with story and plot lines, as they have been presented many times
already on this page, so It's been along time coming since I have seen such a
film. Beautiful, elegant and restrained, with a narrative pace to match. A film
with sensitivity and understated qualities that is rare in these times of clichéd
plots. The beautifully subdued photography, saturated in rich luxurious colors, and
for lack of better words, each frame is filled with an air of tension. The settings
and locations are used repeatedly but the film manages to breath new life into them
each time they featured, there always seems to be a key prop, light fixture, or set
piece to slightly clue the audience as to where we are in the characters
world. The acting reminds me of the "The Bicycle Thief", not the style,
but the fact that you forget that you are watching two actors engaged in their
craft. There is meaning behind every gesture and almost every movement has assigned
significance to explain the inside world of the characters, the relationship, the
feelings, and situation of the two lovers. The dialogue is sparse but like the rest
of the movie, is imbued with meaning. Speaking of meaning, the soundtrack is
infectious. Used here it becomes a story telling device. And although the film is
of Chinese origins, even a song sung in Spanish by Nat King Cole imparts the film
with subtle meaning. The orchestrated soundtrack is repetitive, but the repetition
is what makes it comfortable. It is used in conjunction with the story, and not
just a means to put music to action, or to cue the audience to feel a certain way
at a certain plot point. I would not recommend this film to anybody, I
fear most people would be jaded by the calm flow of the story, but I would
recommend it to someone who is looking for an alternative to the romantic schlock
that fills the multiplexes on our side of the world. I must say that I was
completely taken by this film, and continued to watch it night after night. The
story takes time to present itself and bears repeated viewings as very few films in
this genre are open to such a broad interpretation. A very beautiful movie.
When I fist watched the movie, I said to myself, "so a film can be made like this."
Wong Kar Wai's gorgeous poetic love story captured me throughout and even after the
film. I must admit this is one of the best love movies, maybe the best of all, I
have ever watched. The content and the form overlaps perfectly. As watching the
secret love we see the characters in bounded frames that limits their movements as
well as their feelings. Beautiful camera angles and the lighting makes the feelings
and the blues even touchable. I want to congratulate Christopher Doyle and Pin Bing
Lee for their fantastic cinematography which creates the mood for love. Also the
music defines the sadness of the love which plays along the beautiful slow motion
frames and shows the characters in despairing moods. And of course the performances
of the actors which makes the love so real. Eventually, all the elements in the
film combined in a perfect way under the direction of WKW and give the audience the
feeling called love.
I was recommended this film as one of the best love stories ever told. And as I am
huge fan of love, I bought the tickets and sat myself in the theatre. After 90
minutes I left the theatre with nothing but disappointment and the theme song as
the only positive thing of the film. I was appalled at the story itself, that two
people can love each other but be so afraid as to never act it. I just couldn't go
passed the language barrier and the cultural barrier. The second time I ran into
it... I was in a different mood, no longer had any expectation ... and had more
patience, more relaxed mind to "see" the film... and as soon as I opened my eyes, I
discovered the love... the beauty of the film. I went beyond the language and the
love story and saw the acting (not even for a moment did I ever felt like they were
acting!) and the cinematography. The first time I heard a definition of what a film
is, I was told that it should be a chain of perfectly balanced photographs (shots)
and this is the film to match the description. Almost every shot has an idea behind
it, and combined with the music... and the light effects... the result is just a
masterpiece! And a masterpiece is just something that you must have in your
collection of films.
In 60s Hong Kong, a man and woman move in the same day into adjacent apartments
with their respective spouses. Soon they suspect their ever absent spouses of
having an affair with one-another. A strange bond emerges between the man and woman
as they cope with their sadness by taking turns playing each other's spouse, before
a more complex bond emerges... No summary can do it justice, for Hong
Kong auteur Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood for Love" is nothing short of a miracle. A
story about sadness that manages to be touching and at times funny. A romance that
never feels forced or fake. No doubt the director's method has a lot to do with
that. Directed from an inexistent screenplay (though the concept largely
flows from a Japanese short story) to favor improvisation, the film is immediately
set apart by the freshness of it's performances. All the film revolves around that
and the rest is pure enhancement. At the core of the film are two characters that
will ease into your heart and stay there long after the end credits roll: Maggie
Cheung and Tony Leung are simply amazing and no language barrier undermines a
single fragment of immediacy and truth they display. The additional material is
also top-notch: the films is magnificent to behold (in part lensed by "Hero"'s
Christopher Doyle) and the music is heartbreaking. This is something
everybody must see, if only because it is by far the most heartfelt, mature and
authentic "love story" out there. Unmissable.
It's easy to see why many people consider In the Mood for Love to be Wong Kar-Wai's
best film. The toned down appeal of the film, centering on the studied view of a
relationship put through an emotional ringer, is a retread into Happy Together
territory but without the hyper-kinetic patchwork of jarring film stocks and hyper-
saturated sequences that have become a trademark of Kar-Wai's films since Chungking
Express. Like Soderbergh's The Limey, this is a different kind of curio for Kar-
Wai; where dialogue and plot are forsaken by mood and composition in order to
create a tale of two delicate lives in a seemingly confining emotional
stasis. It's a testament to the genius of Kar-Wai that he is capable to
making such a simple tale so resonating. Chow Mo-Wan (Tony Leung) and Su Li-zhen
(Maggie Cheung) move in next-door to each other within the same apartment building.
He's a journalist who dreams of publishing martial-arts novels and she is a
secretary at a shipping company. Their eventual coupling is obvious from the
beginning but the pleasure here is the way that Kar-Wai ambiguously paints such a
journey with his grand masterstrokes. The key to the success of the film
is Kar-Wai's use of the interior space, playing with foreground and background
planes in ways that are similar to the works of Polanski. During the wooingly
sensuous first half of the film, Kar-Wai isolates Leung and Cheung within shots in
such a way that the second person in a conversation is never visible. Kar-Wai is
concerned with environment and space here, creating a cramped emotional dynamic
between his characters. It's also telling that Kar-Wai never chooses to focus on
the physicality of Mo-Wan and Li-zhen's spouses. Their faceless partners are
noticeably absent from the film, as they are tending to their own love affairs with
each other. This is not to suggest that In the Mood for Love is a
confining experience because Kar-Wai manages to inundate his film with broad
splashes of hypnotic camera movement and sound. There is one shot where Cheung's
slow, sensual rise up a metaphorical stairway turns into Leung's descent down the
very same stairwell; their movements perfectly compliment each other, bookending
the shot and creating a sense of erotic duality between the two figures. Their
souls have connected but they have yet to physically unite. The erotic displacement
of these scenes is both fascinating and frustrating, as two star-crossed lovers
reject physical consummation due to their humble fidelity. Other scenes
in the film are punctuated with brief slow-motion shots of Cheung erotically moving
through her interior surroundings, set to Mike Galasso's hauntingly beautiful
score. Cheung's dresses beautifully compliment her exterior space as she moves
slowly through her surroundings. Her movements slowly build up to what seems to be
an inevitable fusion between Li-szhen and her dream lover even though the seduction
process seems to be entirely sub-conscious. If I make it seem that these
two characters are more like two birds unleashing pheromones on each other, it
probably isn't that far-fetched of a statement. The tight bond these two characters
have with their internal spaces is almost as intense as their relationship to the
exteriors. The film rarely moves into an exterior space and when the camera does it
is usually to peak through oval windows and symbolic bars that always remind us
that these characters are like confined animals. Kar-Wai continues to tease us even
when the lovers get close enough to touch, shattering the couple's proximity to
each other by shooting them through mirrors or through gaps within articles of
clothing located inside of a closet. Mother Nature even seems to respond to their
love lust, often unleashing a soft crest of rain over the characters after their
bodies have glided near each other. Kar-Wai's hauntingly atmospheric
shots of a waterfall allowed Leung's Lai Yu-Fai to experience a cathartic release
in Happy Together, even if Leslie Cheung's Ho Po-wing was not there to enjoy it
with him. By that film's end, love was so inextricably bound to the act of war that
a third man's muted declarations of love signaled Yu-Fai's realization that his
dreams of seeing a waterfall would bring him inner peace, even if it would not
bring him back his lover. Mo-Wan's journey terminates within the confines of a
crumbling temple. His own emotional depletion is paralleled nicely with the
political climate of his country, and the absence of Li-szhen is only made
tolerable by the fact that Kar-Wai allows Mo-Wan to experience a release of sorts.
Mo-Wan caters to an ancient myth and his secretive release into a crack in the
temple leaves him capable of living his days with the hope that all his loss and
heartache somehow served a higher purpose.
I think that New York Times film critic Elvis Mitchell wrote the best one line
review of In the Mood for Love when he said that it is "dizzy with a romantic
spirit that's been missing from the cinema forever." How true those words are!
Truly romantic films are so rare these days, while films that include plenty of sex
and nudity (which are often portrayed in a smutty and gratuitous manner) abound.
So, given this cinematic climate, Wong Kar-wai's latest film feels like a much
needed breath of fresh air. In the Mood for Love is about the doomed romance
between two neighbors ("Mr. Chow," played by Tony Leung and "Mrs. Chan," played by
Maggie Cheung), whose spouses are having an illicit affair, as they try "not to be
like them." But after hanging out with each other on lonely nights (while their
spouses are away "on business"/"taking care of a sick mother"), they fall madly in
love, and must resist the temptation of going too far. Several factors
are responsible for making In the Mood for Love a new classic among "romantic
melodramas," in the best sense of that term. First, the specific period of the film
(i.e. 1960's Hong Kong) is faithfully recreated to an astonishing degree of detail.
The clothes (including Maggie Cheung's lovely dresses), the music (e.g. Nat King
Cole), and the overall atmosphere of this film evokes a nostalgia for that specific
period. Second, Christopher Doyle's award-winning, breathtakingly beautiful
cinematography creates an environment which not only envelopes its two main
characters, but seems to ooze with romantic longing in every one of its sumptuous,
meticulously composed frame. Make no mistake about it: In the Mood for Love was the
most gorgeous film of 2001. (It should also be mentioned that Wong Kar-wai's usual
hyper-kinetic visual style is (understandably) toned down for this film, although
his pallet remain just as colorful.) Third, there is the haunting score by Michael
Galasso, which is accompanied by slow motion sequences of, e.g. Chan walking in her
elegant dresses, Chan and Chow "glancing" at each other as they pass one another on
the stairs, and other beautiful scenes which etch themselves into one's memory. The
main score--which makes its instruments sound as though they're literally crying--
is heard eight times throughout various points in the film and it serves to
highlight the sadness and the longing which the two main characters feel. Fourth,
Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung both deliver wonderful performances (Leung won the
prize for best actor at Cannes) and they manage to generate real chemistry on
screen. The above elements coalesce and work so nicely together to
create a film that feels timeless, "dizzyingly romantic," and, in a word, magical.
In the Mood for Love, perhaps more than any other film of 2001, reminded me why it
is that I love "going to the movies." And I guess that is about the highest
compliment that I can pay to a film. 
I'm from Ireland and I thought this film had the odd minute or two where accents
where a little off but no worse than any Brad Pitt or other American doing the
accent. Furthermore, I have rarely seen any British actor handle an American or
Canadian accent except for Colin Farrel in Minority Report. This film is a little
film and it was entertaining. No it wasn't a Blockbuster Hollywood production but
frankly I'm sick of that shite. I laughed more than a few times and had a good
time. It was definitely worth the rental. The main character is a spoof on other
hard British gangsters. At least that's the way I saw it. If you go in expecting a
$100 million dollar production you'll be disappointed. Enjoy it for what it is- a
small entertaining film.
Superb and charming. Justin Henry is beautiful as a blissed out and mischievous
Howard Kaylan, lead singer for the top ten hit making band, The Turtles. The real
magic is the titular sequence with an academy award worthy turn by Royale Watkins.
A performance that completely captures the mystical and yet down to earth Jimi
Hendrix. Not many films, unbelievably so, can find the essence of a special moment
in a life and times. I'd like to see this available at any home video retail outlet
without any hassle. Uh..what's the deal? Thanks Eddie. A worthy addition
to the history of the psychedelic sixties. A definite twinkle in the mind's eye.
MY DINNER WITH JIMI is a glimpse at Howard Kaylan's giddy and vertiginous ride to
fame with his 60's Folk-Rock band, The Turtles. The Turtles were kind of a 'second
tier' act during the sixties, but the film clearly demonstrates that they could
eat, drink, and party with the Titans of Hippie Culture. And, not only that, they
had the musical chops to back it up. Many of the stellar acts of the era are seen
as they interact with the band at work and at play. This provides my only complaint
about the film. Almost from the beginning of the movie, one sees that it is nearly
impossible to find actors who can convincingly impersonate such recognizable stars.
Too often during the film, I felt that I was watching an engaging exhibition of
phony wigs and mustaches. But, if you are a fan of the music of The Turtles, or The
Swinging 60's, in general-this might be the film for you. And, don't forget to view
The Extras. There is a very funny (and informative) bit by band members, Mark
Volman and Howard Kaylan, about their disastrous experiences with managers and
agents.
I really like the show!! As a part of Greek Life, I can say that some things are
over-exaggerated, but overall it's still pretty damn funny. Rusty is a
likable lead character, his roommate is HILARIOUS and the entire cast is
entertaining in their own rights. I like that it focuses on individual situations
as well as interpersonal relations with the organizations. This show
covers it all, and they do it without cursing or anything else that bad (how else
could it be on ABC Family?). My favorites are Cappie (of course),
Rusty's roommate and pretty much all of Kappa Tau. This show is a great launch pad
for them and I'm excited to see what doors this opens. Please renew
this show next summer, ABC Family. Like I said, love love LOVE it!!
I smiled through the whole film. The music is great. The story-telling is great.
It's a wonderful film. This picture is made with respect and a true love of the
sixties.
I have been trying to track The Age of Kings down for many, many years.My theater
life was filled with the actors in this series. At the time, in 1960 I was not able
to follow all of it, as I was myself working in the theater, lots of night work.
Now in retirement I LONG to have this and keep it to myself. Please, please can it
not be issued on DVD, I would not mind what it cost. I see that there are others
out there who feel the same. What can we do to get this done? Something as great as
this should not be sent into oblivion. I have to write two more lines. OK I can do
that by saying that I want this series more than anything in the world. Just to be
able to watch some of the finest actor of our age playing out the finest words of
our wonderful Shakespeare. Isn't that enough! A Uzmen
Anyone who enjoyed this series when first broadcast (I rushed home from school to
see it) now is of a certain age so I can only add my comments to those asking for a
DVD release to enable those of us to relive the memories of first transmission
before it simply becomes a piece of unremembered TV archive history. If so many old
TV series from the sixties and seventies can be released, why not this? Surely the
rights clearances can't be that difficult. Most of the Shakespeare lines I can
quote comes from this iconic series and I remember swapping them with my school
chums as we tried to outdo each other's memories of the text. Peter Dews rightly
deserved the credit for having the foresight to bring it to the screen. This surely
was public broadcasting at its finest. Robert Hardy and Sean Connery fighting to
the death - it's riveting stuff and from the beginning of the BBC Television's
golden age. Come on BBC. Clear it and license it please. March 2009 So finally the
DVD is here and congratulations to those who have made it happen. The picture
quality is remarkably good and the performances every bit as good as the memory
thought. Now all those who clamoured for it must buy it and relive those magic
moments. UK viewers. Given the series was made in the UK by the BBC
using British actors it's strange that the DVD release is not available there on
Region 2 (Europe) DVD and can only be imported from the US and played on modified
players. It seems hardly likely that there are major rights issues, perhaps the
market was felt to be too small so why on earth wasn't it released 'region free?'
so everyone could enjoy it?
My introduction to a lifelong love of Shakespeare. My brother was 5 and I was not
quite 7 when WTTW Chicago broadcast An Age of Kings. It became a family ritual to
watch, including the reruns. As an autumn series, my father used to buy us a rare
treat for the Midwest--pomegranates; and my mother would pop corn on the stove.
Wonderful acting from actors whose names meant nothing to me then (although I will
never forget the achingly young Sean Connery as Hotspur), but do now! And they
published the scripts in paperback so we could follow along and figure out the
language. I managed to memorize most of Richard III over that. So glad to see it
coming out on DVD! Highly recommended for all ages and any level of familiarity
with Shakespeare or English history.
In 1961, this series was shown on local TV here in southern California. I and many
others have been petering BBC for tape or DVD ever since. Now all of a sudden, here
it is on Amazon. I pre-ordered in January and now here on March 30 it arrived. It
was a long wait (48 years). Was it worth it? So far I have just watched Richard II
(I've only had the DVD since 2 o'clock) and I can truly say YEA!!! totally worth
the wait. The acting, direction, and production are superb and even better than I
remember. The production is in B & W but somehow it fits. The video is clear and
very good, the sound is flawless. Further proof of how timeless Shakespeare truly
is. I gave this 10 stars even though I have only seen 1 of the 8 plays.
I am sure that when I have seen them all I will change my rating to at least a
12. It's currently in stock at Amazon (US region 1) at a reasonable
price. I'd better stop now so I can get back to watching. Next up is
Henry the IV, part 1 of which is my all time favorite Shakespeare play.
A great production, that should be revived/rebroadcast. I doubt that it would be
out of date! I'd love to hear from anyone who knows whether videos exist of this
series, or any other information about where it could be found or viewed.
I followed this entire series when I was a child in grade school, by choice, not
because it was required for school. I used to read the plays at the pace of the
series. The experience gave me a life-long love for Shakespeare and history. It
even gave me a bit of an acting bug, although at an amateur level only. Whenever I
read any of Shakespeare's history plays, the images that come to mind first are
from this black and white production, seen on a big "furniture" TV set with a
rabbit ear antenna, with all the "ghosts" and wobbles that go with that. Although the sets were minimal, if I remember correctly, that was totally
irrelevant because the acting was so good. At the time I had no idea who any of the
actors were. Now I see that many of them have become well known over the years. I
particularly enjoyed Hotspur and Hal, whom I now see were played by Sean Connery
and Robert Hardy. I would dearly love to see this available in video, especially
since many of the plays are seldom performed and even fewer are available on video.
It would be valuable also as a document of mid-20th century televised play
production.
It was so very long ago (1960), but I have never forgotten this series and often
wished it would reappear. So taken with it, I corresponded with Mr. Rathbun, then
president of Standard Oil, which sponsored the presentation on PBS. He sent me a
photo of the tapestry (actually a charcoal rendering) used behind the
credits. To the opening theme music of Bayco's "Elizabethan Masque," my
family and I gathered around our black & white TV to drink in Shakespeare's words
as spoken by a group of excellent but relatively unknown players (at least to
American audiences at the time). We were introduced to such actors as
Sean Connery, Dame Judi Dench, Tom Fleming, Patrick Garland, Julian Glover and
Robert Hardy. I have continued to enjoy their accomplishments ever since. One of
the most interesting things was the way in which the actors continued to age in
their respective roles as Shakespeare's "King" plays were presented, perhaps for
the first time, in chronological order. I wish I could tell those actors
just how much that series meant to me. If "Age of Kings" could be
revived on VHS and/or DVD, it would so please those of us who long to see it again
and those who missed it the first time around. GOOD NEWS! PBS HAS JUST
ISSUED A DVD OF "AN AGE OF KINGS"! SEE THEIR JULY 2009 CATALOG, PAGE 19, OR CALL
THEM TOLL FREE. I JUST ORDERED MINE!
Watched this on KQED, with Frank Baxter commenting, as I recall. Have never seen it
since, but would like to find out where it is available. It is amazing
how good something can be, but be in black and white, and have zero special
effects. In fact, amazing how much BETTER something like that is!
This series has recently been unearthed and excerpts can be seen, at least within
Britain, via http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/527213/index.html Presumably
there is some hope that the series may eventually become available more widely. The
problem is that this series was followed by the series THE WARS OF THE ROSES that
had a similarly stellar cast and which has been available to cable TV, or at least
crowding the market. The two series are quite different in dramaturgy;
THE WARS consolidates the plays through extensive rewriting and shifting of scenes;
AN AGE OF KINGS follows Shakespeare more closely. Both series benefit from integral
casting.
When I first heard about "Greek," I figured I would watch it because it sounded
ridiculous. Another of ABC Family's so-bad-they're-almost-good shows. But tuning in
with a friend from college found us both enjoying the pilot episode a lot more than
we had expected. As a member of a Greek society, I can say that a lot of
the stereotypes that are brought up here are ones that come up almost every time
someone starts talking about the sororities and fraternities on a campus. And are
also very fun to play with just on are own, let alone to watch on a TV screen. The
opening scene harkened to an only-slightly-dramatized version of preparing for an
actual formal rush in some sororities and it continued on from there. This isn't a show for over-sensitive Greeks. If you get offended even at jokes
about things that aren't-so-great about Greek life, then you'll spend the entire
first episode, and probably many other, cringing and yelling. But everyone else
should have a ton of fun watching it. It's nothing new, but when it comes to
college, nothing ever is.
I saw this mini-series when I was in high school. I remember it as being absolutely
brilliant and compelling. At the time, I knew none of the British actors in the
series, but have since learned that some of today's stars performed in it,
including Sean Connery (the original James Bond among many other roles), Judi Dench
(Queen Elizabeth in "Shakespeare in Love" among many other roles) and Eilene Atkins
(probably best known for creating "Upstairs/Downstairs" but also superb in many
acting roles). Like the other commentator, I would like to see it again. I'm
certain the production remains timeless, and I would hope that it has been or will
be released on VHS or DVD. If you get a chance to see it, do not miss it.
All right - it was in black and white and probably on 2" tape - which means the BBC
wiped it, right? But it stays in my mind from all those years ago (1960??) as a
perfect slice of history enlivened by the most innovative editing and wonderful
actors full of youth and bravado. I WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN! Are you
reading this, BBC? Find your original 2" tapes or the 35mm film, deal with the
actors and directors for the rights, and re-issue! I know, I know, some of them are
dead, some of them are missing in action. Where else will I be able to
see Mary Morris as the 'serpent's heart wrapped in a tiger's hide'? Where else will
I be able to see Paul Daneman do 'Now is the winter of discontent....'? Or Robert
Hardy deliver his speech about 'that idol ceremony'?
I believe it has been over 40 years since I saw this series, yet memory of it
hasn't faded a bit. This would be a natural for DVD re-issue, it seems to me. Many
of the performers have gone on to greater fame (Robert Hardy, Sean Connery, to name
a couple); though it was a smallish role, I still remember Judy Dench, then in her
20's, as Katherine of France (Henry V). She was very lovely then as now. There is a hint on this site that the series was filmed in color - is this
so? Who of us would know - virtually no color TV in those days. Mores the pity, no
VCR's; if so, some might have recorded it. As a way of teaching English history,
this series made it come alive in ways few class room teachers can manage. What a fine re-issue this would be!
Possibly the finest moment of TV, at least in my memory, as millions could watch
Shakespeare's gripping Kings cycle (Richard II - Richard III) play out on prime
time TV (I believe it was on Friday nights). No word was left out, and the plays
awoke in me (who was then in elementary school) a thirst for history and a hunger
for Shakespeare and drama. Let's see these reissued on DVD. What a set
this would be!
Boogie Nights follows a theme that is extremely familiar to gangster films
(although it doesn't fit into that genre itself) - the rise and the fall. We see
the rise of several individuals, some of them from complete obscurity, to achieving
great heights ... and then falling from grace due to their excesses. I
believe that this is the first feature by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson, and
it's a great start! I saw elements of other directors' influences, such as Robert
Altman, but the film holds its own in originality and plot development. Character development is the movie's finest feature. I really identified with all
of the characters and felt their pain and their success with them. All of the
performances were brilliant. (It was especially good to see a small part performed
by real-life porn veteran, Nina Hartley). Basically this film combines
comedy and tragedy with the result being one of the best films of 1997, which was
snubbed at the Oscars (probably due to the "racy" - as they would say - subject
matter, and the general conservatism of the Academy.
This film is a masterpiece. It was exhilarating from beginning to end. Writer-
director Paul Thomas Anderson's story about a porn star is told with style, grace,
humor, even poignancy. The actors and the characters they play are all first-rate,
including Mark Wahlberg in the lead, who proves himself a solid actor and can carry
a film. Burt Reynolds gives perhaps his best performance ever as a porno director
who discovers Wahlberg. The film recreates the late 70s and early 80s with dead-on
accuracy, from the disco scene that begins the film to Wahlberg's Don Johnson
"Miami Vice" outfit that he wears in the final scene. Most regular moviegoers who
see this film will no doubt compare it to PULP FICTION, but it really has much more
in common with the films of Robert Altman and Martin Scorsese. The film is a
triumph in style. The opening tracking shot that begins the film is just as
impressive as the ones in THE PLAYER and ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS. The editing by Dylan
Tichenor is simply phenomenal. I couldn't believe the editing didn't receive an
Oscar nomination (GOOD WILL HUNTING was a better edited film?!). The best scene in
the film has to be the one with the firecrackers. I had butterflies in my stomach
because the scene is incredibly intense. When I saw the film a second time, I had
the exact same reaction to the scene. Unfortunately, it may not have the same
impact on TV as it did in a theater with good stereo sound. It's a shame that many
people didn't see this movie during its theatrical run, because it is the best way
to watch it. Anderson's use of widescreen will suffer on TV (so get the DVD or a
letterbox tape). It is amazing how easy Anderson makes it all look, because this is
only his second film. The music, sets, costumes, photography, offbeat characters,
sex, violence, happiness and heartbreak are captured by a guy who is clearly in
love with filmmaking.
This was the best film of 1998 and one of the best of the 90's. Yes, it is a rip
off of Goodfellas. But as the saying goes, good poets borrow, great poets steal.
And PTA has stolen brilliantly from some of the best, plus added some genius
touches of his own. I gave this a ten (which is very rare for me). The
main reason I am commenting on this though (cause i could just rave all night) is
all those people who have seen it on VHS standard issue...what are you thinking?
This deserves the FULL SCREEN experience. Look at the ratio it was shot in! I saw
it 5 times at the cinema and haven't bothered to watch it on video. Nuff
said!
This movie has it all. Great actors, good dialog, drama, comedy, and excellent
writing and directing by Paul Thomas Anderson. I have seen this film several times
and enjoy it more each time. It doesn't get old, it is consistently entertaining
and stimulating. Easily Burt Reynolds best role, and he does a great job. John C.
Reilly and Don Cheadle also give excellent comedic performances. There is not a
weak element in this film.
An interesting companion piece to true documentaries of John C. Holmes.
Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with what ultimately killed Holmes, and it certainly
could have benefited from doing so. Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg got the most
praise for this, but I felt the true stars were Julianne Moore as the cocaine-
sniffing mother wannabe, Don Cheadle as a black man struggling with identity as
pornstar/stereo-salesman in some wild getups and William H. Macy, who's wife is the
ultimate slut. Not to mention a nearly unrecognizable Alfred Molina. Macy's new
year's eve bash and Cheadle's chance for a better life after a donut shop robbery
gone wildly wrong are probably the two best scenes in the movie, or at least the
two best shot. What this movie does best is show how power can easily corrupt in
its various forms. However, none of the characters apparently learn anything from
their dark downward spiral as they all rebound and return to their normal lives.
As long as you can get past your puritanical instincts and realize that
pornographers are people too, you'll realize the depth p.t. anderson gives to his
characters. Also, an incredible soundtrack. The songs are so tightly tied to their
scenes, you won't be able to hear them without thinking about the movie
again. Philip Seymour Hoffman is worth the price of admission alone.
I saw this movie once a long time ago, just once, and I didn't know where it had
come from, and I looked for about six years to find it, and I finally found it here
at IMDb.com! Just the whole concept of the movie is great, I believe it's got
something to do with a race of bioengineered beings, keeping tabs on us and our
planet, but there is one person who keeps out of being assimilated into conformity.
And the way that he does it,to keep himself from being tracked and located, is what
keeps the movie entertaining. I don't remember exactly how it ended, but I
remember, it finished with a great climax, and a good twist.
This is a absolutely masterful stroke of genius by Paul Thomas Anderson the
writer/director of this movie. It really examines the pluses and minuses of the
world of porn and consequences for your actions living in a world literally fueled
by sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. Only of the finest casts assembled with Mark
Wahlberg, Burt Reynolds, Heather Graham, Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Philip
Seymour Hoffman, Don Cheadle, Philip Baker Hall, and others.
"Boogie Nights" is a masterpiece it tells a great story with flair an great
direction from a very talented director. This film features a cast which turn in
outstanding performances. Though the subject matter is very controversial but it is
handled with great care by very talented people. This movie has an unexpected
emotional impact also, you will remember it long after it is over.
What a movie! It has undeniably entertaining subject matter (unless you're a prude)
and a mature, funny, and complex script from Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, Hard
Eight). PT Anderson will undoubtably be around for some time. The evidence is here
in this epic and ambitious masterpiece. Every character is expertly played and
touching and fully-shaped. From Burt Reynolds as Jack Horner (the director) to
Julianne Moore (his movie-star) and Mark Whalberg (as Dirk Diggler) they all are
fabulous. And the story? WOW! Honest look at business and failure and consequences
and family. One of the best movies of all time! i give it a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A+
Sometimes the Academy doesn't recognize the potential of some films, or doesn't
nominate them because they are controversial or strong. Sometimes they are
nominated, but don't win anything (I hope this doesn't happen this year with
"American Beauty"). This is exactly what happened with "Boogie Nights", which was
the best film of 1997. The Academy preferred to give the best picture Oscar to
"Titanic", a purely commercial and hollow film, and other awards to the overrated
"Good Will Hunting" and the irritating "Full Monty". The other pictures which were
nominated in the main category were "L.A. Confidential" and "As Good as it Gets",
great movies, but "Boogie Nights" is still better and should have been remembered
in more categories. This amazing film tells the story of Eddie Adams
(Mark Wahlberg, in a surprisingly great performance), a 17 year old barman who
takes the attention of Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds, in a redeeming acting), a
director of porn films. Eddie has a special 'gift', and this helps him to get into
the world of porn movies. He changes his name for Dirk Diggler and starts to make a
huge success. But fame... doesn't last forever. Other characters also have their
parallel stories- Amber Waves (Julianne Moore, perfect), Buck (Don Cheadle) and
others, including Rollergirl (Heather Graham), an actress who accepts to do
anything, but she has to be wearing her roller shoes. What could have
been a banal, trivial film, turns into a perfect, memorable one in the hands of
Paul Thomas Anderson. What makes "Boogie Nights" such a great film is its
execution, added to a clever, well written screenplay, great soundtrack, etc. Each
character is very well developed, and each of them has his/her importance in the
context. Each feeling, weakness, fear, emotion is explored, resulting in a
masterpiece of the modern American cinema. "Boogie Nights" is a strong,
impacting picture that should be seen by everyone who really likes cinema. Under a
plot that seems banal at first impression, there is a wonderful story of highs and
downs, things that we face in our lives. It is an amazing portrait of the end of
the '70s and the beginning of the '80s, exactly an age of highs and downs. That's
what makes this film so special and a true masterpiece. 10/10
The three names that mean the most to this film are Burt Reynolds, Mark Wahlberg,
and Julianne Moore. These three deliver the strongest performances, but the entire
cast does a wonderful job. The film although about the porn industry does not let
itself get out of hand with it's own sexual premise. On the other hand there were
many scenes that involved drug use and although important to understanding the
characters lifestyle, I think there was some overkill in this department. Paul
Thomas Anderson has not done a great deal of directing, but he may have been picked
for this film based on his 1988 work "The Dirk Diggler Story." One thing that was
brilliantly portrayed is the family like atmosphere between the characters as they
work, live, and party together. Although not a typical family they certainly seem
to care for each other. The wonderful soundtrack really helps give you a feel for
the period during a time when disco was the rage. There are many disco favorites on
it and some other wonderful songs as well. The story is about a gifted
young man named Eddie Adams (Wahlberg) that gets invited into the porn industry. He
changes his name to Dirk Diggler and becomes and adult film star almost overnight.
Jack Horner (Reynolds) is the director that takes his films very seriously as he
believes his work is more than just pornography, but that they are true art.
However Dirk becomes overly dependent on drugs and soon heads down a dangerous road
where he stands to loose everything. Although a greater focus is placed on the
character Dirk there are subplots for the other characters and their trials in
life. You will find yourself wishing for and hoping their situations improve. All-
in-all a well done film.
This is a classic that will be able to hold up with drama's to come simply because
of the fact that it is shot with a 70's style and it's a story about the 70's. It
is funny, action-filled, entertaining and sad at the same time. It has the effect
to pull you into the lives of these poor folks and the consequences for their
actions. 4 STARS!
Some time ago I saw this when HBO was showing it and from what I saw of it, it
seemed like a good movie. so I'm in Blockbuster today and I see it there with the
DVD'S and I decide what the hell. So I rent it. After I finished watching it I was
in shock of how good it was. This movie just touched my heart.
Everything in it was so amazing. The stories, the actors, the dark humor, the
MUSIC!!! Oh don't get me started on the music in this film. PT Andderson is one of
the greats. Definitely the best thing to come out since Quentin Tarantino(a
god.) After I finished the first viewing I watched it again with
Anderson's commentary (I was suprised on how such a cool guy he is.) Anybody who is interested in movies at all should watch this movie, if they
haven't already. Anderson is obviously a film lover. In the movie he rips off so
many other directors tecniques. Such as the pool scene with the camera following
the girl through the water. Obviously ripped off from "I Am Cuba." But I have no
beef what so ever with that. The film is very respectable with it's ripoff's. I recomend this film to anybody who can deal with some of the content of
the film(porn.) 10/10
Sometime ago I watched a video of Paul Thomas Anderson in which he express the big
interest that he has in porn films and how this industry could've produce better
films and in consequence a complete genre and not just sex in video tape. Paul
Thomas Anderson put his own believes of porn industry in the character played in a
terrific way by Burt Reynolds. His name is Jack Horner, a director whose biggest
dream is to make a "real" film that can keep the viewer in suspense because of the
great dramatic story and, at the same time, exciting with the beauty and with the
"big cocks and tits". Soon as he meets Eddie Adams (Mark Walhberg), he believes
that he has found the new star for his films. And that's how the story of the young
Eddie in the porn industry begins. The film begins with a sequence
inside a night club where we can see all the persons that will be part of Eddie's
life and later we can see them outside the porn industry, living their daily
routine. But soon we can see them inside the porn industry and after only one
party, the story of the new Eddie begins, the story of Dirk Diggler. All of them
will taste the real success with Dirk as the main star, winning lots of prizes and
helping Jack to make real his biggest dream with a series of films about Brock
Landers, the new character of Dirk. This sort of exploitation films are an amazing
success and for Jack are his firsts "real" films. But here is the beginning of the
end and the beginning of the "horrible 80's" when there is going to be $ex, DRUGS
and Rock & Roll for Dirk and pals. But we all know that the excesses can destroy
any person and the erectile dysfunction can destroy any porn star and here the film
focuses in their lives after the total success and how everybody is having a real
bad time with many problems due to society's bad look to porn industry and to a
period with many excesses. In Dirk's decadence, after trying and failing in the
music industry, there's a brilliant sequence that can resume in a perfect way how
the things are going for Dirk and his friends. That sequence is the one of his
first drug deal, with the appearance of Alfred Molina, which ends in a total mess.
Is funny for us and a terrible experience for Dirk and pals but there's always a
solution if you get back in what you know and when Dirk is back, Brock is
back. Well I haven't mention most of the characters in my sort of a
summary but I must say that all are amazingly well developed. The cast is just
superb with the best performance that I have seen of Mark Walhberg. Julianne Moore
has a powerful performance in a really moving character; Reilly, Macy, Hoffman,
Heather Graham, Guzman, etc are just memorable, all of their characters with funny
and sad moments. Finally, I really love the amazing cinematic style of
Anderson here with a unique view to the porn industry of the late 70's and early
80's. I used to say that "Magnolia" was my favourite of Anderson but right now,
after watching all except "Sidney", I can't say that I have a favourite because I
love them all! PS: somewhere I read that this film is the "Scorsese
film" of Anderson so I'm more than sure that if you love "Goodfellas" and "Casino"
you will love this one too. I f*cking love "Boogie Nights"!
This picture's following will only grow as time goes by. Better than any of the
best picture nominees in 97 and it rewards repeated viewings. I've seen it three
times now so I know. Anderson was compared to some of the great American directors
(Altman, Scorcese, Tarantino) and he may have those influences but chances are,
after a few more films, he'll be considered part of that short list himself. One last note: Julianne Moore's "Amber Waves" will resonate in the memory
long after other 90's movie characters have faded. THE best performance of the year
-in any of the four categories.
Altman and Scorsese have twisted sex together in one of the greatest American films
of the past 20 years. Boogie Nights didn't make a huge initial splash, and I still
don't think it's received the credit it deserves. The immediate clamor surrounding
the film ("Some porn movie with Marky Mark") was wholly without merit. What Paul
Thomas Anderson has created is no less than a stunning representation of the
pursuit and subsequent loss of the American Dream (if such a thing still
exists). For those of you who have been living in a box (or a
confessional) for the past 8 years, Boogie Nights tells the literal rise-and-fall
tale of young Eddie Adams (Wahlberg). Eddie is just a dopey kid from Torrance,
California who wants something more out of life. His room is soaked in muscle-
bound, naive Americana. His dreams are far bigger than his potential, but not quite
as large as his...special gift. His bald-headed southern gent quickly raises the
attention and eyebrows of the booming, omni-present adult film industry. Jack
Horner (Burt Reynolds as the film's twinkle-eyed Papa Bear) gets wind of Eddie's
hidden talent and decides to put him in a movie. Before you can say
"deep-throat," Eddie has changed his name to Dirk Diggler and exposed his massive
member to a wide-eyed public. Fame and fortune make Dirk's acquaintance, as do a
bevy of local porn celebs. His friends and co-workers become his makeshift family,
but it soon proves to be a Sunday picnic like no other. As the feel-good 70s give
way to the coke-addled, video-friendly 80s, Dirk & Co. begin a dangerous backslide.
 Anderson put everything he had into this glorious, moving epic. It
sizzles and never fizzles. Nary a frame of this monumental picture is wasted, and
the characters and their dialogue live with us long after ELO fades from the
soundtrack. See this one immediately. And then watch it again. And
again.
Ten years before "The Matrix" and hot on the heals of "They Live" came this
brilliant piece of low budget science fiction film making. If you like bizarre,
unconventional, intellectually challenging, David Lynch meets John Carpenter style
movie-making you'll love "Split". There are moments of true genius in the framing
and cinematography. Look closely at a sequence shot through wine glasses in an art
opening party and right after that a scene involving cue cards. The plot involves a
man named Starker who lives outside of society who wants to wake us up from the
dream. Similar to "They Live", "1984" and "The Matrix", it is based on the premise
that we are all constantly monitored by shadowy Big Brother type government agents
that know everything about us and have invisible robot probes constantly patrolling
the city. This is all revealed pretty early on in the plot. POSSIBLE SPOILER:
Starker has invented a drug that when placed in the water supply will wake everyone
up from the illusion of reality. Along with the cinematography and the ingenious
ways the director makes do with his shoestring budget, the other highlights of this
film are the monologues. I challenge anyone to not be rewinding, memorizing and
quoting the classic quotes from this movie for years to come.
A small town kid working in a big city becomes a huge star and then spirals out of
control. It shows you the rise to fame and then fall from fame and back to a little
rise. Great cast of actors, and a great director = a great, great movie called
Boogie Nights. P.T Anderson. An amazing director who made Boogie Nights
amazing. From the moment the movie starts to the moment it ends you can feel how
beautiful this movie is. Some scenes are breathtaking, literally. A great story, a
great movie. Mark Whalberg was fantastic, Philip Seymour Hoffman was wonderful as
he is in everything. Thomas Jane also was magnificent and although he only had a
small part he played it to perfection. There is one scene in this movie I can't get
over, "The Drug Deal Gone Bad Scene" it was amazing, music acting and
cinematography combined to make it amazing. I hadn't seen Boogie Nights and thank
god I did, its so well rounded and I am now a HUGE fan of PTA (Paul Thomas
Anderson). Do whatever you have to do and watch this movie.
Boogie Nights was without a doubt the best film of 1997. I could watch this movie
over and over and over and still love it. I'm in no rush to watch that overblown
romance/disaster epic Titanic again. The fact that Boogie Nights did not even
receive a Best Picture nomination just goes to prove how predictable and narrow-
minded the Academy is. Only Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter and Robert Zemeckis's
Contact came close to being as great as Boogie Nights. No other filmmaker in recent
years has come even remotely close to making a film as good as Tarantino's Pulp
Fiction -- until now. Paul Thomas Anderson rose to the challenge and succeeded.
Just as Tarantino gave John Travolta's career a kick, P.T. Anderson has given Burt
Reynolds the kick that his career needs. Boogie Nights will also undoubtedly make
stars of Don Cheadle, Heather Graham, and John Reilly. Overall, a wonderful film.
The best since Pulp Fiction. Maybe even better.
'Boogie Nights' uses its protagonist, Dirk Diggler, as a metaphor for accumulated
celebrities from a decade in America's shameful past, which was comprised of an
unexpected rise in pornography, therefore resulting in an abundance of corrupted
youth. Its lead character borrows traits from a various assortment of genuine
actors, involving himself in many illegal affairs that have been dabbled in by
celebrities in Hollywood, and all-too-often exploited by the press. It seems like
the sort of tall tale that might appear on an E! True Hollywood Story special.
Drugs, sex and violence -- the American Dream. But what goes up must come down, and
the bigger it is, the harder it falls. Dirk Diggler's dreams are huge,
as is another valuable asset on his body. Dirk's real name is Eddie Adams, a
Californian who dreams of becoming a star. He believes that God gives one great
talent to every individual on the planet, and his gift is a rather unusual one.
After falling out with his mother, Eddie leaves home and meets the sleazy Jack
Horner (Burt Reynolds), an adult film director who offers him work. Eddie
eventually becomes a major porn star, representing the leading "actor" in most of
Horner's films. With newfound success, Eddie is told that he needs to invent a new
alias for himself, and so Dirk Diggler is born. Eddie/Dirk himself is
primarily based on infamous porn star John Holmes, whose life story was adapted in
2003 with 'Wonderland', which starred Val Kilmer. 'Boogie Nights' is unarguably the
better of the two, proving that movies about pornography can be made without
disgusting its target audience: regular cinema-goers. The film takes
place in 1977, an era of artistic pornography -- filmmakers truly believed that
they could compensate for the low points of X-rated features by adding deep stories
and mesmerizing atmosphere. In a way, the film's director -- Paul Thomas Anderson
-- implements a very artistic approach to the project, resulting in a gratuitous
and artistic movie about a period in American history when smut was indeed both
gratuitous and artistic. Anderson's style is so deep, and so distinct, that we soon
feel as if we are reliving the era first-hand. Not a moment goes by where we are
unconvinced of the time range dealt with in the film. All was not happy
on the set of 'Boogie Nights'. Prior to filming, Anderson approached Reynolds
repeatedly, asking him many separate times to play the role of Horner. Eventually,
Reynolds agreed, but claimed that the film was horrible and the worst role of his
career, publicly disowning it, before being nominated for a Best Supporting Actor
Academy Award and suddenly shutting up. A year before, Anderson had suffered title
disputes over Sydney/Hard Eight. He preferred the latter title for his film, and
New Line Cinema thought the former was more marketable. He essentially lost the
battle, and Anderson wisely avoided title disputes this time around by inserting
the words "boogie nights" into his movie through the mouth of a character. The casting of the film is one of its finest aspects. The Paul Thomas Anderson
regulars are here, as well as a whole top-notch cast of first-timers. To name some
of the more well-known stars: John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzman,
William H. Macy, Heather Graham and Julianne Moore. But the entire movie
essentially borders down to Mark Wahlberg, as Eddie, who is surprisingly convincing
in his role. Wahlberg, previously known for his singing career and disappointing
Hollywood pursuits, has all the necessary traits to portray such a character. This
is his best role to date. Anderson knows how to captivate his audience
and take complete control of every scene. When Jack Horner first meets Eddie,
Anderson slyly uses stars in the backdrop, a sign of things to come, and hidden
symbolism as finely acute as it can be. The opening scene is three minutes, a long
tracking shot that follows Jack and Amber into a night club, where most of the
characters are first introduced. It reminds me of the discussions regarding
tracking shots in Robert Altman's 'The Player' -- it works so brilliantly in Boogie
Nights, and is the first indication that Anderson knows what he is doing behind the
camera. His style is fast-paced in the vein of Martin Scorsese, where shots zip
around quite quickly but never seem rushed. Incidentally, Anderson references two
classic Scorsese shots -- the closing De Niro mirror speech from 'Raging Bull' and
the tracking nightclub scene from 'GoodFellas'. Anderson is a young, growing
director who is remarkably mature in story and direction, despite his age. Whereas
his first feature film, 'Hard Eight', was noticeably wise and poignant, 'Boogie
Nights' is even more so. 'Boogie Nights' began as an effort of love on
Paul Thomas Anderson's account. Having filmed the extraordinary Hard Eight in 1996,
Anderson's film is pragmatic to such an extreme that it almost seems genuine.
Boogie Nights invigorates us with its gratuitous content, occasionally bordering on
the verge of pornography, only it is far more sophisticated than such trash. It is
a blazing, wonderful modern-day masterpiece that is as mind-numbingly explicit as
it is wild and stylish. Arguably Anderson's best film and among the greatest -- and
most important -- projects of the last decade.
Everything that you need to know about the pornography of the late 70s and early
80s is all wrapped up in Paul Thomas Anderson's BOOGIE NIGHTS. Although the film is
completely fictional, it is actually supposedly based on the story of porno kingpin
John Holmes. In Southern California in 1977, Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg)
is working as a busboy in a nightclub. One of the regular customers is pornographer
Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and two of his starlets, Amber Waves (Julianne Moore)
and Rollergirl (Heather Graham). Jack and Eddie meet and Jack realizes that Eddie
is well...a little...gifted. So Eddie stars in Jack's films under the
pseudonym of "Dirk Diggler." He becomes a "big" porno star (no pun intended) and
seems to be on top of everything. Then comes the 80s when video replaces film and
Jack's porno empire begins to collapse, along with Dirk Diggler and everybody else
working in the field. BOOGIE NIGHTS is a really well-filmed drama. There
is a little bit of violence, but P.T. Anderson makes it more stylized. And it kind
of is a scathing approach to the degradations of pornography, especially when VHS
became the standard medium for making pornos. A lot of bizarre and
unique characters are introduced. William H. Macy has an interesting role as
someone working on the films, whose wife keeps having sex with everybody. I
especially liked Don Cheadle's role as Buck the stereo salesman. The best
performance is BOOGIE NIGHTS was definitely Burt Reynolds. A 90s classic!
What has to change in today's attitude towards films like Boogie Nights is the
approach. The approach is awful! Comparing it to Pulp Fiction, seeing only the
pornography, and all its aspects.. come on people, there is more than that in this
beautiful motion picture. And to all the sceptics, hasn't Paul Thomas Anderson
proved himself worthy time and time again? Magnolia is one of the main reasons I
watch American films at all and still have faith in this "Industry" that film-
making is today.. And what about There Will Be Blood? That is a film that will stay
in film history whether u like it or not! Yeah, you! The so-called consumer.. you
know something: F#*k you! you don't deserve this, you don't deserve anything. So
many artists today struggle to get recognition and it has become increasingly
difficult to make serious films, even mainstream, because people just wanna see
celebrities doing stupid stuff.. like that sell-out Britney spears. Anyway, this was very painful for me to say because I don't want to see this, i
don't wanna believe that today all it matters is the adding up of numbers.. sales
revenue and sales return.. I want to see magic, the magic that Fellini, Bergman and
Kurosawa brought and created through the language of cinema.. Because thats what
PTA is doing.. he is creating magic!!
I rented Boogie Nights last week and I could tell you, when I watched the film I
had a blast. If you think that when you watch the film you will get sicked by the
porn. I mean yes, if your not a porn person who can't bother being by it, than this
isn't the film to see. But the thing is, the whole film isn't really about porn.
Well halfway through the film is about the porn industry but the other half is
about the character development and the bad situations these characters go through.
The actors played there roles perfect, especially Mark Wahlberg, John C. Reilly,
and William H. Macy. The sex scenes, of course are terrific but mainly focus on the
character's hype in porn films until there struggles. Excellent film, one of the
best! Hedeen's Outlook: 10/10 **** A+
The brilliance of this story delivers at least one skillfully crafted message to
each viewer in the audience. This story is about success, it's about failure. It's
about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. The story
deals with self realization and determination on a scale so large, no camera angle
could cover it. Within the grasp of each scene is resides an element marked for
depiction within your imagination. Keep this in mind as you watch the movie; it's
more than eye candy. The sexually suggestive, rarely explicit scenes serve only to
distract and entertain you during the tedious process of character development.
Boogie Nights is one of the best films to come out of the 90's and I'd go so far as
to say it should be in the IMDb top 250. I can actually understand why many would
dislike it, due to the subject matter. I personally feel however as many do,
judging from the aclaim this film's received by viewers and critics that it's
topnotch film making. The direction and acting in this film surpass good
and reach the level of brilliance.There is not one scene in this movie that isn't
amazing. The individual characters reach out and touch you. Given that this is a
movie about the porn industry, one wouldn't imagine the sex scenes could be handled
with such sensitivity but they are. The direction is among the best I've ever seen-
and I've seen a lot of films. The film isn't about one particular
personal individual's story, it's about many.It's a character study about people
who have many layers to them and who maybe in an industry most would find alien but
who still dream the same dreams and have both bad and good to them. Boogie Nights
draws you into their story from the beginning, and though the film is long(I
believe almost 3 hours) you honestly don't even notice. And when it ends you kind
of don't want it to.... I'm not easy to impress, meaning there aren't
many movies I'd give a 10 of 10 rating to but this is one. Beyond the multiple
character study, is the use of music in the film. I have never, in all my years of
seeing movies seen music tell a story as well as in this movie.There was such
flawlessness to it, you know it's not something your gonna see everyday. Burt reynold's performance was perhaps the best I've ever seen him do, and
Mark Wahlberg is incredible(I'm astounded there are still people saying he doesn't
act well. I don't know how anyone viewing this could possibly think that)but the
person who really surprised me was Heather Grahem(Rollergirl) who is absolutely
fantastic in her role, in particular the one memorable scene with Burt Reynolds in
the Limo, towards the end. Again, I'll echo other IMDb reviewers in
saying this movie is not for everybody. But I still think this was topnotch.10 of
10.
Boogie Nights is full of surprises, nothing quite prepares one for it its soul.
Yes, it does have soul, whilst tackling the tackiest of subject matter, with both a
wry smile and respect. Brillantly cast and wonderful character development, the
performances somehow combine the best of stage acting with improvisation within a
cinema verite style. The plot proved richer than I expected and the
underlying themes are teased out quite profoundly as each "B grade" human being is
brought, through crisis, into perspective. A sociologist's dream case
study, the film resonates the raw truth of what we all know about self-esteem,
parental love and lack of it, attention/love deficit and its manifestation in
adulthood, the desperate need to belong. Something for everyone here.. almost
camouflaged as issues of untouchables and their separate milieu but of course they
are universal. The film works on a number of levels. The ironic loop is
that the milieu portrayed exists only because of the voyeur, who happens to be
watching the film... Boogie Nights is non judgmental of its subject
matter and characters, a rarity. It deserves every accolade it has achieved and
more.
One of the things that I like about PT Anderson, is that he has the guts to take
talent that most people push to the side or have pushed to the side and makes them
stars. Case in point, a washed-up... Burt Reynolds delivers a great performance in
this film. And if proving Adam Sander can be a great actor (Punch Drunk Love)
wasn't enough... here comes Mark Whalburg... like you've never seen before. I think many people pass up "Boogie Nights" cause they are anti-porn, or
just flat out hate the adult industry and can't overlook that aspect of this film.
But underneath that is a great story about characters losing everything and battle
to regain themselves. There is a beautiful film... and it's too bad that enough
people see that.
If you Listen to Ween (The Pod, God/Satan), then you know what's going on with
"Split" I found that watching the film under the influence of LSD helped to deal
with Audio/Video tracers from fantastic editing job. The plot was only important
from second to second. The acid helped to interact with the sounds, subliminal and
general pace of this masterpiece. Don't bother writing about something out of your
comprehension's reach...There just isn't enough of these great independent attempts
at expression at it's most raw , amateur level. I dare anyone to make a movie that
can equally Mess with my head and change the way I look at visual arts and the
world's reality. Not to mention the many realities that haven't yet been explored
by this humans mind. I love the vision of Chris Shaw. I also appreciate the
texturing terroristic film "The Begotten" by E. Elias Merhige.
This was a bold movie to hit Indian cinemas when it was released. The first movie
to perhaps openly depict lesbian tendencies amongst Indian women. The leading
actress of Indian cinema Shabana Azmi added substance to the movie with her hot
passionate scenes with Nandita Das. The movie oozed with sexuality and
the director used sex in the best way possible. The sex was not for erotic purposes
but was in the context of the movie. The scene where Nandita Das loses her
virginity to her husband certainly was the first of its kind in Indian
cinemas. Good acting by all the actors especially Nandita Das amidst
criticism from the Indian public
This is not so much of a review as it is a testament that it has been proven, yet
again, that the Academy rewards money, not artistic accomplishment. And I must say
I am saddened that this usually artistic and intelligent band of imbd members have
left this off the top 250. Boogie Nights is powerful, raw, and gutsy through
script, direction and acting. Very few movies can claim this triple crown.
Paul Thomas Anderson's stylish and compelling take on the 70s porn industry follows
Eddie Adams, aka Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg), through six years of sex, drugs and
disco. His chance meeting with pornography director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds)
starts his career as one of the greatest adult actors of the time. Dirk's character
is based on real-life porn actor John Holmes, who, like Dirk, was renowned for
being extremely "well-endowed". This is where Dirk finds initial success. The main themes in Boogie Nights are the obvious ones relating to a film of
this genre; pornography, drugs, sex, betrayal, violence and music. Boogie Nights
deals with the pornography theme with some control. It is not overplayed and the
sex scenes are surprisingly minimal, but mentally explicit when they take place on
screen. Throughout the film cocaine is abused enormously, and the film's
setting, Los Angeles 1977-1983, reflects the popularity of the drug at that time,
which the film captures perfectly. However, Boogie Nights does not promote cocaine,
as there are some scenes involving addiction and overdoses. For example at Jack's
party, they find a girl who has recently, and graphically, overdosed; blood pours
from her nose and she begins an unconscious fit. The film, before this scenes, has
been fairly upbeat and comic, but from this point it foreshadows the darkness that
it will occur. The music scenes are executed brilliantly, from superbly-
staged disco scenes to a down-and-out Dirk singing terribly in his new music
career. The soundtrack too is excellent, featuring tunes from The Emotions, ELO,
The Beach Boys and the unforgettable Sound Experience. The standout scene in the
whole film comes down to the music; Dirk, Redd Rothchild (John C. Reilly) and Todd
Parker (Thomas Jane) visit drug dealer Rahad Jackson's (Alfred Molina) house in
order to make some quick cash from selling phoney drugs, but Night Ranger's Sister
Christian, which is playing in the background, increases the intensity of the scene
incredibly, proving that music can bring so much more depth to a scene. Boogie
Nights is filled with those kind of scenes, which makes the film even more
fantastic. The standout performance in Boogie Nights is Burt Reynolds as
the enigmatic, yet moody, film director. In the scene where he attacks a young guy
for slating his movies, it is a complete shock for the audience, because before
this point he has been pretty mellow and content. Other notable performances are
Julianne Moore, Heather Graham as the beautiful Rollergirl, John C. Reilly, and
Mark Wahlberg, who delivers the performance of his career. Boogie Nights
is also a surprisingly original film, using common themes but filmed in its own
sharp and realistic way. Anderson's approach has been fully captures these
characters in a time when nothing seemed to be going wrong, or at least until the
80s arrive. From then on, things turn very dark indeed, and all signs of the
recognisable characters and situations from the first part of the film have gone.
This does not, however, reduce the high level of engaging entertainment that this
film offers. Boogie Nights was not a box-office success, earning only £2
million at cinemas in the UK. But this is not the film's, or the director's
concern. Anderson recognises quality, not popularity, which is evident in his three
other films, Hard Eight, Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. I would recommend this film
to anyone who enjoys a simple parable filled with excellent and variable
situations, because at the end of this film you will realize that Boogie Nights is
a simple morality tale, but one which will stay in the mind days after you watch
it. Boogie Nights is at once shocking, hilarious, devastating and both visually and
audibly outstanding.
Boogie Nights is perhaps one of the greatest examples any would-be filmmaker should
take a long hard look at. Sure, you could spend loads of quality time reviewing the
clasics from Hitchcock to Scorsese; but lets follow suit for the modern generation
and study half-heartedly. Where to begin, I suppose one could look at
the film as simply a story, perhaps even docudrama which focuses on the late 1970's
porn industry-and what an industry it was! The other half could focus on the
incredible detail one brillant filmmaker can achieve simply by using polyester and
*ahem* rubber. But honestly, Boogie Nights brings back the pure, no-bul!shi$, in
your face kind of cinema I haven't experienced since the film greats of the
1970's...ironic...or stroke of genius. The story is full of richly detailed
characters, all of which you either can relate too, love, or hate; but the impact
is clear-you are feeling something for them. Among the characters the two
performances which stand out are: Burt Reynolds as Director Jack Horner, and Mark
Wahlberg as Eddie Adams/Dirk Diggler. Julianne Moore is also brillant, as is
Heather Graham...but if I focus on any one actor it would have to be John C.
Reilly. John's performance is a perfect balance of comedic timing and character
driven emotion...I'm a sucker for the line "Ever see the movie Star Wars?...People
say I look like Han Solo." Anyway, the look of the film is incredible, the Director
of Photography and Director/Writer/Producer, have come up with a vibrant colour,
and flashy style that compares to Martin Scorsese, and Stanley Kubrick(in terms of
his perfection of his craft); but with creating his own unique look, and pushing
the edge with the longest single shot I'ver ever seen...that being the New Year's
party sequence. The music, like in any great film, is a character of its
own. At times, it consumes oneself with sorrow or grief...but mainly its all about
fun, dancing, and having a good time; the spirit of the 1970's. OK, back to the
performances. Burt Reynolds plays the character of Jack Horner, a porn
director who feels the burden of what the future of "film" means to his genre. The
awful transition from shooting on film to recording on magnetic tape. The lose of
his art, as it were...and the changes in mentality to the people he works with.
Walhberg adds the perfect blend of innocense and sexual bravado needed for the
character. For all those individuals who have seen Burton's Planet of the Apes, pay
no attention to the performance of Wahlberg in that film...rent boogie nights and
see what a difference a good script can make! Julianne Moore plays the
would-be mother to all, and with that comes the torment and anguish she feels, as
life imitates art; and she loses all those close to her. Heather Graham is the eye-
candy, but later holds her own, and steals some of the scenes from even the great
Mr. Reynolds himself. Each character is multidimensional, rich with life, and
performed by actors that seem to be picture perfect for the part. The
film itself is often funny, tragic, exciting, and provides a uncompromising look
into the turblulant lifestyle of the fast-pace 1970's. It makes no excuses, and
tells no lies; and offers the audience a trip back. But even more importantly, the
movie gives us a grand example of how films should be made; and a new director
whose bold visions bring back art in film.
I've seen both movies and I saw without a doubt the re-make is the best, I know a
lot of people would disagree those who have become fans of the original will most
probably not like this re-make, but i thought it was well thought out and
definitely scary, It was so good I'm going to see it again tonight, the original
creeped me out because they kill the children, i mean who does that in movies
anyway....but in this one the children have at least half a chance...The only bad
part about this movie is when the babysitter (Jill) Walks towards the sounds she
hears and runs outside into the bushes to check for someone, clearly no one in
their right mind would do that whilst babysitting, so that is the only thing i
found wrong with the movie, and even so they probably had to put that in there to
build suspense, i don't want to give too much away for all those who have not seen
it, i recommend you do instead of listening to all these people saying its crap and
worse than the original, it would be a better movie for teenagers, as it displays
things that most of us are scared of, but when i was in the movies there were at
least 10 adults over the age of 70 in there watching it, and they enjoyed it, if
they enjoyed it i think you will to! I give it a 9 out of 10!
I was skeptical before going to this because of the horribly assembled trailer
which made it look like an equally horrible movie. I was nicely surprised by how
much i did not waste my money. I believe the films success comes from how creepy it
really is and how the environment of the house is. Little things like the sensor
lights create a true uneasy feeling. The shadows and ominously cold feeling of the
house make it easy to tell that no matter how much you know horror films, anything
could happen in the film. The acting is by no means perfect, nor were they bad. The
main character is convincing even given the annoying teen dramas that surround her.
In the end, I was thoroughly impressed with the film in most aspects. It
is definitely a film i would recommend.
All you need is great house, a babysitter and a phone. Simon West directs this
thrilling and chilling remake of the 1979 original. This version is more of a
thriller than a horror flick. Emotionally tense with an escalating fear factor.
Jill Johnson(Camilla Belle)needs to work off an excessive cell phone bill; she
takes on the task of babysitting the two children of Dr. and Mrs. Mandrakis(Derek
de Lint and Kate Jennings Grant). The house is a beautiful 1970ish wood and glass
masterpiece. Secluded and peaceful. The kids are already in bed, the wind builds
and is joined by down-pouring rain. The phone begins ringing, ringing, ringing. The
babysitter is soon in a frantic mode of survival in fear of the creepy stranger on
the other end of the phone. Belle is great as the innocent, smart and
strong teen babysitter. The voice of the stranger on the phone is that of Lance
Henriksen, while the physical stranger is played by Tommy Flanagan. Also featured
are: Katie Cassidy and Brian Geraghty. Kudos to James Dooley for the atmospheric
original music.
People say that this film is a 'typical teen horror movie'... well it's a horror
movie with a teenage girl in it.. what do you expect! It's a good film, I counted 3
actual screams in the audience whilst the film was on and it was a very jumpy scary
film. I wasn't bored in the film at any point and I was even on the edge of my seat
at one point. The only thing that was slightly bad was that it was a tiny bit slow
in getting into the actual storyline but this all led up to why she was where she
was and why what happened, happened. The acting was good, the scenery was good and
the storyline was good too, I hope to see a 'When A Stranger Calls 2' in a few
months! Good film!
If you have ever babysat in a house you didn't know, or if you saw the original and
enjoyed it then this will be a good choice. Ignoring the reviews and what was
posted here, I went ahead and rented this movie because of the memories of how the
original scared me as a teen. This movie has (of course)changed some of the
original story to relate to todays teens, such as the babysitter is in trouble for
going over on her cell phone minutes and has to take on a babysitting job to pay
her bill. However, it sticks to the original story line pretty well. If you can
relate to the babysitter, not knowing the house and it's usual pops and cracks it
is quite suspenseful. When the killer is shown he is very creepy and you find
yourself yelling at the girl to "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE". If you have never babysat
or been in a situation like this then you probably will not be able to relate and
will not like it. It's all about understanding her fear.
A hundred miles away from the scene of a grizzly murder in small town American,
Jill Johnson (Belle) settles in for a night of babysitting. With the children
asleep and a beautiful home to relax in, she locks the door and sets the alarm. But
when a series of eerie phone calls from a stranger says that she "check the
children," Jill panics. Fear to terror when she has the calls traced. And what the
police find turns the perfect babysitting job into a 16-year-old's worst nightmare.
There aren't any other lead actors in this movie. Camilla Belle is the main star
with a cute face. The day she arrives to babysit, she really has no idea what in
the hell really awaits her. If I were in a house like the one Jill was
in. I would explore everything that is around. The fridge would be the first person
I would looks at, but I'm a male and I don't babysit. But what I found funny was
the size of the house. I was thinking, would the movie be the same if the house
weren't so big? Anyone could get lost in that huge house, but this movie needed a
house with a massive size. Camilla Belle has a cute face, a perfect
smile but it's like for a movie like this, the lead actress needs someone with
experience. I found Camilla not that good. I don't know maybe she thought that this
could be her breakthrough role. I do like her, she is a cute girl but someone to
have a role in this movie has to be someone how is different to take it. This movie wasn't scary. I also found this movie more like a "chick flick".
I think the only reason this was released during the SuperBowl Weekend was that the
guys stay home and watch the game and the girls go out to go see this. It also
seems like a type of a movie when girls will enjoy more than guys. But I did like
this movie but for how it is. Girls just like tog et scared or scream. This was
just a pretty decent movie. Maybe anyone could like this movie. There
are many PG-13 horror films that never succeed. This was on its own level. So I
kinda liked this movie. I give it a 7/10.
I was recently at a sleepover birthday party with five other girls all my age
(eleven.) All of us, thinking it would be some harmless little movie such as Jaws
decided to rent it along with Rat Race. (We watched Rat Race after When a Stranger
Calls as to ease our fear.) We put the movie on at 11:00 at night and lay together
in our sleeping bags hiding behind covers for most of it. I screamed five times
which is unusual for me as I get scared in movies but never scared enough to
actually scream. All of us were terrified to even leave the bedroom as
we were all positive the Stalker (Jenkins as we called him for some reason)would
get us. I played a mean trick; one everyone was all dozing off once Rat Race was
over I hid under my sleeping bag and said quietly and lowly "HAVE YOU CHECKED THE
CHILDEN?" They all SCREAMED like nuts and were so scared. All in all I would rate
this movie a 9. The only thing I didn't like was that 1. There were too many false
alarms when Jill thinks the Stalker is there and 2. The kids never woke up during
the whole thing until Jenkins kidnapped them and hid them in the cupboard at which
time all they did was cry like babies. I would highly recommend this movie to
anyone who likes thriller. But one thing: I AM SO NOT BABYSITTING PAST 9:00 PM EVER
AGAIN1!
This is the type of film that may need to be viewed several times to capture all of
its beauty and intelligence { just like Curse of Frankenstein from 1957} . If you
don't like odd, non-mainstream films, steer clear of this masterpiece. For me, the
artwork alone in this film is worth the purchase price of the videocassete. The
storyline is a bit fantastic but seems to becoming reality in our world today. For
being produced in the 1980s, this film is proving to be a prophetic vision of whats
to come with Big government and Big brother wanting to control and monitor
us. There are many slow sections and the dialog can be quite hard to
catch in many scenes { thats why I've watched it 6 times now} but if you can digest
it all, it may prove to be well worth your time. The film is basically
about a world where people have evolved into robotic machines that have lost their
individualism . They are only concerned about accumulating and procreating. The
hero of the film has not succumb to this sickness and has not been " tagged" and
monitored by big brother. His mission is to release a secret drug into the water
supply which will change the way the human robots think and allow individulaism to
once again be a part of humanity. Yes, its very low budget, but for its
time the computer effects and sound effects are very unique and the paintings are
utterly fascinating. If you have an open mind, this film should impress and its
prophetic visions are chilling.
Simon Wests pg-13 thriller about a babysitter who gets disturbing prank calls while
sitting at a mansion is neither original nor exciting enough to be called a good
film. Although there are some elements of suspense, good eye candy and decent
characters, the film is just another I know what you did last summer, as it falls
short of being taken seriously. The performances were alright, but nothing special
with this flick, i say skip it, unless you are looking for a mediocre movie, you
can find better films than this on lifetime sometimes, okay maybe not lifetime but
at least USA or somethin, haha.... 7/10
The movie is about a girl who's not going to a bonfire only because she's baby-
sitting that night. Nothing weird about that, right? Until ... The phone rings.
Until ... The phone rings again. And again ... And again. Those are not some stupid
prank calls. This is for real. If you wanna see how the girl reacts, just watch the
movie. Great atmosphere filled with scary sounds. Very well performed by
young Camilla Belle who got the lead role. I see in her some great potential to
become a good actress. This is more than only a decent thriller, I have no idea why
it's so underrated. Anyway, on my opinion this movie deserves more than only 4/10.
24% of all voters rated the movie with 1. Get serious, people. You couldn't get a
better thriller for a title like this.
When A Stranger Calls is actually a pretty good movie. I had never saw the original
and so when I watched this I thought it was unique. When When A Stranger Calls was
advertised on the television the trailer gave away the ending. Well, I never saw
the trailer so when I saw this film I was surprised at how good it turned out to
be. I walked by it one day and decided I'd buy it and now I'm lucky I did, because
I thought it was a very pleasing movie that is a nice little film to own. It is
getting a lot of unfair treatment, and if you're interested in this movie at all,
don't listen to all the negativity. Camille Belle is not as bad of an actress as
everyone makes her out to be, and she did a great job in this movie, so all you
haters get over yourselves, lighten up, and actually try to enjoy this movie for
what it is; A fun, teeny bopper, popcorn flick. If you haven't seen it please do
for it is a lot more enjoyable than a lot of the other slashers being made
recently...
Don't listen to most of these people. ill give you a better review of this movie
which me and my friend love! Its about Jill Johnson, played by Camilla Belle, who
babysits at the Mendrakis' house and someone breaks in. if you're wondering how he
got in the house, he went through the garage most likely. so anyway, don't listen
to, "the worst acting". it has amazing acting. with a great story. I think that
there are 2 benefits that Jill has. 1. shes a fast runner and is on the track team.
2.she got out alive! lol. it is a cool movie and quite scary. check it
out, you will be happy with this masterpiece. don't listen to the other people on
the site. its very good. trust me, i am good at reviewing movies. I'm a future
movie critic. i totally want to buy this movie. and you will too when you see it.
it is amazingly awesome.
I don't watch very many 'horror' movies, but one night I sat down and watched this
with my cousins. Now, we're teenagers, so we tend to make fun of a lot of things,
but honestly, the acting here really wasn't very good, especially at the beginning.
One line that stood out was when Scarlett says to Jill and Tiffany, "This is so...
high school!" while the next scene shows Jill walking past a sign with their High
School name on it... Many parts at the beginning reminded me of a corny, badly-
written, badly-acted Lizzie McGuire episode. However, as the story progressed, and
the cast moved on to just about only Jill most of the time, I was able to
appreciate the movie more. Camilla Belle did really well in this movie, and I think
that the other actors and actresses ruined the movie for her. And I must admit,
this was one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. Well, no, there weren't big
monsters and white faces appearing in dark corners and possessed dolls, but the
thing that made this movie scarier than ones containing those things is that it
really could happen. And this movie really reminded me of what really IS scary...
We all know we're not likely to stumble upon the living dead any time in our lives,
but the idea of having a murderer inside the house you're babysitting at could
really happen. The only flaw with this movie is that it's one of the most cliché
movies I've ever seen. It has everything in it that any horror movie has ever had-
turning the keys and the car starts, shadows in the corner, turning the corners of
the stairs with suspense, turning around and seeing a dead body, ending a fatal
scene quickly with waking up from a dream, etc. At the suspenseful scenes, it was
very predictable, but overall, I would give it a 7/10. It's definitely worth
seeing. By the way, This is my first review, so I don't know if any of
those things were spoilers.. But just to be safe...
While i read all of the complaints about this movie before i saw it, i still had
interest from the preview. I don't know if it was because i was expecting a bomb or
what, but i really enjoyed the movie. The I was not very frightened at all until
the second half of the movie, but even then it wasn't very bad at all. I think that
most of the scenes and false alarms were realistic, if a little too coincidental,
but it was necessary to move the story along. I think that the house and
surrounding area is the perfect setting for this type of movie, it is beautiful and
huge, but then the same qualities that are attractive become scary. I also think
that the light arrangement worked extremely well because not only did they turn on
upon entry, but there was no way to keep them on, so the house stayed dark outside
of the small section Jill was in. Speaking of Jill, i thought her part
was acted pretty well, at first it wasn't as believable, but after a few phone
calls it was fine. In fact the scenes where she is frightened are acted perfectly.
And, finally, someone got the fire poker right. I can't tell you how many times
when i hear a noise at my house i grab the fire poker, and it was a nice touch for
her to do the same, even though she idiotically forgets it when she needs it
most. In regards to the plot holes, the movie is not perfect but almost
every hole can be explained, and part of the mystery is how he got in..exactly, how
long was he watching her? how did he get out to kill her friend? and when exactly
did the gardener die? overall, i enjoyed it and i was surprised how quickly it
went. It kept my attention, and i wanted to see how it ended, although the ending
was very brief and left a bad taste in my mouth. My only complaint, other than the
ending, was the lack of character development. They could have added ten minutes
with her and her friends or something to make us feel bad for her situation more,
to give us a taste of her personality and to give us foreshadowing to how she will
handle the situation(for example, the scene where she debates whether to go back
for the kids, it looks like some scene is missing at the beginning that talked
about her only caring about herself or something).
Im a big horror fan and I quite enjoyed this remake. With all these horror remakes
floating about I think this is one of the better attempts. I watched it
with my two little sisters and I think it made it even better as they were quite
scared. Also with the shouting at the screen "Dont do that!", "Not that way!", etc.
I thought there were some good little jumpy moments and it built the tension
well. Camilla Belle is absolutely stunning in the lead role and a very
good actress - So she holds your attention well. Overall a decent film.
I liked this movie. I'm not a big horror movie buff so i couldn't comment on
similarities between this and other movies of this genre, but i found this movie
quite captivating. the story line, albeit a little obvious, had some genuinely
scary/tense moments and the acting (particually of the lead female role) wasn't bad
in anyway Overall i'm a little surprised at the low rating this movie
has gotten. I watch a lot of movies (working in a video store tends to help) and
this really isn't as bad as people seem to think. I do have some criticism though.
The final call from the cop was terrible, almost overacted, the dead girl in the
bathroom looked liked she was having a little sleep (probably from the amount of
tequila she mentioned she drank) and the children's reaction to what was happening
instilled in me the hope that they were ultimately killed hope this
helps some people
Having seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it
while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake. Camilla Bell did
a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in
the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much
stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off! This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the
matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should
watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again.
 All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just
something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this
movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!
With all the shoot em up, blood horror movies that have come our way in the last
little while "Saw, Hostal, Saw 2, The Hills have eyes" Yes, they have their place,
don't get me wrong! I went to see "When a stranger calls" with my buddy the other
night! Why? Because it's a remake of the 1979 classic, which at the time was
excellent and scared the you know what out of everyone! I didn't know what to
expect. However I was pleasantly surprised! It was a film made of mood, atmosphere,
suspense! Because remember people, what you can't see, what you think you see, what
you can't hear, or what you think you hear, is far more scarier then what you do!
If you love films with mood, creepiness, suspense and atmosphere!! You'll love it!
It brought it back to the roots of the original Halloween. Thumbs up, a solid 8.5
out of 10 Remember folks, it's well done! not perfect! It's spooky, not bloody,
It's creepy, not gory! It was nice to see a film come a long like this. Our minds
have been conditioned and warped by the glitz and shock value of modern day horror
movies, we forget, what's really scary.
I went to this film having no idea what to expect. I actually took a date to it in
the theaters when it first came out. We both thoroughly enjoyed it and it helped to
have someone to discuss it with after seeing it. I only recommend seeing
this film if you appreciate non-mainstream movies. It's not as disjointed as Liquid
Sky or as fanciful as Forbidden Zone. The original plot is very easy to follow.
There's A LOT of subtle humor. Here's a quick summary of the plot if you
are completely lost: A big-brother type government keeps tabs on everyone in
society. Suddenly a new person appears and there's no data on him (he appears
insane). He may or may not be the second-coming of Christ. The over-cautious
government goes into a frenzy to find him and discover his true motives. The ruler
is also obsessed with immortality. Some scenes are frantic while others
are completely low-key. We follow the lead character as he encounters all different
kinds of people in society. I didn't need my consciousness altered to
enjoy the film, but I know that some of my friends felt that helped. Split was also filmed around Santa Cruz and San Francisco.
Critics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't
think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap,
and I normally despise PG-13 "horror films." So this means one of two things:
either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the
years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to
be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much
character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how
much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them
some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with
the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I
guess stuff like this just gives me the willies. Yes, I admit I had fun
watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)
This movie has all the qualities to be good, Stan -singing (?), dancing, falling-
is very funny, I think he handled his character in the best way possible. it's a
parody and very well done, maybe times can change, there's another audience, but if
you want to laugh, come on, see it!
This Stan Laurel comedy short is a cute little parody of the Valentino film BLOOD
AND SAND. If you've seen BLOOD AND SAND, then you'll probably appreciate this film
and laugh at a few of the scenes that mock the Valentino film. However, if you have
not see that movie and just watch this film, you'll probably not be very
impressed--though I really liked the title cards, us the word "bull" was used
repeatedly in very funny ways. Stanly plays "Vaselino" a bullfighter who
seems pretty dim-witted and wins only because the bulls seem to lazy and non-
aggressive. Even the bull at the end of the film who has supposedly killed ten men
is obviously just a domesticated bull. Not a great film by any stretch
of the imagination, but still a cute and harmless film.
Stan as a bullfighter, and a good one, is quite a surprise. Usually overshadowed by
Oliver Hardy, this silent short allows him to take the lead, and the
limelight. One can only draw the conclusion that his character "Rhubarb
Vaselino" was a parody of the many Rudolph Valentino movies of this era. Be prepared to laugh yourself silly at some of the dialog, and keep an eye
on the special effects. I viewed this on DVD in a Vol.1 & 2 collection.
Stan Laurel, it's been noted, first made a real name for himself by appearing in
short parodies of popular feature films in the 1920s. He certainly demonstrates
himself to be an excellent comic actor and performer here in "Mud and Sand" (a
parody of Rudolph Valntino's "Blood and Sand"), but I think a film like this really
works not because Laurel was a great satirist but because it allows the audience to
jump into the comedy already familiar with the situation and scenes. Laurel can
then let loose with his inspired gags without either having to create context or to
do without it. I watched this the day after watching "Blood and Sand" itself; it
certainly enhanced the experience to know what was being parodied and where. The scene where Laurel's character (Rhubarb Vaseline if you believe the
title cards, or Rhubarb Vaselino if you believe how his name gets written on the
chalk board) bilks his mother out of money with a two-for-you, two-for-me trick is
funny on its own because it's a great gag, but it's extra funny if the viewer is
aware how it is taking the air out of Valentino's extravagant and melodramatic
promises to give his mother any luxuries she desires. This is the best
Stan Laurel solo work I've seen. It's just plain funny -- even more so if you have
had a chance to see the source material.
When I saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of
me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel
bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good
parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like
whiskey. (or the booze-up after that)
Seeing Laurel without Hardy in a film seems strange, yet it's entertaining all the
same. It's a well done parody of what became a classic silent film and it showcases
Stan's talents very well. While his pictures with Oliver Hardy were great, these
early solo efforts give you an idea of how skilled he was at his craft and how
great he might have been had he continued in the tradition of Keaton and Chaplin as
an individual star on his own. The dance sequence with his real-life wife in the
café scene is the best part of the picture, and has some pretty funny bits to go
with Laurel's excellent dance steps. And the bullfight climax is a gem, as even the
bull takes a pratfall. And I like the irony in the scene where he's buried in hats
and comes up wearing his familiar Laurel and Hardy bowler hat. As much as I love
the Laurel and Hardy team and feel that there was never a funnier comedy duo on
screen during their prime, it's nice to see them on their own once in a while
(check out THE FIGHTING KENTUCKIAN that Hardy made with the Duke as another fine
example.) Dale Roloff
Mud and Sand is one of Stan Laurel's spoofs of the popular movies at the time, this
one being of Rudolph Valentino's Blood and Sand (hence Stan being Rhubarb
Vaselino). While partly inconsistent on characterization (how did he defeat those
bulls in the beginning is not explained), this was mostly funny from beginning to
end with one of the best sequences being a dance he does with his then common-law
wife, Mae Laurel. Another funny sequence concerns his reluctance with romancing a
femme fatale, Filet de Sole, while his wife, Caramel, is waiting for him that shows
some glimpses of his later innocent character with Oliver Hardy. Well worth seeing
for anyone interested in seeing Mr. Laurel's early work before his fateful teaming
that made him popular around the world.
If you want to see a film starring Stan laurel from the Laurel & Hardy comedies,
this is not the film for you. Stan would not begin to find the character and
rhythms of those films for another two years. If, however, you want a good travesty
of the Rudolph Valentino BLOOD AND SAND, which had been made the previous year,
this is the movie for you. All the stops are pulled out, both in physical comedy
and on the title cards and if the movie is not held together by character, the plot
of Valentino's movie is used -- well sort of.
This is one of Stan Laurel's best solo comedy's, before the 1927 teaming with
Oliver Hardy. Laurel is a very good actor in the film, and provides good comedy.
The best scene in the film is when Stan dances with Mae Laurel (his real-life
common law wife), at the Cafe Espanol. Stan does silly dances that are funny,
without you hearing the music. I will recommend this to any Stan Laurel fan.
In a very-near-future world, a corrupt government monitors everyone constantly with
computers and surveillance. One man has managed to evade assimilation, and operates
outside the system, fighting to preserve his freedom. An engaging and imaginative
story and some very interesting editing and camera work. There are some confusing
and slow parts, but all in all, an excellent example of what a small crew with
brains and talent can do on a shoestring budget.
Based upon the novel The Dismissal by Ermanno Rea, in essence the story's about the
slow friendship that develops between an Italian maintenance technician Vincenzo
Buonavolonta (Sergio Castellitto, who can be seen as the villainous King in Prince
Caspian, and was the lead in Bella Martha) and a Chinese translator Liu Hua (Ling
Tai). They set off actually on the wrong foot, with the former chastising the
latter for her inaccurate, and slow translations of what he wanted to tell a
Chinese delegate who had bought equipment that is faulty. Vincenzo wants to do the
right thing, which is rare in these days, and that is to tell the prospective
buyers upfront the faults as well as the intricacies that their purchase would
bring, and given that he's disturbed by the fact that the deal still went ahead, he
takes time off to craft a component that would set things right. But
that also means to travel to China in search of the elusive machine, which proves
to be well hidden, and seemingly having vanished without a trace. With the initial
reluctant help of Liu Hua, they set off in this treasure hunt from city to city,
which brings us to lesser seen sights of China, away from the Beijings and the
Shanghais, to cities like Wuhan, with industrial like backdrops such as steel mills
and nuclear plants with their smoke stacks dotting the scenery. The mighty Yangtze
River also makes an appearance. Along the way, the usual trappings of such
travelogue styled movies come into play, such as the learning of culture, ideals,
food, and basically, the understanding that the world is without strangers, if only
one makes an effort to try and connect. While hints of some romance between the two
leads are suggested, it rarely made itself to be a moot point, until perhaps late
in the movie (hey, opposites attract, no?) Besides the major industrial
plants and factories, We get to see various cottage industry, like seamstresses
working in sweat shop like environments, and I believe Cotton too, along with
noodle making. As a film, it provided me the travelling opportunity without leaving
my seat to observe, and credit to it for not passing judgement from a moral high
ground on exploitation and the likes. And kudos too for the movie to engage in
dialogue based on the characters' native tongues, rather than (and I shall not name
names here) some other movie / cross-cultural collaborations where dialogue is
forced-dubbed and came off unnatural, and truly irksome. Some might deem the
supporting characters to be too kind too, always opening their arms and doors to a
foreigner, but I would like to imagine that maybe in the more rural areas, people
in general tend to be more sincere, friendly and basically not get caught up in the
rat race to trample on others, or be trampled upon. If there's a message
to take away from the movie, besides the fact that I mentioned that the world is
without strangers, is a reminder to myself that some of the stuff I deem important,
may not be so to others. Importance is something one places upon something else,
and its basis really depends on how we define the boundaries we set. So given our
finite lifetime, I think I should lighten up a bit more, live and let live, and
sometimes bask in the illusion that ignorance could be bliss.
Based on the best-selling novel "The Dismissal", The Missing Star, the latest film
by acclaimed Italian director Gianni Amelio, is the story of the growing friendship
between an older Italian maintenance man and a young interpreter he hires in
Shanghai to be his guide through China. Vincenzo Buonovolonta is the Maintenance
Manager at a steel mill in Italy that has been shut down and the blast furnace sold
to China. When Vincenzo (Sergio Castellitto) discovers that a control unit in the
furnace is defective and potentially dangerous, he travels to China to find the
steel mill where the part has been sold in hopes of preventing a fatal accident. The film, of course, is about the journey not the destination to use a
familiar cliché and, on that journey, we are privy to an engaging look at China
with all its immense beauty and complexity, via the outstanding cinematography by
Luca Bigazzi. The film takes us to Shanghai, Wuhan, Chongquing, Baotou, and a trip
along the Yangstze River showing us coastal areas that are scheduled to be flooded
when the Three Gorges Dam is fully operative, a Chinese mega-project that has
resulted in the displacement of 1.2 million people. The trip brings the travelers
face to face with poverty, overcrowded housing, and children left to fend for
themselves. The film revolves around the relationship between Vincenzo
and translator Liu Hua (Tai Ling) who first meet in Italy where his impatience with
her translations at a dinner meeting causes her to lose her job. When he tracks her
down in Shanghai she is working at a library and resistant to Vincenzo's approach.
Looking at his offer to help him in his travels in China as little more than a well
paying job, she reluctantly agrees to accompany him. Their relationship, however,
grows as they move from city to city, her interpretive skills much in evidence to
help the bewildered Vincenzo who does not own a cell phone. As they
slowly open up to each other, they expose each other's vulnerability and the film
delves into their past and present life and how they arrived at their present
situation. We meet Liu's son (Lin Wang) at the home of her grandmother. In China's
one child policy, he is one of the unwanted children who have been "hidden" since
the father of the boy abandoned the family. Although the meeting between Vincenzo
and the boy is casual, their relationship becomes central to how the story plays
out. Castellitto is an excellent actor (though one longs for a younger
Enrico Lo Verso in this role). However, he is emotionally distant throughout the
film, his expression rarely changing from a far away hangdog expression. Though Tai
Ling brings a great deal of presence to the role, her relationship with the much
older Vincenzo never seemed real to me and the ending seemed to exist only in a
reality known as the movies. Though Amelio is one of my favorite directors, coming
on the heels of the brilliant Keys to the House, Missing Star is a disappointment.
Vincenzo Buonavolunta, a man that has spent years working at a steel mill, as a
maintenance man, that the Italian owners are selling to the Chinese, comes at the
end of the meeting where the purchase is being arranged because he wants to tell
the new buyers of a flaw he has discovered and he thinks he has the solution. He
doesn't exactly endear himself to the Italian old management, or to the new Chinese
owners. He even fights with the translator about the exact term he wants to use in
expressing his concern. The next thing we see is Vincenzo arriving in
China trying to contact the new owners. To his amazement, there is someone new in
charge, as Mr. Chong, the man he tried to warn in Italy, has been fired. His next
quest is getting to the woman that was the translator, Liu Hua. He finds her
working in a library, but she tells him, in no uncertain terms, she blames him for
being fired from her position. Liu, who sees the desperation of Vincenzo, agrees to
accompany him to find his steel mill plant. Thus Vincenzo and Liu begin
a voyage through some of the bleak countryside that involves traveling by train,
steamship, bus and truck, to remote parts of the giant country. Finding the correct
factory proves to be elusive, at best, but Vincenzo discovers a life that is
completely alien to him, as well as finding a kind soul who doesn't hesitate to
help the Italian man, in spite of her initial distaste for him. Gianni
Amelio's film is a sort of travelogue. He takes the viewer into unknown territory.
Some comments compare Vincenzo to Marco Polo, the great Italian traveler, although
the similarities are not quite tangible. The film keeps our attention in the early
stages of the trip, but it starts getting somewhat less enjoyable as Vincenzo gets
stranded after separating from Liu. Mr. Amelio is an interesting director, as he
clearly demonstrates with this film for which he worked on the adaptation of Ermano
Rea's novel, which we haven't read. Sergio Castellitto is the sole
reason for watching the film. This versatile actor brings a lot to the movie,
which, in a way, is a tour de force for him, as he is seen in almost every frame of
the picture. The combination of Amelio and Castellitto proves to be a winning
combination. Ling Tai, who is making her debut as Liu Hua, has some lovely moments
and shows good chemistry with her co-star. Luca Bigazzi photographed the
Chinese landscape in all its bleakness. We see a China that is not picture post
card pretty. Mr. Bigazzi captures all the greyness, so typical of the areas where
the film is set. Franco Piersanti's musical score serves the film well.
"The missing star", who competed for the Golden Lion at 2006 Venice Film Festival,
is a film that, when you think about, the first adjective that comes to your mind
is: intense. Intense looks, intense sequences, this movie's intensity captures the
viewer since the very first scenes at the steelworks, in Italy (I couldn't
recognize the city, maybe Genoa or even Naples), although the pace is quite
slow. Vincenzo Buonavolontà, the male lead, and with him, all the
audience, sees a completely different China than a normal Westerner imagines:
horrible high-rise building with about 8 hundred flat owners inside, skyscrapers,
desolation, fog, scrapers and cranes everywhere, but also the beauty of the Yangtze
Kiang river, that will soon become a big lake because of the controversial dike
that will wipe a lot of towns out. China is a country under construction, but,
under all these colossal public works, there are still poverty, backwardness and
unfair laws. We can relate more easily to this story because Gianni
Amelio, the expert director, chose two phenomenal leads: Sergio Castellitto, a
well-known actor in Italy, and the Chinese surprise Tai Ling, a total unknown girl
that gives an as intense interpretation as Castellitto's. The film is
not perfect, there are some flaws here and there, but that doesn't mean it's a
mediocre film. Try to see it.
As a modern Marco Polo, from Venice to China, here we come Amelio, again, taking on
the task to render us the grey area in the middle of two worlds in solid colors.
Eroded by globalization's collateral damages, the pessimistic vision of Europe is
mutual with Chinas. The view of that charming but puzzling country is
dealt from below, devoid of any claim to learn or impose opinions. Reality,
nonetheless, is harsh. Abandoned and exploited children, beehive-homes, backward
areas is the OTHER china we ignore. Vincenzo (Castellitto), a technician of a steel
factory, is one of us. His voyage to China is a pretext to understand, to learn
from the inside a country where progress and third-world problems live together in
an infamous balance. It's not exactly clear if Vincenzo knew by the first time that
the mechanical component was already been fixed, I think so; anyway is a minor
aspect. Liu, the Chinese girl, is the key of the whole film. She carries on her
back a lot of difficulties, she's got the strength to overcome, but how could she
fight with little money and little help ? The realistic and unbiased
view of the facts by the girl, refusing Vincenzo's money, touched me a lot. A pack
of bank-notes can't get back her husband, her baby (forced to treat like a stranger
for the Law), protect her by scorns. Liu knew his intentions were benign and kind,
far from a cold charity act. Their friendship is beautifully narrated, the way it
grows step by step, dignified and formative, unique. A priceless legacy to keep. Some scenes are stunning, either for the acting (Vincenzo crying on the
ferry) or by the dialogues (at the restaurant, on the railroads). Besides a
careless editing and a pretty lazy start, "La Stella che non c'è" is brilliant and
sharp just because chronicles the untold verities. In competition at
63rd Venice Film Festival, plenty bet on Tai Ling for the Mastroianni Prize,
dedicated to emerging stars. She definitely deserved that award. [8/10]
When I went to the cinema, I expected not much. I knew nothing about this movie but
it was the only movie I could see, 'cause I was in a small town then. So I saw this
movie and I was fascinated! "La stelle che non c'è" is a trip through the new
industrial China and it shows it honestly! You see most of the time the ugly places
of China, and you see what really happens with this new industrializing. The main
characters are sad but hopefully people. He's the naive Italian guy who can't
believe what he see's. She's a translator from china who's missing her son.
Sometimes sad, sometimes funny but every time poetic! A wonderful movie with
wonderful actors! So only one star is missing!
This is a wonderful new movie currently still showing in cinemas in my country. Its
director, the Calabrian Gianni Amelio, is in my humble view perhaps the only
contemporary Italian director, along with Nanni Moretti, to deserve being called
great (that is, apart from the old masters who're still around and occasionally
still churning out movies). It's one of my greatest regrets that contemporary
Italian cinema has been ailing since the mid-70s, mostly due to a dire lack of
funding and nurturing of new talent, something which can be transferred to most
fields and which makes Italy one of the most static industrialised countries of our
time production-wise (both in an industrial and cultural sense)... unlike, say,
China. And this, among other things, is precisely the subject of Amelio's latest
movie. Few directors can speak to me about the true, present state of my country
and the world as Amelio can, yet his pictures also have a precious timelessness and
universality. And for those already worrying that they may be slow, ponderous and
worthy - rest assured: of the ones I've seen they most certainly aren't, at least
not if you're used to quality European cinema. The basic plot outline:
Vincenzo Buonavolontà is a technician at an obsolete steel plant factory somewhere
in Italy, probably the North. He is played by Sergio Castellitto, one of
contemporary Italy's most versatile and talented actors. When a major Chinese steel
company purchases some of the Italian steel plant's industrial machinery, Vincenzo,
who struggles to make himself understood with the non-Italian speaking Chinese
director, tries to tell him that the machine is defective and its converter needs
substituting, an element he's working on custom-building himself. He warns them
that not doing this might have very dangerous consequences. Meanwhile a young
Chinese woman called Liu Hua acts as interpreter between the two men, but seems to
struggle to find adequate translations for some of Vincenzo's technical jargon. The
Italian eventually loses his patience with her, virtually pushing her aside and
asking her to hand him the Chinese-Italian dictionary so that he can do the
translating himself. Despite Vincenzo's warnings, the following morning
he finds that the Chinese factory director and his employees have returned to their
own country while not heeding his advice about the adequate use of the industrial
machine at all. Thus Vincenzo, equipped with his great integrity, sets off for
China. And here begins an endlessly fascinating road movie through China, a very
topical 21st century Odyssey through the Asian Giant. A latter-day Marco Polo's
quest for the secrets of the mysterious nation? Not quite. As in all of Amelio's
movies, the journey itself becomes far more important than whether its ultimate
"mission" is carried out or not. In fact, the way in which the point is literally
brought home, not without a touch of humour, is a lovely, poignant paradox and
irony, which made my eyes well up while I was simultaneously smiling. The spectator
is let in on the secret that Vincenzo's trip was ultimately completely useless, but
he himself doesn't know it, and goes home a satisfied man, a deluded innocent. At
least, you figure, he's happy. Sort of. The journeys that Amelio's
characters embark on totally uproots and strips them down to their bare, human
essentials. They are momentarily without name, status or someone to put in a word
for them. These Theo Angelopoulos-like themes are also explored in Lamerica,
actually my favourite Amelio movie, closely followed by La stella che non c'è in
order of personal preference. In the 1994 movie Lamerica, two Italian racketeers
travel to Albania to "do business". Just like Vincenzo, they intend to go there, do
what they have to do and then go back home. Instead, one of these two Italians
accidentally ends up on an almost Homeric journey through this devastated land just
after the fall of Communism. But let us go back to La stella che non
c'è: once Vincenzo is in China, he predictably discovers that the seemingly
"simple" task of handing the converter to its new owner is anything but straight-
forward. The piece of machinery's new location is seemingly almost impossible to
determine, unless he embarks on an arduous journey through China. When he comes
across Liu Hua, the young interpreter he'd mistreated now working as a librarian,
he tries to speak to her but she reacts in a hostile manner, informing him that
because of him, she'd lost her job as interpreter back in Italy. Played by the
relative newcomer Ling Tai, Liu Hua soon becomes a Virgil to Vincenzo's Dante when
she grudgingly figures that she could do worse than to act as guide and interpreter
for the Italian on his trip (obviously for a consistent sum of cash). This young
Chinese actress may not have the beauty of Ziyi Zhang, nor the movie star glamour
of Gong Li, but her charming, expressive and pretty face oozes a combination of
defiant strength, intelligence, dignity and wry humour that'll make her features
difficult to forget once you've seen the movie. Furthermore, she and Castellitto
have wonderful emotional chemistry as co-stars. Amelio weaves dramas
that are serious, poetic, mythical, post-neo-realist and humorous all at once,
while maintaining a heart-warming ability to explore the fleeting essence of
humanity in everyday, commonplace circumstances. A documentary-like naturalness
conceals what is actually a meticulously conceived tapestry of faces and places, a
vista which also manages to incorporate a cinematography of breath-taking beauty.
The photography here is functional yet gorgeous, as befits a movie on the displaced
in an industrial and emotional wasteland. Amelio's observant eye is a
grown-up, disillusioned one, yet also never a cynical or misanthropic one. The
masterful camera angles also often gives a sense of Vincenzo's alienness in the
eyes of the Chinese, bringing home a sense of objectivity and cultural impartiality
that's very rare in movies about a "familiar" Westerner exploring an "unfamiliar"
non-Western country. I cannot recommend this movie enough.
This is an enjoyable movie. Its very realistic to the "wonderful world of music"
I've been there and done that. It shows a human element in each character and the
realism that nobody is perfect. These amateur musicians weren't all that bad
players. Cleavon Little's character, Marshall Tucker, was played very well.
Marshall was no saint himself. Here he was getting paid to do a job and he's giving
these guys a hard time about everything in the van on the way up there. You don't
bite the hands that feed you. I do find it hard to believe that a player with the
jazz experience he has, claims he does not know any of the dixieland tunes. He has
a tremendous sense of predicting chord changes to tunes he does not know. Not
common, but not unheard of either. He delivers a true and harsh message at the end
of the movie when he tells the clarinet player, "its not a religion, devotion is
not enough." On that level, he is correct, although I think the clarinet player
could have handled the job. He was practicing his butt off and vocal accompaniment
music is not that hard to read. Very enjoyable movie.
This movie is almost never seen today - the only reason I can enjoy it again and
again is from a slightly worn out VHS copy I made when the film was shown on TV in
1991 here in England. An ensemble cast are obviously enjoying themselves
and this is reflected to the viewer. A razor sharp script helps things along, and
once you've seen this you will want to watch it over and over again. Wayne Rogers is the 'star' but everyone contributes to a great film, with a great
jazz soundtrack to boot. There are emotional moments during the film, but never to
the point of sickly sweet sentimentalism - these are guys on the trip of a
lifetime, and they convey that excitement wonderfully. Highly
recommended if you can actually get to see it.
"The Gig" is a tight, funny and poignant little movie about a group of friends that
have gathered together on a regular basis to play Dixieland for fun. The group
unexpectedly lands a real paying job, in musician's parlance; a "gig". They travel to upstate NY for a two week gig at a summer resort minus one member,
who bows out due to contracting cancer. At the last minute, they hire a
professional to take his place. Things get sticky as an over-the-hill Frankie Valli
type attempts a comeback at the resort and tries to utilize the group as his
band. The attitude the professional bass player gave the guys rang true.
By signing up to play the two-week gig, they were taking bread out of the mouths of
someone who needed the job to feed his or her family. While Pop, Rock, Rap, Country
and Western, and R&B stars make money off of albums. Jazz musicians have to travel
abroad to make a living. Almost nobody gets rich. The guys living their dream also
cost others a needed income. I believe that almost everyone who can play
a musical instrument with some proficiency dreams about playing a paying "gig" one
time or another, Woody Allen and Kevin Bacon are two popular examples of this
amateur-to-professional crossover. I especially recommend this movie to anyone who
has ever played music professionally. My mom, who was a musician, LOVED it.
I agree with msinabottle; this is a great movie. Here are some dialogue
snippets: Raisuli (Sean Connery) to Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen):
"You see the man at the well, how he draws the water? When one bucket empties, the
other fills. It is so with the world. At present, you are full of power. But you're
spilling it, wastefully. And Islam is lapping up the drops as they spill from your
bucket." Raisuli: The English have paid very well in the past.
Pedecaris: Well you'll not have your way with the Americans. President Roosevelt
will have your head for this. Raisuli: Roosevelt. This President Roosevelt--he
would try and take it himself? Pedecaris: He certainly would! He is a man of grit
and strong moral fiber. He does not kidnap women and children! Raisuli: What kind
of rifle does he use? Pedecaris: A Winchester! Raisuli: Winchester. Winchester. I
have no knowledge of this rifle. Pedecaris: You will. Teddy Roosevelt
(Brian Keith): The American Grizzly Bear is a symbol of the American character:
strength, intelligence, ferocity. A little blind and reckless at times, but
courageous beyond all doubt. Oh, and one other trait goes with all previous.
Newspaper reporter: And that, Mr. President? Teddy Roosevelt: Loneliness. The bear
lives out his life alone. Indomitable. Unconquered. But always alone. He has no
real allies, only enemies--but none of them are as great as he. Newspaper reporter:
You feel this might be an American trait? Teddy Roosevelt: Certainly. The world
would never love us. It may respect us. It may even grow to fear us. But it'll
never love us. For we have too much audacity. And we're a bit blind and reckless at
times, too.
My wife and I endorse all the positive comments below, made by other IMDB members.
While this is no box office smash hit it has a special charm all of its own.
Genuine and heart-warming. We saw this on video, at the end of a long
day. We were very tired, and in bed. Normally in a situation like this my wife
drops off to sleep within minutes, that is, unless it is an exceptional movie and
this one kept us both entertained right to the very end. Perhaps younger
viewers in their teens and twenties would not like this, but for the rest of us it
is a true gem! See it!
This little film brings back a lot of memories, both fond and foul, of what can and
does happen when one is a working musician. The not so pleasant accommodations for
the band, the management of the venue jumping up and down telling you what to play,
the sheer ecstasy of the applause.............. Far from being farcical it is, in
fact, very accurate in the way it depicts musicians, professional and otherwise,
who have travelled a great distance to perform a season of gigs at a venue. There
are those times when everything goes perfectly, there are those other times when
you immediately start to miss your partner and wonder what the hell you are doing
this far from home. In the end you have to make the best of it because there is no
other way out.
This film gave me probably the most pleasant surprise of any I've ever seen. It was
not a big-budget production and its premise, middle-age amateur jazz musicians get
an unexpected professional engagement at a Catskills-like resort, seems rather
modest. What's not modest is the film's success. This is a little slice-of-life
movie that is most entertaining throughout. Director Frank D. Gilroy also wrote the
script and it's full of interesting subplots and unexpected twists. The
actors are journeymen who do a solid job. The biggest revelation to me was Cleavon
Little. He plays a professional musician who is hired to fill in for an ailing band
member. His attitude immediately clashes with the others. While they see it as an
opportunity for big fun and a once in a lifetime thing, he sees it as his job and
not a particularly interesting one. This leads to conflict but when the group gets
in trouble, he steers them through. Little, who died too young, really showed me he
was a fine actor with this film. This movie is a true sleeper, the kind
that a film fan always hopes to discover. I recommend it wholeheartedly.
Night Of The Demons is definitely one the definitive cheesy 80's demons horror
flick in the same vein as the brilliant Evil Dead and Demons movies. This movie
combines boozy sexually active teens and demons into one hell of a fun movie. A
definite welcome addition after the 80's were overrun by slasher flicks, it was
nice to see something a little different. The plot follows a group of
teens who all meet up for a Halloween party at hull house which used to be funeral
parlour, hosted by Angela. About 40-minutes of boozing and sexing eventually leads
to a demon or demons finding their way out of the furnace and possessing each and
every one of the teens. Add some snazzy make-up effects, lots of gore, and cool-
looking demons and you've got yourself a sweet 80's cheese-fest that would be
ranked as one of the best demon-related films in many horror fans' lists. Firstly I loved the setting for this movie, "Hull House" is really creepy
and scary and the perfect setting for a horror movie and plus when the Demons
emerge, that's when the action really kicks in and it becomes a night of terror and
fear. This movie spawned 2 sequels, the first one in 1994 which was okay but
nothing come pared to this and the third one titled Demon House was absolutely
horrendous. This is one of those horrors that has definitely stood the test of time
and remains a true gem of mine for many years to come. All in all a fun
cheesy flick with Demons that's definitely worth checking out.
I saw "Night of the Demons 2" first before I saw "Night of the Demons".
Unfortunately, my old Blockbuster thought it was a good idea to have the sequel,
but no first one. Looney, huh? Now, I think all horror fans need this movie. It's
like McDonald's, you know it's bad for you and you'd rather have The Cheesecake
Facotory(or whatever pricier restaurant you prefer), but you can't help but just
wanting the cheap stuff. Night of the Demons has it all: your innocent,
sexy, goes by the rules chicka-dee, your token black guy, that surprisingly doesn't
get killed. You're slutty girl, you're slutty guy, you're dark girl or guy, the
goof ball, the cheesy settings of a haunted house, bad acting, and lots of
unnecessary nudity. Isn't this stuff great? I mean, I know deep down in my heart of
movies that this was pretty bad, but it was a good bad for horror movies. Horror
fans should enjoy and dig in! 8/10
Kevin Tenney's "Night of the Demons" is an enjoyable horror film that reminds me a
little bit "The Evil Dead".On Hallowen night,a group of teens throws a party in
Hull House,an abandoned funeral home on the outskirts of town.Lead by Angela,they
perform a seance-like ceremony and accidentally awaken the evil spirits that
inhabit the place.One by one,the uninvited evil force possesses the teens,turning
them into bloodthirsty demons."Night of the Demons" is a perfect horror film.It is
scary,gory and pretty atmospheric.The characters are well-developed and the gore by
Steve Johnson is pretty good.There is a gruesome impaling,a tongue being bitten
off,fingers shoved into eye-sockets,etc.The scene,where Suzanne(Linnea
Quigley)shoves a tube of lipstick through her nipple is a hoot.Give this one a
look.Followed by two sequels.
Much more than ANY other film from that period, Night of the Demons represents the
brainless and hugely enjoyable horror pastiche. It's undemanding fun with loads of
nasty make-up effects, gorgeous looking (and horny) teenagers and adorable cliché-
elements. A group of party animals, led by the alternative Angela, goes to
celebrate Halloween in an abandoned funeral home that carries an eerie urban
legend. It all starts out typical and "innocent" with dancing, drinking and the
occasional flirt between youngsters that can't keep their hormones under control,
but pretty soon a bloodthirsty demon possesses the hostess. In the most ingenious
ways you've ever seen, the rest of the cast gets slaughtered viciously only to
return as hideous creatures prowling for blood. The thing that makes this film
better than most cheesy 80's horror films is finds a good balance between light-
headed camp and atmospheric horror. Some sequences really are creepy and the
funeral house setting supplies Night of the Demons with an excellent tone. Director
Tenney makes great use of the set pieces (coffins, a crematorium, endless dark
hallways) and his young, enthusiast cast obviously love what they're involved in.
The terrific make-up effects by a whole team of artists and designers are of course
the obvious aspects to love and horror fanatics will absolutely love the large
amount of severed limbs, poked out eyes and crushed skulls! The ultimate highlight
however is Linnea Quigley's trick with the disappearing lipstick! This nymphomaniac
bimbo shoves an entire tube of lipstick in her nipple and continues her sexual
murder spree! Terrific! Night of the Demons received two sequels during the 90's
and, although they're still definitely worth checking out, they focus more on
comedy than chills.
Night of the Demons (1988) was another in a long line of "teen" horror films that
were released on video and pay-t.v. during that mecca of film making the eighties.
But unlike most of the crap that was being peddled around, this one was actually a
decent watch. A group of bored "teenagers" decide to party Halloween night away
with a pair of bizarre sisters (Mimi Kinkade and Linnea Quigley) at the infamous
Hull House. Your usual cast of stereotypical teenagers are invited to the party.
But an average teenage bash turns into a night of terror as they try to survive
Halloween night when they undead residents of Hull House decide to crash the party.
Who'll survive this night of bloodshed and horror? A nice horror film
that is best seen in the unrated version. If you watch the R-Rated cut then you'll
miss all of the splatter effects and nudity. Stay tune for the amusing epilogue! A
gory film that was followed by an equally entertaining sequel. For horror fans
only! Highly recommended.
The eighties produced a lot of gory little horror flicks, most of them within the
slasher sub genre - thus putting this film ahead of most of the rest of its ilk.
Night of the Demons is something of a cross between the ultimate gore film, The
Evil Dead; and haunted house-cum-slash flick Hell Night. Films like this usually
feature a deranged/deformed madman as the lead bad guy; but here we have
bloodthirsty demons, which is always more interesting than a lunatic if you ask me.
There's also a lot of comedy in this film, and the first third of the movie could
easily be the set up for a straight comedy film. But once the characters enter the
central location; a sinister funeral home known as 'Hull House' - the film morphs
into the horror film that you would expect given the title. The plot line is as
simple as you'd expect it to be, and we follow a bunch of kids that decide to put
on a Halloween party inside said funeral home. This turns out to be a bad idea,
however, once it transpires that the house is possessed; and the demons start to
inhabit the kids' bodies! Their only salvation lies on the other side of the
underground stream...but finding the gate to the grounds isn't as easy as it
sounds. The film's centrepiece is the Gothic mansion where the action
takes place. This creaky old house makes for a great horror film location; the fact
that it used to be a funeral home only adds to this. Director Kevin Tenney shoots
the house well, and a particularly good job is done of establishing the fact that
the house is in the middle of nowhere and escape is difficult. The comedy towards
the start of the film is generally very funny, and I was hoping it would keep up
the laughs once the horror starts. The film does have its comedy moments when the
kids enter Hull House, but it's never overly funny and it's obvious that horror is
the film's main aim. Not that this is a problem; but the Night of the Demons could
have been a lot better had it fused these elements properly. The characters are
pretty much what you'd expect from this sort of film; but the acting suits the
movie well, and it's clear that the young cast had a good time making this movie
and it translates well to the screen. The effects are good in that they suit the
film well, and as most of the death sequences are well executed; it's a good bet
that most people won't get bored watching this. This isn't a classic or must see
film; but I can highly recommend it as it offers a good time and will appeal to
fans of silly horror fodder.
A bunch of mostly obnoxious and grossly unappealing teens go to a creepy, remote,
rundown old mortuary located nearby a cemetery to attend an anything-goes all-out
Halloween party being hosted by freaky occult-obsessed oddball Mimi Kinkade and her
vacuous, boy-hungry bimbette friend Linnea Quigley. The loutish, profane, beer-
guzzling, sex-happy dipstick dimwits hold a séance as a joke (very bad idea, 'cause
the desolate old dive is naturally said to be haunted by demonic spirits). Of
course, that ill-advised séance awakens those decidedly grumpy and hostile evil
spirits, who gruesomely kill and possess a majority of the kids, turning them into
ugly, fanged, clawed, boil-faced murderous ghouls who wreak the usual grisly havoc
throughout the duration of an especially long, dark and harrowing night of pure
terror. Yep, this is essentially your umpteenth vigorously graphic and
unrelenting wall-to-wall cheap shock-ridden "Evil Dead" rehash, replete with
closed-off, there's no easy way out claustrophobic single self-confined setting,
outrageously excessive splatter set pieces, an incessantly pounding hum'n'shiver
synthesizer score, a total sense of gloom'n'doom-laden grim nightmarishness, and
vibrantly in-your-face manic careening cinematography (the expected headlong rush-
inducing hyperactive hand-held camera-work, smooth, sinuous tracking shots, crazily
tittled camera angles, even the camera on a dolly doing a gracefully gliding 180
degree figure eight). Fortunately, Kevin S. Tenney's slick, assured, stylish
direction keeps the extremely threadbare and derivative proceedings thundering
along at a speedy clip; moreover, Tenny gives the film an attractive polished look
and effectively creates a certain crudely energetic and enthusiastically grotesque
spooky ooga-booga carnival funhouse atmosphere. However, Steve Johnson's
marvelously gory and imaginative make-up effects are the true star of the show.
Bloodthirsty highlights include disgusting fat slob Hal Havins (who played a
similarly irritating obese a**hole role in the immortal "Sorority Babes in the
Slimeball Bowl-A-Rama" around the same time) having his tongue bitten off, Quigley
shoving a whole tube of lipstick in one of her breasts (yow!) and gouging a guy's
eyes out while she's making love to him (double yow!), a libidinous teen couple
getting offed while doing exactly what you think in a coffin (the chick has her
neck snapped while the dude has his arm chopped off), Kinkade setting her hands on
fire, and, in the film's single most nasty scene, a mean old man has his throat
slit from the inside out after eating an apple piece laced with razor blades. The
trashy'n'thrashy rock score likewise smokes. And then there's Kinkade's incredibly
wild, sexy and uninhibited demon dance, a sizzling number accompanied by a
flickering strobe light and startling jump cuts that Kinkade choreographed herself.
Okay, so this overall doesn't amount to anything more than a completely mindless
and pointless, albeit quite nicely mounted and enjoyably vulgar hunk of blithely
sleazy fright flick junk, but if you're in the mood for entertainingly brain-dead
lowbrow horror scuzziness this cheerfully crass and juvenile dross does the trick
just fine.
I saw this film at school and absolutely loved it. Based on a true story, this is
an absolutely splendid masterpiece of a film. Seriously, I couldn't find anything
wrong with it. One definite plus is how it was filmed. Set in Morrocco in 1904, the
Wind and the Lion is filled with stirring images like the Great Raisuli on
horseback especially. The cinematography was faultless, the editing was crisp, the
costumes were gorgeous and the scenery was breathtaking. And I have to mention the
music from Jerry Goldsmith, it was phenomenal. I have used this phrase a lot
recently, but Goldsmith ain't my favourite film composer for nothing. His score
here is so rousing and exciting, it shows the man's true musical genius, and this
gem of a score should be up there with Goldsmith's best scores with Legend,
Rambo:First Blood, Patton and The Secret of NIMH. The action is
exhilarating and the screenplay is intelligent and sophisticated. The direction is
sensitively handled too. The performances were astounding as well, with Sean
Connery, ever the picture of charisma and suavity, magnificent as the Great
Raisuli, he almost dominates the entire picture on his own. He is joined by a
feisty Candice Bergen, a wily John Huston and a captivating Brian Keith in one of
his more understated performances. The history is fairly accurate, perhaps flimsy
in some areas, but with the acting, music and visuals so good I am past caring.
10/10 Bethany Cox
I neglected this film when I used to go to the movie store but then the curiosity
got to me and I decided to check it out. I loved it!!! The movie starts off with
Judy and Jay heading for a Halloween party at the abandoned funeral parlor Hull
House. Then we meet a few more characters, Angela and Suzzanne ( the hosts),
Frannie, Max, Rodger, Sal and Helen. Then of course they start to party and when
they''re really in the mood they decide to have a séance which awakens a demon. The
demon possesses Angela and she starts her gruesome slaughtering. Will they survive
the Night of the Demons. The movie was overall great. The gore was fine
but the nudity provided by Linnea Quigley (Trash from ROTLD) once again screws it.
I never was a fan of hers and never will be.
It's the old, old story : kids have a party in an old house, demons are unleashed,
death and gratuitous nudity ensues. You all know it, it's still a lot of fun. Many people (okay, many horror fans, to be specific) have fond memories of
this movie and it's always with slight trepidation that you revisit an old movie to
see if it's still as good as you used to think it was. Luckily, this is. It has something for everyone (well, everyone who happens to be male, I
suppose). From a fun title sequence to a shoplifting scam involving cunning use of
Linnea Quigley's ass to the "mirror" scene to the full on demonic fun, this is a
blast from start to finish. The girls are cute, the guys are . . . .
male, the death scenes are well done with some good gore effects and, unlike some
horrors from the era, this actually keeps a good sense of atmosphere and even
tension throughout. Don't get me wrong, it's still fun first and foremost but it
offers some nice, freaky moments that should please most genre fans.
This isn't the video nasty Night of the Demon as there are more than one. Actually,
there is only one, but it multiplies. After it inhabits Suzanne (Scream
Queen Linnea Quigley), she passes it on to goth girl Angela (Amelia Kinkade)
through a nice long kiss. Next, we see Linnea showing us her quigleys in
the bathroom. She shows a lot more as Jay (Lance Fenton) thinks he is in for some
fun. Soon, everything literally goes to hell as bodies drop one by one
and are possessed. Judy (Cathy Podewell) and Max (Philip Tanzini) are the last two
trying to escape. Max isn't much help, leaving it to Judy to figure a way
out. The makeup was absolutely fantastic, and the only thing that kept
this from being even better was the extremely long build up to the action. The old man (Harold Ayer) who appears in the beginning will be back and get his
just desserts. Linnea Quigley may be the Scream Queen, but Cathy
Podewell definitely showed the greatest lungs in this film.
A group of obnoxious teens go to a former funeral parlor for a Halloween party.
They get trapped inside, and become possessed by demons that they have accidentally
awakened. The possessed teens start killing the others off and seem to be led by
Angela (Mimi Kinkade) who floats and talks in a really deep voice. The remaining
teens that haven't been possessed yet are forced to fight off the demons and try to
escape the house. This is a pretty decent horror film with great special
effects which include Linnea Quigley (who has a couple nude scenes as usual)
gouging out a guy's eyeballs and pushing a tube of lipstick into her nipple.
There's also a scene where a couple has sex in a coffin and a guy getting his
tongue bitten out. This is a great film to watch with a bunch of friends late at
night while eating some pizza. The terrible acting and atrocious dialog almost
ruins it though. Overall, I would give it a 7 out of 10.
The 80's is largely considered the decade in which horror decided to have fun.
Sometimes, there were some definite brains behind it all ("Evil Dead II", "Night of
the Creeps" and "Return of the Living Dead" for example) and then there were those
movies that were mindless but had a definite low rent charm and were perfect for a
night with beer and friends. Movies like "Pieces" and "Blood Diner" stacked rental
shelves in the 80's and 90's, offering little in intelligence or craftsmanship but
plenty in dumb entertainment. Kevin Tenney's 1988 movie "Night of the Demons" is a
part of this tradition-stupid, poorly acted and not an original bone in it's body,
but dammit if you don't have a good time. The plot is so simplistic it
just had to come from the 80's: a group of dumb teens played by a bunch of actors
in their mid to late 20's decide to go to a party at Hull House thrown by Angela
(Mimi Kinkade) and Suzanne (Scream Queen legend Linnea Quigley.) Well, Angela and
co. decide to throw a séance. This turns out to be as Will Arnett's "Arrested
Development" character Gob would call it, a "Huge Mistake," because a demonic force
soon possesses Angela, and starts to get to the others as well. Take
"The Evil Dead", "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and your average dumb dead teen flick,
throw them in a blender, and "Night of the Demons" is what you get. The movie is
anything but original, and really, it's not a good movie. The whole thing is
insanely derivative, the acting is terrible, the jokes often fall flat, the
characters are annoying (especially the character of Stooge) and the plot holes are
numerous. That out of the way, it's still a lot of fun. So why? Well
for one thing, the make up and gore effects are top notch, with some really
memorable moments (especially a nasty and just plane odd bit with a tube of
lipstick) that really stick out. It also rarely if ever takes itself too seriously,
yet with the exception of some terrible puns, plays it straight and never wastes
the audiences time with winking self awareness. Plus, there's a definite energy and
enthusiasm to the whole enterprise that's almost impossible to resist. Yeah, it's
nothing special, but it knows that, and it couldn't be more proud of that fact.
It's a goofy party horror movie, and it never pretends to be anything more. It might not be a classic, but "Night of the Demons" is a good example of
horror junk food done right. It might not be too memorable or original, but
sometimes you don't want a fancy beer. Sometimes you want a Budweiser.
This movie took me by surprise. The opening credit sequence features nicely done
animation. After that, we're plunged into a semi-cheesy production, betraying its
low budget. The characters, typical American teens, are introduced slowly, with
more personal detail than is usually found in movies like this. By the time the
shlitz hits the fan, we know each one of the characters, and either like or hate
them according to their distinct personalities. It's a slow uphill set-up, kind of
like the ride up a slope of a really tall roller coaster. Thankfully, once the
action kicks in, it's full blown old school HORROR! Steve Johnson's make-up effects
are awesome. Equal in quality to much bigger budgeted films. And the scares are
jolting. Kevin Tenney delivers his best movie ever, with heart-stopping surprises
and creepy suspenseful set-ups. The tongue-in-cheek, sometimes cheesy, humor marks
this film as pure 80s horror, as opposed to the sullen tone of earlier genre fare
like "Night of the Living Dead" or "Hills Have Eyes." But for true horror fans,
this one is worth checking out. Play it as the first entry on a double bill with
the 1999 remake of "House on the Haunted Hill." The set-up and character dynamics
are so similar that you really have to wonder what film they were actually
remaking?
I love this young people trapped in a house of horrors movie. Not just because I'm
a huge Linnea Quigley-Jill Terashita fan, but because it is a lot of fun and
actually scary at times. The special effects are awesome, especially
Linnea's scene with the lipstick and towards the end when almost everyone is dead
and possessed. Plenty of nudity provided by Linnea and Jill, plenty of
humor, cool soundtrack, high body count, etc...By the way, if you have never seen
this one, try and buy/watch the Unrated version which has more gore and some scenes
the rated version is missing.
I remember watching this film as a kid and I was in complete awe of it, I couldn't
take my eyes of the television. This movie has it all for horror fans! This movie
had no funny moments expect a couple of one liners by stooge(who was my favorite
character in the film) kevin tenney directed this jewel and did a wonderful job
with a low budget, I thought the end was awesome the only thing that could stop
them was by surviving the night they were unstoppable killing machines! the effects
done by steve johnson we're excellent I would recommend this movie to anyone who
has a love for low budget horror movies because as the old saying goes they don't
make them like this anymore. The sequels were pretty good too, but not as good as
good as the original. This is a must have in any horror collection, buy it if you
can find it you won't be disappointed
This movie was great don't understand the disrespect it get's. I first scene this
in like 87-88 and it was actually scary, If you are an 80's horror fan you should
have no problem with this film it has everything that makes 80's horror great. I
got to meet a few of the actor's and they were cool. What is not great about a
creepy old house,demons,crazy party & horny good looking young people. The dialog
and the special fx made this movie a classic. This film also took care of one of
those classic rumors about horror the black guy does not alway's have to die in the
end.Even though this movie was great there is one thing that remains undiscovered
to me what really happened to the old couple at the end was it on purpose or not
that little side story thing alway's had me puzzled.
I must say. This is easily one of my FAVORITE movies to watch on Halloween. The
halloween party, the horrid acting, the guy dressed like and extra from Miami Vice.
GREAT GREAT GREAT!!! *********************SPOILERS*************************** I have a huge
place in my heart for random 80's horror flicks and this one reached out and tugged
at my heart strings. I always passes this flick at Blockbuster and always laughed
at the cover of the box. Now every weekend I would grab a random movie I had never
seen before...one weekend it was Angelas turn. She seemed to have been taunting me
for months. So I took it home put it in and spent most of the movie underneath the
blanket. For me, it was terrifying and gross. And not just the acting!
Some of the things they came up with for this movie was AMAZING. I can honestly say
the best part for me was watching Suzanne (played by a fellow iowan) stick a tube
of lipstick through her nipple. It was random and I loved it. Watching creepy
Angela FLOAT through the hallways and hearing her creepy demon voice was enough to
have me awake ALL NIGHT LONG! It isn't one of the most clever or best
acted horror movies. But its 80's cheese and its got all the elements you need.
Creepy Goth Kid, Virgin, Slut, Naked Girls, Scary House, Bad Acting, oh and did I
mention Naked Girls? All the elements were there and were put together in such a
way that made for one of my fave movies. Kudos to the filmmakers.
The wind and the lion is a marvelous sweeping motion picture. It is a monument to
what filmmaking once was but is no more. Connery, despite the thick
scottish brogue, plays the Raisulu very well. He inspires the viewer in a way many
lead characters cannot. Candice Bergen, in one of her early roles, is
marvelous as the kidnapped socialite Mrs. Pedacaris, showing courage in the face of
adversity (and plenty of humour as well). A marvelous film, rent or buy it and you
won't be disappointed.
I remember seeing this film in the theater and liking it. I happened to stumble
upon it on fear net last month and watched it again and found it better with age.
First of all for those of you who describe this as 80s cheese if you objectively
compare it with the horror flicks of the past 2 decades it compares quite well if
stacked up against films in its unique horror sub genre which I would term
action/horror as opposed to psychological horror such as "The Shining" or "the
exorcist". Furthermore for its budget this film really delivers the
goods (or in this instance bad). The film actually has some character development
and gives enough of a history of the infamous hull house to get the atmosphere
right before the characters set foot in the front door. The film also has several
hilarious one liners and gives the appropriate mood that a creepy horror flick
should have. If you compare NOD to contemporary big budget horror films such as "I
am legend" (The Vincent Price version was much better) this film really stands out.
Modern horror flicks have become almost completely dominated by CGI. Most have no
plot or character devel at all and are completely predictable. The special effects
dominate these movies from start to finish and the characters are 24k plastic. If
this is 80s horror cheese I'll take it over 95% of current entries in the genre. On a closing note seeing NOD again made me remember the beautiful Jill
Terashita and wonder why I have not seen her in more films horror or otherwise.
Jill on the odd chance that you read this- I think you are gorgeous and should have
been in more films. Lastly, if you like action horror flicks you will probably like
this one a lot.
I absolutely love this movie! Evil Dead has NOTHING on this film! Night of the
Demons 2 and 3 are a total bore fest, but this one is a classic. It's super cheesy
and the acting is alright at best, but what more could you want from an 80's horror
movie? Stooge has some of the best one-liners to ever hit the screen in this one.
(he's my favorite character) A lot of people talk about the lipstick scene in this
movie, but my personal favorite is the ending, sadly enough has nothing to do with
the main characters, when the old man eats his left over Halloween apples in a pie,
and his throat is mangled from the inside out. The sound track is awesome. The
scene with Angela dancing is totally creepy, especially after the strobe light
comes on, and you can see her jump from one part of the floor to the next with
every sound of a camera shutter click on the song that's playing. The make-up
effects in this movie are pretty sweet; Angela gave me nightmares as a kid. If
you're the type of person who demands perfection out of your filming experience,
you might want to give this one a pass. But, if you're like me, and you really dig
the whole Halloween, haunted house with the demons cliché, than this one is
definitely a must own.
any movie that has a line of dialogue that goes something like this...."Judy's
getting ready for her date, Butthole!" has to be good! I found this on DVD unrated,
unedited and was pleasantly surprised, a lot of hard work was put into making this
movie. I actually enjoyed this more that a lot of 80s movies I have seen. Great
addition to my movie collection. The buildup was great, sets up the
scares for the rest of the movie. Loved the GORE and the T&A. I never thought
eyeballs being gouged out would look like popping boils, the color of the eye
splatter was gross! I keep thinking that "Rog" looked like Tiger Woods but more
black, anyone agree?
I originally saw this movie in a movie theater on Times Square in the late
eighties. Who would have thought this film would spawn two sequels and have this
cult following.Night of the Demons was like most other films that came out at the
time.A group of horny teenagers find themselves trapped in some isolated local and
then are killed off one at a time in various gruesome ways.Come to think of it the
formula still is used and still seems to work as evidenced by Saw II that I
recently saw. I saw Mimi Kinkade at a Fangoria convention about six
years ago and she was so gentle hearted!I guess that makes her a pretty good
actress if she could make a career out of playing this demon possessed woman in all
these horror flicks.Anyway, I just this film again on VHS cassette and this movie
still holds up.A little slow at the beginning as I remembered when I first saw it
but then it quickly picks up pace. One of the eighties horror classics and worth a
look!
Night of the Demons is a great movie and an excellent example of how good low-
budget can be. Sure, much of it is fairly predictable, but somehow it's still much
more enjoyable than the crap we see these days being passed off as "Horror". I give
the gore a solid 9, and the Demons' one-liners are actually funny. I'm still
creeped out by "Stop looking at me!" The soundtrack is well done, I was surprised
to hear "Stigmata Martyr" from Bauhaus! There is also some very nice T&A on
display, as well as some hella good make-up effects. The second film in the series
is pretty good too, but avoid the inferior third one. Night of the Demons may be
dated, dark, and low-rent, but it still has a lot of potential. It's definitely
worth a rental at least. Give it a chance tonight, just stay away from any old
makeup! (you'll understand when you see it!)
This is a great horror film for people who don't want all that vomit-retching gore
and sensationalism. This movie has equal amounts of horror, suspense, humor, and
even a little light nudity, but nothing big. Linnea Quigley isn't over the top as
she was in "Return of the Living Dead" where she danced naked on a crypt, but she
is still essentially the same slutty character. Cathy Podewell is a virginal and
chaste character before going on to "Dallas," and we are also introduced to Amelia
[soon Mimi] Kinkade,the sexy and sinister would-be dark matron of the house. As she
and Linnea are possessed and take over the house, they reanimate the bodies of
their dead friends to scare the limits out of the survivors. I've heard a lot of
people compare this movie to "The Evil Dead," but if anything, this movie is a
rival to that one the same way Freddie rivaled Jason.This movie series though is
far superior to that one !
The 80s were overrun by all those HALLOWEEN/Friday THE 13TH slasher-style horror
movies, so this is something of a relief. Ten unbelievably annoying
teenagers (would you want to hang out with these jerks?!) decide to throw a
Halloween party at a local former funeral parlor called "Hull House". During a
"past life séance" a demon is accidentally released, and each person becomes
possessed and kills off the others. This all sounds very EVIL
DEAD/DEMONS-ish, but Tenney lends some directorial style to the proceedings, there
are some good one-liners, the music is excellent, the Steve Johnson prosthetic
make-up FX are scary and Linnea Quigley is quite fun as a boy-crazy bimbo who pokes
out eyeballs with her fingers and does an amazing new thing with a tube of
lipstick! Great fun on a no-brainer level! After checking out the
breakdown of the voting and the other posted reviews, I don't understand how this
only received 4 out of 10 (?!) I give it, 8 out of 10.
PUBLIC ENEMIES is a kind of throw-back to those early 1960's gangster biographies
like PORTRAIT OF A MOBSTER, MAD DOG COLL and KING OF THE ROARING TWENTIES. Although
made on the cheap, the film has a great deal of energy and the acting over-all,
particularly by Eric Roberts and Frank Stallone is quite good. Theresa Russell
might seem too glamorous as Ma, but she has some very good moments. There are two
action scenes worth noting: a shoot-out in a hotel, and a machine gun fight in the
middle of the street between the Barkers and the FBI. Both sequences are nicely
done, and compared to other low-bidget gangster junk like DILLINGER AND CAPONE,
this film shines.
I found this flick enjoyable and involving to watch, and I'm surprised it's rated
so lowly. Actually I can see why it is; I imagine it's the fans of Eric Roberts and
Alyssa Milano that have been giving most of the 1s and 2s, because if you put the
tape into the machine expecting to enjoy watching something starring either or both
of these two then you could be rather disappointed. Eric appears for about half an
hour towards the end of the movie, and Alyssa for about 5 scenes in the second
half, and in those she says little and wears less (although never nude if that's
what you're looking for, stick with embrace of the vampire). Although they're
always a pleasure, it's a pity she, or Eric, don't get much screen-time yet I still
give this an 8. 
This movie had a lot of ups & downs...The storyline is strong, while telling the
saga of Ma' Barker growing up, & then her misadventures with her boys and the
FBI..Theresa Russell is very talented and her beauty even shines through, as Ma'
Barker, in Public Enemies. The Direction of Mark L. Lester, while not as good as in
"85's Commando was still very interesting. Eric Roberts, plays a short-
lived part as a security guard, turned thug(and Ma's Lover), and Alyssa Milano
plays a prostitute, who hangs with the gang. Frank Stallone, plays a thug who helps
out the gang, & while one of his exploits, gets one of Ma's boy into trouble, he
gets himself out, in a final way, so to speak... I was perplexed,
intrigued & captivated, throughout this movie..So it makes me wonder what movie all
these others who voted it so low watched!..For all those wondering..Umm the FBI was
actually that bad in the beginning, didn't have tommy guns like the outlaws had, &
were thus at quite a disadvantage, whenever they did get into shootout's with
gang's of that era..Since everything I saw represented the 30's, I felt it was more
realistic than many other movies made portraying that era...It is in may ways like
a train wreck happening..You don't want to watch, but JUST have too..Enjoy!!!
The Wind and the Lion is well written and superbly acted. It is a tale that
exemplifies the American spirit and the American character. This movie is a story
from the early 20th century that is strangely relevant to the political landscape
of the world in the beginning of the 21st century. It is a true classic.
I thought this movie was good, I loved the plot, I loved the shoot out scenes,
except for a few, they were not needed and i also enjoyed Ma's character, she was a
rider I liked that. I do have to say that in this gangster movie the actors were
picked well because sometimes some actors just don't fit the role. However though i
hate to say it, but I hated the ending, I felt as if it should have went in a
different direction. Also it would have been better with a little more details, its
based on a true story but there was so much of the facts left out but other than
that it was good. If you enjoy movies on the past gangsters you'll enjoy this
movie.
I was given a DVD of Public Enemies and was expecting it to be the 2009 version but
it wasn't - it was this! Sure, it wasn't the greatest movie I have ever seen - not
by ANY means - but, heck folks, it was worth more that 2.8 out of 10! When I saw
that abysmal rating on IMDb, I wondered what I was going to get but, since the disc
was in the player, I settled down to watch it. As other commentators have pointed
out, Public Enemies is NOT a historical movie per-se - and I noted that, unlike the
2009 version (which I haven't seen yet) IMDb doesn't categorise it as such. Come on people! It's a STORY based on some real people - that's all! If I
wanted a history lesson, I'd sit at this computer and read Wikipedia or something.
Ma Barker (actual name Arizona - or Arrie - Barker) was NEVER even charged with any
crime and, as other commentators have already pointed out, she probably never even
took part in her sons' activities. They sent her to the movies when they were
"working"! (I hope she wasn't as critical as some of those who watched this movie!)
 Theresa Russell had the never-too-easy task of portraying a woman from
the age of 17 right through to her death at the age of 52 - from a young girl
running from home to the hardened mother of four hoodlum sons. I think she did it
pretty well. The cheeky little smile she used in more than one scene was classical!
OK, I will agree with some of the critics that the direction of this film was below
par and I sympathise with the actors over that. Theresa should have told the
director to forget the topless shots - they didn't contribute to the story. Maybe
some bigger-name stars would have managed to inject some of their own expertise
into overriding the poor direction whereas the second-graders weren't quite that
brave. Who knows? But, whilst this was certainly no block-buster, it
WAS worth more than 2.8!! I have all my DVDs on a personal database where I score
them BEFORE looking at the IMDb score (although that sometimes influences slight
changes later). I take what I get on it's own merits rather than holding one movie
up against others of the same genre and this one I felt was entertaining enough to
get 6.8. (Yep, I'll accept that such a practice does tend to depend on my mood at
the time, but then isn't that also true of those who vote on IMDb?) However, you
may imagine my surprise when I looked at IMDb and saw the pitiful score it got
here. Given the surprise, I decided to read a few of the other comments
in the hopes of understanding the low rating and I noticed that they are quite
polarised. I agreed with those who said the movie was worth watching and came to
the conclusion that some people are just hard to please. Well, since some were
absolutely scathing, why don't THEY get out there and make some better movies? I
will look forward to the gems they must be able to turn out! On the other hand, if
they can't do that, then why don't they just shut up?
You can't watch this film for a history lesson. This was the first I had heard of
the Ma Barker saga, but I could tell almost immediately that the facts were way
off. And with a little internet research I realized I was of course right. Ma
Barker sure as hell isn't the sexy, calculating woman the movie portrays her as,
and apparently did not orchestrate all the bank robbing schemes, kiddnappings, and
murders that her criminal boys carried out. But don't expect a brilliant
crime drama. The script and the acting are adequate, the gunfights are excessive
and mostly unrealistic, and there is a very laughable slow motion death scene. So
why did I give it a 7 out of 10? Because it was damn entertaining. The
gunfights are fun to watch but there are some deeper themes that emerge between
them. The movie has a strong sense of ego intimidation among it's cast of alpha
males, each of whom has his own agenda. And I appreciate the minimal use of swears
for the period. The set pieces are great, reproducing a convincing 1930s era. So watch this film like you would a cult film, and take the excessive
bloodiness and ruthlessness in stride with the cheesy ultra serious comments from
the FBI man who wants to take the Barkers down at any cost. Inotherwords, don't
take it too seriously, just have fun with it. And if you like this, you'll love
Serial Mom.
It is a surprising movie that gets you in your chair waiting for the last minute of
the film, leaving on your leaps a sweet taste of: ... I want more! There are very
good actors, Portuguese actors that have a lot of experience in the world of
theater and films. It is not a million Euros budget film, but still we can see the
destruction of a car in an excellent perspective that gets you in the movie. If you
have the opportunity of getting your hands on this excellent film, don't wait for
another minute: just see the film! I think that Portuguese film are increasing the
quality. Watch out Spanish producers... The Portuguese are getting a high quality
standards. I saw the film and I'm waiting for more...
It is fantastic! A sick and twisted tale of coincidence and deceit. The
story is meticulously and ingeniously constructed. It is really a perfect mixture:
it has all from suspense to humor and the story is told with lots of originality...
The film is built up like a puzzle which is assembled piece by piece, and resolves
the story... For the viewer there are plenty of surprises till the end!! I also had
a little impression that the director has been inspired by some Hitchcock work.
I've also seen films before where you see the same event happening from different
points of view but this film goes beyond that. In this movie everything is built
upon what happens to a body that appears and disappears and appears again in a
different location. Every actor in the story has his own secret and we come to
realize it in a way that contributes to assembling the puzzle.... I loved
especially the dark humor scenes...which made laugh the whole theater.... This
movie is a must see for everyone!
Since frame number 1 you know the good guy in the suit and necktie is doomed He
has no luck ("Sorte Nula"), or so he believes with that music on the car radio, and
the dubious talk by his best friend and company associate who is taking him to
parts unknown through a desert road. Alberto wished simply to be left alone, to
take a flight abroad next day, with well, someone we're left guessing. The film goes a long way that'll find short to a closing scene with the
man hearing the same music on a cab to the airport. In between, a number of lucky
people have found different ways out of the story, some dying, some being born,
others falling into harrowing distress. This time he's really doomed Or is he? The
film is a sort of one-man show by director Fernando Fragata who only left the sound
recording and the special effects to other, competent people. Those who typically
reject Portuguese films due to sound problems and unclear speech recording, must go
searching for other topics to criticize this time. The car crash (this isn't
spoilers, the film is too clever for THAT) makes for a great scene, and apparently
was done with cheap equipment. (US Studios take notice: you may spare a dollar or
two by hiding competent Portuguese directors!) The rest was done by
Fragata, from the script to the dialogue, from camera work to editing. If part of
the dialogue were ad-libbed, then he again must be congratulated for the acting
direction, and the casting with mostly inexperienced actors. A large number of non-
speaking parts are credited, but most of those people were used for the music video
clip and the making of, used extensively in the film's promotional trailer. The
cast has a dozen actors and actresses, of whom ten relevant persons, and a huge
number of relationships that are revealed step-by-step, in a thrilling,
suspenseful way, reminiscent of the best genre authors. 'Alfred Hitchcock' (qv) and
'Claude Chabrol' (qv) do come to mind, by the cat-and-mouse play between the
director and his public, and the nature of his characters. I recommend
this thriller and comedy to Portuguese language speakers and, if the film gets to
have a decent translation of its colloquial dialogue, to anyone abroad who enjoys
those genres.
"Sorte Nula" is the #1 Box Office Portuguese movie of 2004. This extreme low budget
production (estimated USD$150,000) opened during Christmas opposite American
Blockbusters like National Treasure, Polar Express, The Incredibles and Alexander
but rapidly caught the adulation of the Portuguese moviegoers. Despite the harsh
competition, the small film did surprisingly well, topping all other Portuguese
films of the past two years in its first weeks. The film is a mystery/murder with a
humorous tone cleverly written and directed by Fernando Fragata who has become a
solid reference in the European independent film arena. Did I like the film? Oh,
yes!
This is probably one of the best Portuguese movies I ever saw... I absolutely
enjoyed the plot, because by the way the story was developing, you would get more
involved on how their world was really upside-down... There is just only one part
that doesn't really seem to fit in the movie, which is the girls' strip... It does
not add anything important to the story, it looks like it's just there for a men
entertaining purpose. The ending is a bit unexpected, though, at the same time,
somewhat expected. If you don't understand, then follow me: after so many strange
occurrences, the viewer is so used to oddities, that ending the movie with totally
unexpected relationships (Like Mimoso and Susana) sounds totally natural after
seeing the rest of the movie. But, most of all, Sorte Nula is a movie that makes
you think hard trying to solve the mysterious occourings, laugh your head off with
their unlucky lives and mess with your perception of what can happen in just a few
minutes, when you turn your back away from something... for all that, I rate it
8/10
Despite its ultra low budget, "Sorte Nula" is the most successful Portuguese film
of 2004. And I must say, a well deserved success. What I love about "Sorte Nula"
the most is the intricate detail that Fernando Fragata went to keep you interested
as to what is going on and just what will happen next. It's very detailed and
superbly advanced for a seemingly simple love-story-gone-bad thriller. What's even
more enjoyable and ironic about this is the fact that the characters are in the
same situation, not one of them knows the entire story and are left to their own
assumptions making "Sorte Nula" a cut above the rest. This is definitely not a film
you want to walk out on for a bathroom break as you will undoubtedly miss something
important. I feel one of the film's major attributes would have to be the
environment that it establishes. It's creepy but hilarious at the same time. I read
somewhere someone quoting this film by saying, "...it's was like watching
Hitchcock..." and I couldn't agree more!! I love movies like that, where you have
to pay attention to EVERYTHING in order to fully understand what is going on. 9/10
Yesterday I finally satisfied my curiosity and saw this movie. My knowledge of the
plot was limited to about 60 seconds of the trailer, but I had heard some good
critics which caused my expectations to increase. As I saw the movie,
those untied pieces had been combined in a story that was becoming quite
intriguing, with some apparently inexplicable details. But in the end, everything
is disclosed as a simple succession of events of bad luck, "sorte nula" in
Portuguese. Above everything, I felt that the story made sense, and everything fits
in it's place, properties of a good script. I must also mention the
soundtrack, which helps the creation of an amazing environment. And if
you think of the resources Fernando Fragata used to make this film, I believe it
will make many Hollywood producers envious...
The portrayal of the Marines in this film is spot on. The action scenes are some of
the best ever produced in accuracy of content. The uniforms and weaponry of both
the U.S. and German troops were perfect. The costumes and weaponry of the Berbers
were perfectly accurate as well. This film could easily be used to teach militaria
of the period and has been used by the USMC Academy for this purpose. The scenes
depicting Roosevelt shooting and the rifles he was using was beautiful. Procuring
so many period weapons in such good shape is testament to the attention to detail
and presentation this film should be noted for. Millius is a genius.
I consider this film to be a complete masterpiece - actually I consider it to be
Fernando Fragata's best work and undoubtedly the best of all Portuguese movies. I
don't think you can come across such a "zero budget" kind of film as impressive and
astonishing as this one. The direction is done with perfection at an
incredible fast pace and the music also composed by Fragata is mostly excellent.
The story is creepy and humorous at the same time, and it is certainly an advanced
study of the old saying "Misery loves company" kind of situations intertwined with
a mind boggling mystery. A more than perfect recipe to glue the viewers' eyes to
the screen from frame one to the last. It's been called Neo-Hitchcock,
and I'll agree. Much like the best Hitchcocks, it kept me guessing during the
entire film and most of my suppositions were far for what ends up being smartly
revealed.
There was a video out in America called 'Cartoon Scandals' that featured about an
hours worth of banned cartoons. Most of them were WWII era. That's where
I first saw (and heard of) this one. The rooster during the opening news
broadcast turns into a vulture with an Asian face saying 'cock-a-doodle-doo
please.' After that it's eight minutes of propaganda played out like a newsreel. Viscously racist, but when you look at it as the piece of history it is, it
can (and should) be forgiven. Slicing ration cards to make
sandwiches. Showing the ruins of Rome while calling Moussolini 'Ruin
#1.' A minesweeper using a broom. A manned bomb with the
pilot saying 'RET ME OUT OF HERE.' And of course the stereotyping.
Every Japanese was drawn with big teeth, constantly bowing, and saying 'please' at
the end of every broken sentence. The funniest bit? The air raid siren
that was two bowing men stabbing each other in the tush with pins. "oooo-OOOOOO"
 Hey AOL. Let this one out. It deserves notice. My wife laughed at this.
And she's 100% Japanese.
It is important and only fair to remember that, at the time this short was
produced, a state of war existed between the United States and the Empire of Japan.
Add to that the enormous ill-will that the beginning of the war created, as well as
the Bataan Death March and other incidents and the only thing surprising about this
short and others is that there weren't more of them. One other thing: my only
problem with this short is that it seems to try to be funny, but it isn't. I'm not
sure that anyone connected with it really tried to make the jokes work, or even
cared. It would have been far better if they had done what Disney did with
Education For Death and been totally serious. But this short gets a bad rap and
shouldn't be judged out of context. The times were different then and that is an
important consideration. Anyone expending energy trying to save the world from a
sixty-year old cartoon needs to take a step back. As do I, expending energy
defending that same cartoon. This should be available to interested parties, even
if not in wide circulation. Not a nice cartoon, but sometimes life isn't nice.
Recommended
I viewed Linda, and it is a Top-Rate Movie! The lives of Paul and his wife, Linda,
who he adored as a young man and finally married. They meet another married couple,
Jeff and Stella, and the foursome become very good friends. But, their friendship
takes a Twisted Turn after vacationing together at Varona Beach....A Twist that
never returns the married couples to their former status as friends. Linda is A Must-See!!!! The acting by Virginia Madsen is acceptable; however,
Richard Thomas steals the movie with his incredible acting...and the emotions that
he displays. A Wonderful Movie! "Lotta Honey"
I have watched this movie at least ten times. I do not agree with the previous
comments. This is a tongue in cheek movie and some of the acting is meant to be
stilted. Men like Paul Cowley are few and far between, women like Linda,
unfortunately, are a dime a dozen. The sad thing here is that although similiar
relationships like this rarely lead to murder and frame ups, it is an all to
familiar scenario. Boy worships girl, girl doesn't know he exists, they grow up,
man sees woman he fantasized about down and out and rescues her. Bottom line, she
never did love him-he came along at the right time and she used him. Thomas is
excellent as the nerdy but adequate Paul. His portrayal is sensitive and touching.
Madsen is perfect as the femme-fatale. What really moved me was the final scene.
Paul says he eventually cried, but not for Linda, his wife, but for the unknown
girl he had watched from a distance so many years ago..and longed for..and loved.
And I loved the close-up of Thomas at the end.
Don't hate Heather Graham because she's beautiful, hate her because she's fun to
watch in this movie. Like the hip clothing and funky surroundings, the actors in
this flick work well together. Casey Affleck is hysterical and Heather Graham
literally lights up the screen. The minor characters - Goran Visnjic {sigh} and
Patricia Velazquez are as TALENTED as they are gorgeous. Congratulations Miramax &
Director Lisa Krueger!
Once the slow beginning gets underway, the film kicks off and really becomes quite
a lot of fun in many unexpected ways. The ensemble cast is really good, with
Heather Graham perhaps being the weakest of them. Casey Affleck as her brother is
really good and extremely likeable , if you catch my drift. I highly
recommend the film if you just want to have to good hours. Teenagers should really
enjoy this film - it says a lot about relationships.
It was sad that COMMITTED lasted only two weeks in Dallas theaters. I thought this
movie had a lot going for it. The script was funny, full of subtle emotional
shifts, and it had a good message. The acting was great. Everyone did a superb job,
especially with the script's subtleties. Heather Graham not only has beautiful
eyes, she has *expressive* eyes. For that matter, all the actors were attractive!
Why it didn't do well in its theatrical release, I don't know--other than the
studio didn't seem to have much of a push behind it. But it deserved to do better,
and I hope it does well on video. It's certainly one of my favorites for the first
half of 2000.
"Committed" is all about Graham as an irrepressible optimist who goes in search of
her self-estranged husband who has gone in search of himself which all leads to a
sort of kookie, upbeat comedic odyssey involving a bunch of side characters and
issues. A fresh, fun, and unpredictable little flick, what "Committed" lacks in
story it makes up for in good naturedness and subtle morals and maxims. If you
enjoy this little chick flick, which received slightly above average reviews by
critics and public alike, you might want to check out Lisa Krueger's hit Indie
"Manny & Lo" (1996). (B)
 Heather Graham is not just a pretty face,she is also an extremely
talented actress. She adds a unique flavour to the movie. Overall,it's an
intelligent and yet compassionate look at love,marriage and relationships.I
thoroughly enjoyed it!
 Average adventure movie that took a serious story and "Holywoodised"
it.The watering down effect done particularly towards the average script snatched
away this movie's place as a would be solid classic. Why water down such a great
storyline?Probably because it deals with "sensitive" colonial subject matters and
the producers do not want to create political heat,just quick profits thank you.The
directing,cinematography and soundtrack and acting was good.The screenplay was
average.The charm of Connery made up for his wrong Arabic accent and all the scenes
with President T. Roosevelt were masterpiece takes.The costumes/sets here was very
good.Too bad we did not get more of a serious historical drama since this is what
the story demands.Only for big fans of the lead actors or fans of exotic
Romance/Adventure Holywood movies.....
It is depressing that many people don't understand this movie. To get caught up in
the peripheral elements is to miss the true meaning of this film. This film speaks
to the minority of people who actually believe in love and truth. It points out
that in todays society too often people say what sounds good at the moment with no
intention of backing things up when things get rough. as someone else stated that
is evident in the number of divorces. Some people actually believe marriage is
forever. Forget about stereotypes or anything else, but rather focus on what is
important following your heart and fighting for who you believe in. I liked the
ending because it would have been easy to go with a sappy one but came instead with
the reality that committent is great, and you should fight with everything you
have, but sometimes that still isn't enough. Too often people just give up and
forget about the magic of love. late.
This is a truly great and beautiful movie. The underlying theme of this movie is
the innocent child (Heather Graham as Joline) struggling to make her naive wishes
for how the world should be make sense while being incessantly beaten down by the
real world. It's not an unhappy movie, though - exactly the opposite. It's a funny
movie with a sad side, but just thinking about the movie makes me feel so happy.
Near the beginning of the movie, beautiful, vulnerable Joline confronts a drug
addict attempting to break into her friend's car. She reasons with him, convinces
him to seek help, and gives him $30 as a start. At the end of the movie, he
reappears to pay her back, explains that he is off drugs, doing well, and he thanks
her. I can hear the cynics groaning. Of *course* that would never really happen.
This movie doesn't take place in the real world. It takes place in the world we
wished we lived in. The sad part is realizing we don't live there. The happy part
is knowing there are people wishing we did.
In an industry dominated by men and in lack of products with a female mark on it ;
is it always nice to see a film shown from the woman's point of view. I would
welcome more films from female writers and directors , and I think lots of other
women with me.
Joline (Heather Graham) married Carl (Luke Wilson) and about five hundred and some
days later, Carl is very depressed and leaves her, expecting to `clean the fog' in
their lives. Joline faces her marriage as an important commitment to the end of her
life, and decides to look for Carl in Texas. She is very supported by her brother
Jay (Casey Affleck), who meets her in the border of Mexico. There, Joline meets the
confused Carl and realizes that she can not change his decision, while Jay knows
Carmen (Patricia Velasquez) and starts dating her, and in the end `life goes on'.
This movie is very unpredictable, having a very different story. I believe it is an
independent production. In some parts, it is a little slow and boring, but there
are certain dialogs that makes this movie worthwhile. I liked it, and my vote is
seven. Title (Brazil): `Rebeldes Até o Fim' (`Rebels Until the
End') 
I loved this film! It has a great heart and great bones. I stumbled onto it by
chance and I had no recollection, not even an inkling, of this movie from promos or
reviews or word of mouth. I remember reading, many years ago, a journalist who
commented on the value of watching movies without having them contaminated by the
pre-judgement of reviews or the false shill of the promos. And this seems to be
the single most common source of the critics' negative reaction to the film: it
failed to meet expectations of it being a comedy, or a slice of life, or character
driven. I had no expectation about the film, and so it was comedic - but I only
laughed once or twice - without being a comedy; it was about a person, but so
eccentric that it wasn't slice of life; it was about a character, but the character
was so intelligently optimistic and trusting of her instinct to life, that it
wasn't the angst-driven sentimental melodrama so typical of American 'serious' film
- as I wrote that I realized that writer/director Lisa Krueger managed to poke fun
at this schlock American sentimentality in the husband! And very cleverly too! And
Kreuger was able to keep the cloyingly sentimental ending from the screen, when the
wayward, not prodigal, husband returned with his tail shrunk between his
legs. Bravo, Ms. Krueger, bravo! (Now I will be watching this film again, as it is
getting better and better as I reflect on it.) Graham's performance
as Joline is brilliant. I loved how subtly but completely she was able to portray
and convey intelligent awareness of her committable commitment to honouring her
words and actions - she knew that in keeping her word with a band, or friends, or
husband that she was setting herself up to ridicule and/or disappointment in a
world that was unable to honour commitment as she was able to do. But even with
that strength, she was fully connected to humanity, and embraced with a fully
committed heart their frailty and failures. The character of Joline was amazingly
well acted, and I left the film surprised that I had no recollection of awards
nominations for it. Okay, not that surprised, as American awards tend to go to
women in 'serious' roles, filled with angst and the proper amount of nudity, which
this film did not have. What it has was far better, which was heart in this woman's
discovery of herself with the assistance of new friends and a self-deprecating
shaman. I admit to being a bit of a soft touch for eccentric characters
who manage their peculiarities while remaining honest and true to themselves as
they move through the minefield of what comprises 'proper' societal behaviour and
'acceptable' interpersonal discourse. So, if people must conform to normality in
your world, then this film will not be to your liking. And that was, it seems, one
of the common threads in the critiques. And I am always a sucker for a
good play on words when it raises questions of human behaviour and
ethical/philosophical values. Until this movie I hadn't made the emotional
connection between being committed (to a cause or honesty or something) and being
committed (to an insane asylum). At what point does one's commitment to a personal
sense of truth and action in life become a one way ticket to insanity? This sounds
like a simple question, or one that is easily dismissed as being rhetorical. But is
it? And yet few of the critics - I think maybe two, commented on this aspect of the
film either directly or indirectly. A lovely film. 8/10. 
I get the feeling that Lisa Krueger is easy to overlook. I personally found her
first film, 1996's Manny and Lo, to be a wonderfully detailed character study and
the performances were uniformly wonderful(with special credit to Mary Kay Place).
The film played for a week or two in major urban centers and vanished. One or two
critics really liked it, but many viewed it as slight. Krueger's second film,
Committed, was released this year (2000) (after nearly two years of delays) and it
similarly vanished. And once again critics dismissed the film as slight and pushed
the film aside, at most praising Heather Graham's screen presence, but rarely her
acting ability. And once again, for me, Committed is a solid success. I feel as if
Krueger has a genuine voice and a personal visual style and these are traits that
shouldn't be so easily ignored, simply because she works on a very restrained
canvass. The title has several meanings, but mostly it refers to Joline
(Graham)'s refusal to let her husband Carl (Luke Wilson) flake out and leave her.
She follows him from New York to El Paso and becomes one of the most appealing
stalkers in recent cinematic history. Her respect for her marriage vows leads her
to Mexican mysticism and self-discovery. And yep, the plot is just that simple and
thus, just that easy to ignore. Joline, of course, is the crying voice
of a generation whose parents divorced at a rate nearing fifty percent. And for me,
her personal revolution against broken promises and a legacy of deceit is fairly
intelligent and powerful. Confident in the belief that people just don't have
enough faith in each other, Joline inevitably has to discover that her beliefs
aren't in synche with those of society at large. Several comments her have referred
to her character as one-dimensional and I'm afraid that that's a simplistic reading
of the film. Or perhaps even a misreading. If Joline were just an innocent, she
wouldn't be interesting at all. It's the fact that she understands the world and
refuses to play by the rules of the "normals" that makes her so interesting.
Sociologically, she's a complete deviant. Krueger sometimes falls into
moments of cutesy dialogue and her direction of this film has a rather odd over-
reliance on shots of clouds moving across the El Paso skyline. However, her
mistakes are fairly rare and in this film, as in Manny and Lo, it's the
performances that carry the day. Graham has never been better because she's never
had a character as perfectly tailored to her as Joline. For the first time in her
career, Graham seems comfortable playing an adult, even one in slightly arrested
development. She carries the film perfectly. Luke Wilson and Casey Affleck (as
Joline's brother) both have a number of fine moments, as do Alfonso Arau, as a
Mexican Mystic and Mark Ruffalo and T-Bo, the slightly psychotic truck driver. As
in Manny and Lo, the characters are part of their environments, well detailed
totally organic creations. These characters may sometimes seem pointlessly quirky,
but they make sense in their context. Even Goran Visnjic, as an artist turned on by
Joline's devotion, fits in in some strange way, even though his character's
foreigness is never discussed. For me, this is a movie that gains depth
looking back. Another commenter here spoke of the stereotypical Mexican portrayals.
And again I'm tempted to call that a misreading. Joline is looking for self-
justification. She knows that her commitment is out of control, but she's looking
for any spiritual avenue that can help her make sense of herself. Arau's character
understands that most people don't believe in him and he plays up his own faith
when he sees a woman who respects him. I guess I can understand how
this movie could be viewed as underwhelming, I'd simply disagree. It's consistently
funny, frequently hilarious, and all of the characters exude a warmth which is
quite wonderful. I'm giving this one a 7.5/10 and when I log in the vote
here, that'll go up to an 8.
This movie could be likened to "comfort food" for the soul. Anyone who has ever
tried and tried to save a relationship could relate to this movie. So many parts of
it are so hilarious and so many parts are so heartbreakingly true. It's not perfect
in its production or even its dialog, but the story is unique which is saying a lot
for modern "romantic" comedies. Luke Wilson is bland at best, but Heather Graham
does an exceptional job in my opinion. Give it a try - despite the trite looking
DVD cover.The character of Joline brings a lot of issues up in our culture of self-
service. She asks us if commitment is really for the other person or ourselves.
Truly, it is ourselves. Following through on promises (anywhere from marriage to an
errand for a friend) is a great feeling. Anymore, our word is nothing but a
shapeshifting puff of smoke. Joline is like a wake-up call. We must be conscious of
our words and commitments, they mean more than we think. At the same time, we must
not commit to someone who is incapable of doing the same.
Jolene (Heather Graham) operates a night club in NYC and lives with her husband,
Carl (Luke Wilson), a photographer. After about 500 days of marriage, Jolene comes
home to find a note from Carl that he needs "some space" ....and a bouquet of
daisies, her favorite flower. Jo promptly puts the daisies in the blender and
presses the button. Soon after, she embarks on a journey to find Carl somewhere out
west because, after all, she is "committed" to Carl. However, when she finally
tracks him down in Texas, Jo camps out near his home, at first,, hoping to find
clues to his decision to leave. She meets a gorgeous sculptor-neighbor (Goran,
can't spell his name!) but Jo discourages his attraction to her. When she learns
Carl may have a new girlfriend, she decides to consult a Mexican-American mystic
(Alfonso Arau) for advice. Jo is committed but does that mean anything to Carl?
This is a very imaginative, quite humorous look at the marriage vow. It's quirky
script and offbeat style is downright infectious. Graham is just great as the
jilted woman who is having a hard time letting go. Wilson does not give his best
performance but is adequate as the mixed-up husband. The rest of the cast is quite
nice, however, with Goran the gorgeous one wonderful as the sexy neighbor. The
scenery, both in New York and in Texas, is very lovely and the costumes are fresh
and fun. If you like romantic comedies AND independent films, this one is made to
order for you. It walks to a different beat that is most attractive but still
delivers in the ultimate happy ending category.
Joline (Heather Graham) sets out after her husband Carl (Luke Wilson) who
disappeared to clear his head about himself and their marriage. Joline, who is
committed to their marriage starts her journey to find Carl, yet on the way
discovers a lot about herself. On her trip she encounters a bountiful of
interesting characters who unknowingly help her find her way. In my eyes
this is a classical road movie, which moves just at the right pace (some viewers
may find it too slow). Throughout the movie it keeps its humorous note while Joline
responds to the craziness of the world around her with a warm, knowing, sometimes
sad smile. All actresses and actors give wonderful performances and the musical
score is immaculate. 9/10
Some people drift through life, moving from one thing or one person to the next
without batting an eye; others latch on to a cause, another person or a principle
and remain adamant, committed to whatever it is-- and figuratively or literally
they give their word and stand by it. But we're all different, `Made of different
clay,' as one of the characters in this film puts it, which is what makes life so
interesting. Some people are just plain crazy, though-- and maybe that's the way
you have to be to live among the masses. Who knows? Who knows what it takes to make
things-- life-- work? Writer/director Lisa Krueger takes a shot at it, using a
light approach to examine that thin line between being committed-- and how one
`gets' committed-- and obsession, in `Committed,' starring Heather Graham as a
young woman who is adamant, committed, obsessive and maybe just a little bit crazy,
too. Her name is Joline, and this is her story. Admittedly, Joline has
always been a committed person; in work, relationships, in life in general. She's a
woman of her word who sticks by it no matter what. And when she marries Carl (Luke
Wilson), it's forever. The only problem is, someone forgot to tell Carl-- and 597
days into the marriage, he's gone; off to `find' himself and figure it all out.
When Joline realizes he's not coming back, she refuses to give up on him, or their
marriage. Maybe it's because of that `clay' she's made of. Regardless, she leaves
their home in New York City and sets off to find him, which she does-- in El Paso,
Texas, of all places. But once she knows where he is, she keeps her distance,
giving him his `space' and not even letting him know she's there. She considers
Carl as being in a `spiritual coma,' and it's her job to keep a `spiritual vigil'
over him until he comes to his senses. And while she watches and waits, her life is
anything but dull, as she encounters a young woman named Carmen (Patricia
Velazquez), a waitress at one of the local eateries; Carmen's `Grampy,' (Alfonso
Arau), who is something of a mystic; T-Bo (Mark Ruffalo), a truck driver who has
issues concerning Carl; and Neil (Goran Visnjic) an artist who makes pinatas and
takes a fancy to her. For Joline, it's a journey of discovery, during which she
learns a lot about Carl, but even more about herself. There's a
touch of humor, a touch of romance, and some insights into human nature in this
quirky film that is more about characterization and character than plot. And
Krueger presents it all extremely well, delivering a film that is engaging and
entertaining. Her characters are very real people, with all the wants, needs and
imperfections that make up the human condition; a rich and eclectic bunch through
which she tells her story. We see it from Joline's point-of-view, as Krueger makes
us privy to Joline's thoughts and therefore her motivations, which puts a decided
perspective on the events as they unfold. That, along with the deliberate pace she
sets that allows you to soak up the atmosphere and the ambiance she creates, makes
for a very effective piece of storytelling. There's an underlying seriousness to
this subject matter, but Krueger chooses to avoid anything heavy-handed or too deep
and concentrates instead on the natural humor that evolves from the people and
situations that Joline encounters. And the result is a well textured, affecting and
upbeat look at that thing we call life. Heather Graham takes hold of
this role from the first frame of the film to make Joline a character totally of
her own creation. She immerses herself in the part and gives a performance that is
convincing and believable, adding the little personal traits and nuance that makes
all the difference between a portrayal that is a mere representation of a person,
and one that is real. And for this film to work, it was imperative that Joline be
viable and believable-- and Graham succeeds on all fronts. Her screen presence has
never been more alluring, and her vibrant personality or even just the way she uses
her eyes, is enough to draw you in entirely. it's all a part of the character she
creates; there's an appeal to Joline that exudes from her entire countenance, who
she is inside and out. She's a likable, agreeable person, and because you've shared
her innermost thoughts, you know who she is. It's a good job all the way around,
beginning with the way the character was written, to the way Graham brings her so
vibrantly to life. As Carmen, Patricia Velazquez is totally
engaging, as well. Her performance is very natural and straightforward, and she
uses her instincts to effectively create her character. She has a charismatic
presence, but is less than flamboyant, and it gives her an aspect that is
attractively down-to-earth. She is refreshingly open and up-front; you get the
impression that Carmen is not one to hold anything back, but is totally honest on
all fronts, and that, too, is part of her appeal. And, as with Joline, this
character is well written, and Velazquez brings her convincingly to life. Overall, there is a number of notable performances that are the heart
and soul of this film, including those of Luke Wilson, Casey Affleck (as Joline's
brother, Jay), Goran Visnjic, Alfonso Arau and especially Mark Ruffalo as T-Bo,
who, with very little actual screen time, manages to create a memorable
character. The supporting cast includes Kim Dickens (Jenny), Clea Du
Vall (Mimi), Summer Phoenix (Meg), Art Alexakis (New York Car Thief), Dylan Baker
(Carl's Editor), and Mary Kay Place (Psychiatrist). A film that says something
about the value of stepping back to consider The Big Picture-- reflecting upon who
we are, where we're going and what we really need-- `Committed' is an enjoyable
experience; a ride definitely worth taking. 8/10.
In a Morocco completely invaded by Europeans and Americans, in the beginning of the
Twentieth Century, the Moroccan leader Mulay Achmed Mohammed el-Raisuli the
Magnificent (Sean Connery) kidnaps the American Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen),
her son and her daughter. His intention is to get some money and rifles as ransom
for them, to fight against the corrupt Sultan of Moroco (Marc Zuber). In times of
election, the American President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) agrees with the
proposal. However, Raisuli is betrayed and Eden helps him to be released from the
prison with the American soldiers. I do not like films about explicit colonialism
and lack of respect to the sovereignty of other countries, but `The Lion and the
Wind' is indeed a great adventure. The action scenes are very realistic. Candice
Bergen, the most beautiful American actress in the 70´s, is wonderful, performing
an abducted woman like in the remarkable movie `Soldier Blue'. Sean Connery is
perfect, as usual, as an honest and nationalist religious leader. Brian Keith is
great as the American president. I do not know much about the Morocco history to
analyze whether there is any truth in this story, but this movie is a worthwhile
entertainment. In Brazil it is only available on VHS. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): Ò Vento e o Leão' (`The Lion and the Wind') 
I admire Deepa Mehta and this movie is a masterpiece. I'd recommend to buy this
movie on DVD because it's a movie you might want to watch more often than just
once. And trust me, you'd still find little meaningful details after watching it
several times. The characters - except for the grandmother perhaps - are
all very balanced, no black and white. Even though you follow the story from the
perspective of the two protagonists, there is also empathy for the other
characters. I think the IMDb rating for the movie is far too low -
probably due to its politically controversial content.
Englar Alheimsins are very good movie. She happen on a mental home in Iceland.
Ingvar E. Sigurdsson is in a leading role and is good. Other good actors in this
movie are Baltasar Kormákur and Bjorn Jorundur. I like this movie she is very good.
I voice with this movie.
This film is based on a true story. The author of the novel bearing the same title,
Einar Már Guðmundsson, had a brother, who turned mentally ill. I found this film
very moving, following the main character's path down into illness, to see how he
tries to cope with life after diagnosis, and how he makes friends at the mental
institution, it all is very convincing. There are quite a few splendidly funny
incidents also in the manuscript. The title of it gives nothing away concerning the
story. You must watch it to understand ... and listen to the music, which is
twisting and turning your heart and soul upside down and back as the film moves on.
A must-see for everyone.
This movie is great. Best acting i have ever seen in my life. Ingvar E Sigurðsson
is the best Icelandic actor, and of course Hilmir Snær and Bjorn jörundur. Great
music and sound. Cold hard reality about a struggle of a man that has a lot of
problems and the people in his life. Black humor mixed with great acting and this
European art movies style, it works, it comes together in a the best Icelandic
movie ever made. I say to you." See this film, you will not regret it". I gave it 9
stars. If you see one Icelandic film in your life...See this one
This movie is stunningly free from storytelling. It's a pure experience where the
music overshadow the visual impression. - Words cannot of course enough express
what should be expressed, but it is the requirement of the chattering classes that
chatter is put forward, entered into production lines of mediocrity and therefore a
necessity in order to express any sensible thought or opinion about something which
should not need to be degraded by chatter. Therefore these elaborate opinions are
put forward to satisfy those empty minds which need to be filled by noise that you
will not find however hard you try in this movie.
If this film doesn't at least be selected for an oscar nominee for best foreign
film I'm going to stop waking at nights watching the event. Fridrik Thor
Fridriksson has proven that money isn't the key to making a good movie but
originality. Out of a cold country comes a warm but thought-provoking film of a
mentally ill man and his struggle against an insane world. After an insight like
this, you question whether or not the man is crazy or the world he lives in.
The movie Angels of the Universe is a pure masterpiece and it proves once again
that you can make a brilliant movie on a low budget, e.g American Beauty and Blair
Witch Project. The Director Fridrik Thór Fridriksson gives the novel Englar
alheimsins a new life on the white screen. The movie is a breakthrough in Icelandic
film making because it's the biggest and the greatest movie that has been done in
Iceland. The music in the film, played by Sigurrós, is very symbolic for
the film, it is absolutely brilliant. I recommend everybody who are able to think
to go and see this film as soon as possible, you won't be disappointed. I would bet
on this film to win the best foreign film award next year all over the globe!
This film very succeed in the Film festival in Karlovy Vary, Czech rep. Logically.
It' s based on a very good book, excellent actors, good camera, the best director
and ICELANDIC. It was probably the most black comedy I've seen. I really
DO recommend it to you.
This film by Friðrik Þór, director of Children of Nature, is powerful. It has great
music by Sigurrós and good acting. It shows how sad insanity as a disease can be.
There are many good jokes but the humor is dark. If that is not a problem then you
should see this film. Note though this is not a comedy but a drama.
Having a close experience with one such patient is probably the best reason why I
had my heart rushing throughout the entire film. Intense, sensible, moral and
revealing, and don't forget to check out the marvellous sound track. Really good.
The movie is about Paul(Páll) a young man who sinks into the harsh world of
insanity and his stay at the mental hospital "Kleppur" and his friends.
Victor(Viktor) who during his education in England started to think he was Adolf
Hitler. Peter(Pétur) who took to much LSD and tried to fly of a roof top the fall
left no broken bones or physical damage only insanity, he is obbsesed with China.
Oli Beatle (Óli Bítill) Oli has spent most time at the hospital although Viktor is
slightly older then him, he claims he wrote every single Beatles song and send it
to them by telepathy The novel is better then the movie and covers all
of Pauls life from birth to his death, there is a long time since I saw the movie
but if I remember it right the movie doesn't cover Pauls childhood. "Englar Alheimsins" is funny,sad and powerful if you haven't seen it watch it
NOW! and read the novel first it makes the movie better
I just cannot emphasize enough what a lovely movie this is. Just the
memory of this movie right now enchants me. If you want to see a
sweeping epic of a movie, with wonderful actors in vivid scenery, with
great dialogue, reminding you of what early America could have been like
[what the world could have been like back then]...well...I highly
recommend this movie. Especially during a time of war and conflict in
Iraq...when our American image is not at all what it used to be...this
movie takes you back to a time when we were just starting out. When
being an American meant really picking yourself up by your bootstraps
and getting going. When the world was such an untamed and unknown place.
Well, this movie has that...and more. Enjoy.
This movie I've seen many times. I read the book , Englar Alheimsins which was
written by Einar Már Guðmundsson who received the Scandinavian book awards for the
work. The movie does not start on the same place as the book starts. It happens in
Reykjavík and the main character, Páll is young and having a good life with his
girlfriend. But as she breaks up the relationship with him, he starts to get some
headaches which make him annoyed and angry. And soon he starts to have big mental
problems and then the movie begins. Soon he is puted in the Icelandic Mental
Hospital called "Kleppur" and there you get to see some great characters like
Viktor who thinks he is Hitler and Óli who thinks that he writes all the " The
Beatles" songs and sends them to them with mind transporting. Ingvar E Sigurðusson
who has the role of the main character Páll does is so work so well that it leaves
you breathless. Also the music in this movie is mad by SIGURRÓS and just for the
music's cost you should see the movie. Overall a great movie meant to be seen.
First at all: If you like watching movies I recommend you NOT to watch this one.
Why? Afterwards you won't appreciate any other movie so easily anymore... Actually I don't wanna give rise to any excessive expectations but it is
almost frightening how perfect, intense and beautiful this work of Einar
Gudmundsson is. When in most movies there is at least one aspect spoiling the whole
thing, like good actors but horrible dialogs or a nice scenery but low budget
cinematography in Angels of the Universe" there is nothing of this ambivalence.
Really everything is just great, even (and not least) the soundtrack with the
magnificent Sigur Rós. In this story about Pall, a student that goes
schizophrenic after being dumped by his girlfriend, especially the dialogs (and
monologues) deserve some attention: together with (and sometimes in sharp contrast
to) the plot they range from depressing and fatalistic to the whole opposite of
comical and totally absurd. What is more, they are often (with quotes from Hegel
and Shakespeare) of such a poetic beauty that the movie almost drifts into a
surreal sphere and is only saved to the real world by its incredibly authentic
actors. One of the other comments was already referring to another
point: This movie is no trivial entertainment for relaxing in the evening. Despite
of several comical reliefs in between it is largely disturbing, partly cynical and
bitter, and most of all sad. It is a modern poetry about a life of insanity with
all its emptiness, rage and solitude. Finally: When you've seen the
movie watch it again. There are some great visual metaphors and allusions in it
that you realize only when you look twice and connect them with the moral of the
story". And of course: read the book, it contains a lot more of the small funny
stories in between and also makes you understand some things in the movie a bit
better.
Reading the other comments here at the IMDB, I had very high expectations before
seeing 'Angels of the universe'. I wasn't disappointed, and giving the movie an 8,
I would say that I can justify that grade. The movie has some incredible
acting, especially by the main-person, Pall. The supporting actors are also doing a
very good job like the patients in the mental institution, the parents and the
siblings of Pall. The music is also worth mentioning, supporting the movie
throughout, giving depth and feeling. Although the movie is very
scandinavian, it doesn't leave out some humour and has a sort of objective
authorship about Pall's life. Still, if you want to see a cheesy comedy or
something light-weight, this is not for you. It is a story about people with mental
problems, about the way they are being dealt with in society - but most of all, a
story about Pall. I recommend this movie to all movie connoisseurs. It
is one of the best movies that has ever come out of Iceland, if not out of
Scandinavia.
It is the best film i have seen in the last 5 years. Surely, it will be in the same
row with such masterpieces as The Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Doors, The Dog's
Heart (Russian film). Really, the play of the boy and his parents is so good that
you can't even say that they "play". No, they LIVE as if it was happening to them.
Notice the smile on there faces when the main hero agrees to go for a walk with
them. The hate and love in one piece. And the final scene! Really, i'm
still under impression of that film. It's very hard, even impossible to combine the
humor and the tragedy, but if you succeed (and Frederikson did) the impact would be
twice strong. I compared it with "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST". I
like this film either (and the novel itself is good, too), but after Frederikson's
movie it seems simple. (the same difference I noticed after i watched the film
"American history X" and "ROMPER STOMPER" - the latter is deeper). I mean Milos
Forman only showed the material point of view of the problem. You watch it, then
you say Yes, it's a good film, i like him, i don't like her, and that's it. But
"Angels" leave you a wide base to think. There are no bad and good boys in the
film. Cause each of them have the right to behave in the way they do. Like the
girlfriend of one of the patient. Of course she's young and is pregnant and that is
a problem for her that his husband is in the clinic, but the feelings and emotional
experience of her exfriend are even stronger (the result is his suicide). Why ask
him what have he done? Aren't you insane yourself to ask? Why do not support him,
help him, understand him? Finally, it is even funny when those people talk to each
other. They say genius things! There are a lot of things I would like to say about
this film, but i'm not so good in english. But i'm sure, those of you, who have
watched the movie, understand me. Good luck! 
As far as I know this was my first experience with Icelandic movies. It's such a
relief to see something else than your regular Hollywood motion picture. Too bad
that movies like this one have a small chance of succeeding in the big world. I can
only hope that people watch this by accident, by recommendation or other... Because it's really worth while. I left the cinema feeling really sad. I
couldn't get the tragic destiny's of the characters out of my head. And it
impressed me even more when I thought of the complexity of the film. Not only was
it a tragic story, it had excellent comic reliefs and a very good soundtrack. If you have the opportunity, watch it! It's really thought provoking and
made me ponder a lot. 
This is an important historical film since it was the the first all-talking feature
film. The film was made for a mere 23,000 dollars. It
grossed over a million dollars upon its release. This film all so
helped define the gangster melodramas that were to become the bread and butter of
the Warner's studio in the 1930's. The popularity of this film ended
the silent era more so than its more famous part-talkie predecessor, the Jazz
Singer. The film deserves its place in history and not as a mere footnote. The only actor who might be remember today that is in it was Eugene
Palette.
"Lights of New York" originally started out as an experimental two reel Vitaphone
short that eventually snowballed into the first all talkie feature film. Helene
Costelle was supposedly one of the most beautiful actresses in Hollywood and sister
to (in my opinion the real beauty) Dolores Costello, who seemed to get all the
breaks. Poor Helene is best known for appearing in this pretty dreary film that
bought a revolution to Hollywood!! Two bootleggers on the lam in "Main
Street" convince a couple of small town barbers to try their luck on Broadway. The
barbers Eddie (Cullen Landis) and Gene (Eugene Palette) don't realise that their
barber shop is soon a cover for illegal bootlegging activities. They soon do
realise it and regret the day they left their small town. The only thing keeping
them going is the loan that Eddie's mother gave them and that they desperately want
to pay back. Eddie becomes re-acquainted with Kitty Lewis (Helene Costello) a girl
from his home town who has made good on Broadway. Kitty is worried about "Hawk"
Miller (Wheeler Oakman) who is always hanging around her but Eddie, innocently,
thinks she is exaggerating as "Hawk" already has a girlfriend Molly (Gladys
Brockwell) but to reassure her he gives her a little handgun to frighten unwanted
admirers away. "Hawk", who has killed a police officer and has the "Feds" closing
in, decides to frame Eddie. Meanwhile Molly is getting pretty fed up with "Hawks"
treatment of her and after a showdown where he tells her he is after a chicken and
not an old hen the stage is set for - Murder!!! The fact is it isn't
completely awful, apart from gangsters and showgirls alike speaking in their best
elocution voices and that was still happening in films in 1930. Gladys Brockwell
(if a trifle melodramatic) and Eugene Palette (quite natural) were okay and were
the most seasoned actors in the cast. There was no John or Ethel Barrymore to be
seen - Cullen Landis and Helene Costello soon returned to the obscurity from which
they had come. I also didn't notice much of the "hidden mike" - where people had to
be grouped around different objects ie a telephone or sitting on a couch before
they could engage in conversation. People who saw it at the cinema probably started
to think that all policeman talked in that flat monotone as that trend continued in
many early talkies ie "Little Caesar" (1930). In any case they were probably
intrigued by the novelty of a completely all talkie - with some singing and dancing
- film in 1928. Recommended.
Lights of New York was the first all-talking feature film. There had been, of
course, The Jazz Singer, released in Oct. 1927 as the first feature film
incorporating synchronized dialog. However, this film released in July 1928 is
virtually unremembered for its place in film history. It had started out as a
short, but gradually more was tacked on until - clocking in at 58 minutes - it
accidentally became the first all-talking feature film. It opened to a grind house
run and to Warner Bros. surprise, made over a million dollars. That was good money
back in 1928. The plot is quite simple. Two country barbers naively buy
into a barber shop on Broadway that fronts as a speak-easy for "The Hawk", a
gangster. When they learn the truth they can't afford to get out, because the
younger barber, Eddie, has all of his mother's money tied up in the place. Kitty is
the younger barber's girlfriend, and gangster Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) has an eye for
turning in his older girlfriend (Gladys Brockwell) for a newer model - chorus girl
Kitty(Helene Costello). A cop is killed while trying to stop the Hawk's men from
unloading a shipment of bootleg liquor, and the Hawk sees it as an opportunity to
frame Eddie, thus getting Kitty for himself. This early talkie is loads
of fun for the enthusiast of these pioneering works. Sure, the plot is elementary
and the dialog stilted, but there is something you don't see much of in early
talkies - background musical scoring. Vitaphone had originally been used for this
very purpose, and here they are still using it for musical accompaniment along with
the dialog. And there are singing and dancing numbers! The scenes in Hawk's
nightclub are used as an opportunity to show off what films could never do before -
musical numbers. There is even a wild-eyed emcee with some heavy makeup left over
from the silent era that is a hoot to watch. Vitaphone could not go
outdoors at this point due to the static camera booths, so the scene in the park
between the two lovers Eddie and Kitty is simulated - and cheaply. The greenery
looks like something out of an Ed Wood movie or perhaps a high school production of
"Our Town". Gladys Brockwell, as the Hawk's castoff girlfriend,
delivers her lines with punch. She's a real trooper considering what lines she has
to deliver. To the Hawk - "So you think you can have any chicken you want and throw
me back in the deck!". Huh? mixed metaphors anyone? And then there are her final
lines "I've lived, and I've loved, and I've lost!" Did someone get paid to write
this dialog? Brockwell was making a good success of her talkie career after scoring
some triumphs in silent films (the evil sister in "Seventh Heaven"), when a fatal
car accident cut her career short. Then there is Eugene Palette - the
older of the two barbers in our story. His frog voice, natural delivery of lines,
and cuddly appearance gave him a long career as a character actor usually appearing
as a put-upon family man/businessman with a gruff exterior and heart of gold. In
fact, Mr. Palette is the only member of this cast who still has a notable career in
films just three years after this movie is released. Finally there is
the question of "where is that microphone hidden?" Microphones were still
stationary at this point, and it's fun to figure out where they've hidden it. There
is one famous scene, though, where everybody can pretty much figure it out. Hawk is
in his office talking to his two henchman - who seem to comprehend as slowly as
they talk - about "taking Eddie for a ride". If you watch this scene you'd swear
the phone on the desk is a character in this film. It's front and center during the
whole conversation. The microphone is likely planted in the phone. There
is something heroic about these pioneers flying blind in the face of the new
technology of sound. You have silent actors who are accustomed to using pantomime
for expression, vaudevillians who know how to play to a live audience but don't
know how to make the same impression on a Vitaphone camera booth, and you have
dialog writers either trying to write conversation as compactly as they did title
cards or filling up films with endless chatter. Check this one out. It
is not boring, moves fast, and is loads of fun if you know what to look for. And
no, I don't expect this one to ever be out on Blu-Ray, but I hope that the folks at
Warner Brothers add it to the Warner Archive soon so everyone can see it.
LIGHTS OF NEW YORK was the first "all-taking" feature film, coming in at a brisk 57
minutes and directed by Bryan Foy (of the famous vaudeville family). The
story has two dopey barbers (Cullen Landis, Eugene Palette) yearning for a chance
at "big city life" and getting involved with gangsters and bootleg booze. One of
the guys gets framed for the murder of a cop but is saved at the last minute by a
gun moll (Gladys Brockwell). Much of the story takes place in a night
club called The Night Hawk, which is run by a crook named Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) who
has his eye on a pretty chorine (Helene Costello) who is the girl friend of Landis.
Costello gets to do a brief dance, and we hear Harry Downing (made up to resemble
Ted Lewis) sing "At Dawning) in his best Al Jolson style. The acting
ranges from good (Palette and Brockwell) to awful (Oakman). A couple of the actors
muff their lines but then keep right on with the scene. As noted elsewhere this was
intended to be a short 2-reeler and was made on a shoestring budget. Yet the sound
quality is surprisingly good, the voices all register clearly, and there is a neat
cinematic touch in the silhouette death. The film was a box-office smash
even though it was shown as a silent film where theaters were not wired for the new
sound technology. No one expected this little film to gross an amazing $1.3
million. It briefly made stars of Costello and Landis and certainly launched
Palette on his long career as a star character actor. Co-stars include
Mary Carr as the mother, Robert Elliott as the detective, Eddie Kane as the street
cop, and Tom Dugan as a thug.
Fascinating and amusingly bad, Lights of New York is the first all talkie feature
and one that almost never saw the light of day. Two naive barbers (Eddie
and Gene) from out of town get involved with bootleggers and end up fronting a
speak. When a cop is shot by one of the bootleggers the police start to close in,
and the Hawk (who shot the officer) decides to pin the murder on Eddie instructing
his henchman to "take him for a ride". But it's the Hawk himself who takes the
bullet in a twist that will surprise few. Shot in one week at a cost of
$23,000, "Lights" was originally meant as a two reeler but Foy took advantage of
Jack Warner's absence to extend it to six. When Warner discovered this he ordered
Foy to cut it back to the original short. Only when an independent exhibitor
offered $25k for the film, did Warners actually look at the film, which went on to
make a staggering $1.3 million. Seen now this is an extremely hokey
piece, with acting that ranges from the passable (Eugene Pallette) to trance like
(Eddie's Granny in a particularly risible scene) and much of the playing is at the
level of vaudeville. Since it's an early talkie (4 part-talkies preceded it) that's
about all the characters do, and very slowly at that. The script feels improvised,
visual style is non existent (apart from the shooting scene done in silhouette) and
scenes grind on interminably. Title cards are intercut which redundantly announce
characters and locales. Despite all this "Lights" is a compelling
experience, as we watch actors and crew struggling with the alien technology, and
changing cinema for ever. Catch it if you can
Got back from Morocco then, where my dad was attached to the German embassy, when
the film came out in Europe; took all my girlfriends to see it, show them the
beauty of the country, where Jimi had played - and stayed -; where the hippies
stopped after leaving Ibiza and before joining Goa. Sean Combs just celebrated at a
friends restaurant in Marrakech recently, the Djema el Fna was much wilder in those
days than it is now; the Stones went there earlier, Brian recorded in Tangiers ; so
it's memories and family entertainment and I'm glad my son will get to know about
the north of Africa watching this movie. Candice Bergen looks beautiful and
oo7/Connery is pretty funny indeed; and Teddy Roosevelt as played by Brian Keith
quite impressive.
Take away all parts of the movie that were "present" day and stick to the
flashbacks. Then you would have had a great story. Faith and Wolf's story and their
relationship was the best part. Diaz and Eccleston were wonderful. Brewster was
ponderous to sit through. Surprised to see Blythe Danner as mom. She was great.
Also look for Patrick Bergen as the father, always like him (Sleeping with the
Enemy). This is a very hippy, save the world, kind of film. Don't care for it much,
but I recommend seeing it for Diaz's performance alone. She has excellent range and
it should be used more. Eccleston is, as always, compelling. He's wonderful!
i must say that this movie had a great cast, locations, music and camera work.
Cameron Diaz was great, she had a very exciting roll, very uproarish, while Jordana
Brewster had a serious roll yet still capturing one. for me Jordana's very
nostalgic, she reminds of a female classmate of mine! what realy got me in this
movie were the very skillfully planned camera work and the choosing of the
locations. the story is very talently written. it is a must see one. the one's who
are into mystery movies should watch this one, i guarantee you all that it'll keep
you in your seats till the end.
Well, I AM "the target market" & I loved it. Furthermore my husband, also a Boomer
with strong memories of the '60s, liked it a lot too. I haven't read the book, so I
went into it neutral & I was very pleasantly surprised. It's now on our "Highly
Recommended" video list. 
An interesting movie with Jordana Brewster as a young woman who travels to Europe
in an attempt to find out what became of her older sister (Cameron Diaz) who
mysteriously died years earlier. Brewster is very good and keeps you involved
despite some unrealistic plotting, such as having her amazinly find and start a
romance with her dead sister's much older boyfriend (Christopher Eccleston). Still,
mostly good. GRADE: B
Serendipity. I thought I was off to a bad start, bringing home the wrong dvd in the
case of "The Intruder". Rental stores' staff! So I did not want to see this film
but I am glad I did. In all probablility my chosen movie would not have been as
superb a slice film as this delectable and delicate taste of what independants in
both US and Europe can do together. Seven years apart, two heroine sisters embark
on fantastic journeys through early 1970's post-student demo / Baader-Meinhof
Europe. Sumptuously shot in the Algarve, Portugal; and in Berlin, Paris, and
Amsterdam (reminiscent of the feel of the exterior shots in Paul Verhoeven's early
masterpiece, "The Fourth Man"), it's touchingly acted by Brewster , Diaz and
especially Christopher Ecclestone.The story unveils itself along an abstracted
plot, capturing the ephemeral emotions of these characters as they confront their
relationships and see idealised images of each other and themselves shattered. A
movie with great refinement and taste. Not for Arnie Commando fans, which is
probably why the reviewer upstairs is so wide of the mark in 'his' claims that this
is a girly film. Daft criteria. Wrong too. Well worth experimenting with.
As a father of four in his forties I thought this film made compelling viewing - if
not edge-of-the-seat stuff. I deserves a far higher rating than the 4.3 that it had
when I wrote this. (I gave it 7.) I agree with some of the comments
about the characters but Cameron Diaz was, again, sparkling in yet another very
different role. The plot was a little silly but the point of the film for me was
beautifully summed up in the final, quite surreal, sequence. A moving ending for
any parent. I could imagine that a young, single bloke might find the
film quite boring but for other people not fixed on high doses of testosterone
would find something sweet in this.
I loved it. I had just sat through half of "The Glass House" (turned it off...god
what a morass of predictable plot and bad acting) and then I saw this movie. I
thought it was terrific. Loved both Cameron Diaz and Jordana Brewster in it. I
liked the escapism of the whole setting, the traveling around Europe in the 60's
thing - yet they made it more realistic by showing the dark side and all of the bad
things that could happen. It held my attention completely, even if I did think that
parts were unbelievable.
I must admit this is one of Cameron Diaz's unheard of films and i was also
surprised that she had an important role but she was not the lead. I was very
touched by it as i really can identify the pain of the loss of a loved one as i
have experienced it from close quarters. Both Camilla Belle and Jordana
Brewster were really good in their portrayal of the protagonist Phoebe and i must
also hand it to the casting people for finding two actresses who look so alike that
i really thought they were sisters(in real life). This is one of those movies
Cameron did for the sake of acting and not for star billing.She looked the part of
the gorgeous ,rebellious hippie who wants to change the world though sometimes she
comes off as a rebel without a cause. Coming from a dysfunctional family
where her only source of strength being her big sister Faith, little girl Phoebe is
understandably very upset when faith leaves for Europe. As she grows up she goes
off in search of her sister and gradually gets disillusioned by the truth about her
sister and falls for her sister's boyfriend. Great story and equally
great location shooting around European.I will watch it again.
One way or the other, you can't get away from the basic message. The strong
survive. Those who are psychically or emotionally sensitive, leave. They leave a
hole behind in the lives of those who love them. A hole that is seen in it's
finality as selfish. That's what Phoebe realizes in the end. Just prior to helping
Wolf heal from his self-blame. She can accept closure to the missing ...of her
sister. Beautiful European scenery. A lot of truth in it about idealism and
addiction to the next big moment. For a moment, I thought of the Baader-Meinhoff
gang who was around in the early 70s. I liked this movie as it reflected a time
when I came of age myself.
If I look hard enough, flaws can be found in this film, primarily with the script.
I found the character of Wolf not totally convincing. However, those were my only
"complaints." Because when this movie started on Cable, I was just going to record
it and watch it later. However, from the beginning, with the eerie music and
Cameron Diaz doing her spaced out 60's dance, I was riveted. I never got up until
the movie was over. It seemed like I never even blinked. The acting of
Cameron Diaz and Jordana Brewster was excellent. The scenes were beautiful, the
girls were beautiful, and the music was haunting and very touching. The story was
quite unique and at times had a surreal quality. The viewer would tend to like the
picture more if they had a good understanding of the state of mind of young people
in the 60's and 70's, especially in America. Many of the scenes basically succeeded
in showing something of that era that is hard to pin down. It was a bit more
complicated than the simplistic statement that they wanted to change the world and
ended up disillusioned, although that may be the most obvious aspect. Phoebe learns
more and more about this as the movie progresses. One aspect that didn't
seem to be covered by the other reviewers that might bear mentioning, is the way
the two daughters seem to drift through life after the death of their father. They
both had adored him, and his presence had been a stabilizing factor in their lives
and obviously he had loved them dearly. We read so much today about boys who lose
their fathers too soon, only to lose their way themselves. This film covers the
ripple effect of the loss of the father on the daughters left behind, first on the
older sister Faith, then on to her younger sister. Their mother feels inadequate to
try to be both parents. This type of dynamic is not covered in hardly any other
movies, especially in so many different layers of plot and subplot. Phoebe's inner
struggles of reality versus perceptions are gradually peeled away like layers of an
onion. Speaking of plot, this movie should rate higher than it has here.
I kept waiting for some great conspiracy to be found out concerning the death of
Faith. How it did resolve itself surprised me, even if others may have guessed much
sooner. Maybe not for everybody, but I could watch this movie many, many
times.
Now, lissen you guys, I LOVED THIS FILM, though not quite as much as FAREWELL TO
THE KING, another beloved John Milius epic. It was fun, a lot more than if it were
based on a Tennessee Williams drama. It's a great yarn, with a whiff of political
correctness. I love this film for its beautiful photography, its humor and its
attenuated criticism of the Bad Guys (Berbers) and the REAL Bad Guys, the spear-
carriers for the acquisitive 'civilized' world, with their repeating rifles,
artillery and large gunboats out there in the harbor. The standout
scene is the Berber encampment with blue-gray smoke from the cooking fires rising
into the chill desert air. It is visually eloquent, highly evocative. Set in 1904 Morocco, WIND features a helpless American woman (Candace Bergen) who
is taken hostage by a dashing, albeit immodest, Berber bandit (Sean Connery-the
very model ofa Scottish Muslim nomad). The exciting story is based on a few
historical facts. The photography is Milius beautiful, punctuated by Jerry
Goldsmith's outstanding score. Mrs Pedicaris and the Raisuli conduct
protracted foreplay and bounce around in the desert between oases. Even though the
Raisuli proudly traces his lineage back to the apes, he is a perfect gentleman - he
even lets her keep her head after she beats him at chess! A Marine detachment
storms the Bashaw's palace, putting out the fires of competing hegemonies with
gasoline. Don't mess with the Corps, Abdul. There are many entertaining
stereotypes: Despicable Sultan - resembles a dissipated ferret.
Definitely not a Liberal. Cruel German Officer - a large, bellicose
Dachshund sporting a monocle. He gallantly chooses to fight the Raisuli with swords
instead of gunning him down in the manner of Indiana Jones. Noblesse oblige, by way
of Von Clausewitz? Dashing Marine Officer - kicks the crap out of the
Bashaw of Tangier's army and storms his palace while chewing tobacco. His speech is
mildly aphasic. The Bashaw begged him not to breathe on him. The Berbers
- a horde of groveling sycophants led by a charming megalomaniac. None of them take
baths, except perhaps in camel urine. President Teddy Roosevelt is
undeservedly portrayed as vacuous and preoccupied with guns, toys and stuffed
grizzly bears. Beautiful American widow - gives the men a lesson in
courage, as do her two children. She evidently has a huge supply of clean, starched
clothes and rarely has a hair out of place. The Raisuli sends Teddy
Roosevelt a message, thanking him for the gift of a Remington repeating rifle,
declaring, "MEESTER ROOSEVELT, YOU ARE THE LION AND AIEE AM THE BREAKING
WIND." How true. Please do not take my acerbic remarks to
mean that I did not like the film. I had almost as much fun writing this as
watching da Pitcher.
It is 1969. Phoebe(Camilla Belle) is an 11 year old girl growing up with an
idealized vision of her 19 year old sister Faith(Cameron Diaz). Faith is the doer,
the truth-seeker, the fixer of all the wrongs in the world. Then one day, Phoebe
and her mother Gail(Blythe Danner) receive word that Faith is dead. Faith has
killed herself. Both Phoebe and Gail are overwhelmed by this news and, although
saddened, Gail mourns. Phoebe can't let it go. Phoebe decides to go to Europe and
find out what happened. It is now 1977. Phoebe(Jordana Brewster) is 18
and decides to go to Europe over the objections of her mother to discover the
truth. When alive, Faith was inseparable from a man she called "Wolf"(Christopher
Eccleston). Though Wolf claimed not to know anything about Faith's last days,
Phoebe convinces him to tell her everything. Within days, Wolf realizes that he
hadn't let go of the past either and he joins Phoebe on her pilgrimage to
Portugal. In the end, Wolf is able to tell of Faith's decent into drug
abuse and his own guilt at not preventing the suicide. Although angry, Phoebe
realizes in the end how human and fragile Faith really was. I liked this
movie. I'm old enough to remember the bank robberies of the Red Army and I was 10
in 1969. This story was familiar ground for me. I can still remember young men
trying to decide if they should go to Canada or not to avoid the draft. The story is simple, but probably occurred several times in real life during that
period. Camilla Belle was enjoyable and fun to watch as she portrayed the young
adoring sister excited by what was happening around her. Jordana Brewster slid
easily into the role of the older Phoebe. Blythe Danner was the ever supportive
mother, a role she is all too familiar with on American TV, unfortunately. I would
have liked to see her with stronger material to work with. Cameron Diaz played the
immature anarchist perfectly. Though at times, her performance of a 1960s activist
seemed to come off a news reel. Of all the characters, it was Christopher
Eccleston's Wolf, that made the most growth. When we are introduced to the
character at the beginning of the movie, we can see he is a worldly man. He is a
patient and kind man filled with anger at the world's injustices. In the end, he
realizes the direction he and Faith are headed is wrong and begins to "grow up"
deciding he should fight against injustice in his own way. Faith refuses to join
him in this and it eventually leads to her death. Eccleston's Wolf is the most real
of all the characters. I recommend this movie. It was enjoyable and
thought provoking. "The Invisible Circus" is rated TV-MA, but there is very little
cursing, sex or violence in it. The subject of the movie is the reason for the
rating.
I caught this on late, late Mexican cable and I have to rant about it. The title
was translated as "Secretos" (Secrets). Well there's a secret that has an important
part in the movie but come on, ! We are not stupid. We know there's a novel behind
this. Anyways, the movie is pretty interesting and it's carried by it's
solid ramatic performances. The always beautiful and stunning Jordana Brewster and
Christopher Eccleston deliver great performances and have such great chemistry
between them. Cameron Dìaz is also good although she has minimal on-screen time.
Blythe Danner is perfect and his last appearance in the movie is touching, sad.
Great performances. Jordana's character and her sister's ex-boyfriend
travel to Europe in order for her to deal with his demons and understand why her
sister died. Through flashbacks, we learn the sad truth and we can't help but feel
sorry for the whole family. The ending is truly moving. So there's
nudity but it's minimal. In fact, the sex scenes are artsy and do not intend to be
steamy or sexy. To be honest, I kept watching it for Joranda Brewster's
on screen charming and beauty. And I ended up liking the story and the dramatic
presentations. Give this movie a try if you like solid dramatic
features. Great movie. The last, last scene was very sad.. The two little sisters
through flashbacks.
I've seen this film three times and each time I appreciate it more. I think Jordana
Brewster should have received an Emmy nomination for her real and natural
performance. Many of us who were Phoebe's age at this time the story takes place
will understand how real it is. Life for most of us is neither softly glowing
romantic or harshly cynical pessimism. It is a blurred balance, and this film
captures this balance. It is well constructed, too, with so many fine details in
its composition. Like the film or not, judging from the extraordinarily high
ratings it gets from the demographic of females under 18, we can know that this
movie reveals some important truth about how young women see themselves in the
world.
The plot of this film is not complicated. A very attractive young girl goes to
Europe in search of the reasons for her older sister's suicide ten years earlier.
There she meets up with her sister's former boyfriend and together they travel to
all the places her sister went, and gradually the reasons become clear. But what makes this film so special, and soar above the limited plot, are the
beautiful portrayals of the characters. Although the older sister's boyfriend is a
drop-out hippie, he has noble ideals, moral standards and incredible strengths. And
although the older sister, who we see in flashbacks, shares these ideals, she
doesn't have a sense of limitation or balance, of how much is too much. And
although the younger girl is fiercely loyal to her sister's memory, she gradually
finds the strength to face the fact that her sister was only a normal girl, after
all. The most special moment in the film is when the young girl and the
sister's boyfriend finally stop fighting their attraction to each other. I can't
recall ever seeing more beautiful, touching, romantic tenderness in lovemaking in a
film! In all these ways this is a truly beautiful film, a film to be
treasured, and to be seen again and again. 9 out of 10.
So it isn't an epic, but for people experiencing anything similar (sibling suicide) it might be an interesting way of therapy. An imaginative narrative and some fine acting makes it time well spent.
For some reason, it hasn't really caught on in the audience, something I
do believe is a result of the main theme. Why did she commit suicide?
Clearly, this is hardly something that US moviegoers will flock to, had
it been an European production it probably would have reached its
audience in a much greater extent. It is however, a movie that although
the realism tainted by a shimmering romanticized glow, gives the viewer
a whole hearted impression.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the rating here for this movie is so
low. This was one of the most beautiful films I have seen this year. It really
struck a chord with me. I had been anticipating this film for several months and I
thought to myself, there's no way it can possibly live up to the expectations I had
for it...seeing as how I built it up in my head as much as I did. Well needless to
say, not only did it meet my expectations but it far surpassed them. Jordana
Brewster and Cameron Diaz were excellent in every way. Their acting superb by far.
They were both in their element and completely natural for the roles. The locales
were absolutely gorgeous. Every shot filmed was perfectly captured and fit the mood
and atmosphere beautifully. I found this film very touching and took it very close
to heart. I would even contemplate saying this could be one of my all time
favorites. At the very least, certainly I could see it again and again. I swear I couldn't find one fault in this film. It's hard to say that about any
film. I would highly recommend this one. It's touching, it's meaningful, and it
says a lot about human nature and family. 10 out of 10. Well done by
all.
Jennifer Egan's novel was brought to the screen by Canadian director Adam Brooks in
a film that, based on some comments from contributors to this forum, sounds a bad
proposition, but in fact, it's much better than one is led to believe. This is a story about two sisters who loved one another dearly. Faith, the fair
headed and happy-go-lucky hippie girl, takes her younger sibling, Phoebe, under her
wing. Phoebe plainly loves Faith; when the older one decides to follow her
boyfriend Wolf to Europe on a summer vacation from Berkley, she promises she will
send Phoebe a post card every day. Faith does that, until the cards stop coming in
and one night, some time later, the family receives a phone call to inform them
Faith has died under tragic circumstances. Phoebe can't forget Faith.
That is why after some years pass by, she decides to take the same route the older
sister took. She takes the cards from Faith and visits each place, starting in
Amsterdam, then moving on to Paris and she wants to end up the trip in Portugal,
where Faith encountered her untimely death. In Paris, Phoebe hooks up
with Wolf, who by now, is not a hippie anymore and is living with his girlfriend.
Wolf, tries to persuade Phoebe into abandoning her trip and to go back home; she
suspects that Wolf holds the key into solving the mystery, and as she is going to
depart for Portugal she makes a discovery when she finds a picture that clearly
contradicts Wolf's version he has told Phoebe. He feels guilty and, against his
girlfriend's wishes, decides to accompany Phoebe to the town where Faith died. The
story changes at this point and we go back in flashbacks to what Faith experienced
in Europe and what happened in her final days. The best thing in "The
Invisible Circus" are the performances of the principals, something that Mr. Brooks
has to take the credit for. The big surprise is the range of Cameron Diaz, who, as
Faith, seems to select light comedy parts, when she is quite able to do good
dramatic work under the right director. Jordana Brewster is seen as the older
Phoebe and makes a wonderful contribution to the film. She is a stunning beauty
with what seems to be a naturalness for acting. Christopher Eccleston is Wolf and
shows he also is capable of doing more serious drama. The sweet Camilla Belle plays
the younger Phoebe quite convincingly. Blythe Danner appears as the mother of the
girls. The European locations are gloriously photographed by Henry
Braham. The film is also enhanced by the musical score of Nick Laird-Clowes and
Petra Haden's original song. Elizabeth Kling edited with great elegance.
Ultimately, this film shows Adam Brooks in great form as he gives the right tone to
the adaptation of the novel and gets rewarded by having the right cast doing
wonders for him.
This is a case where the script plays with the audience in a manner that serves
only in extending this story to 90 minutes. Story starts out in 1969 where a young
girl named Faith (Cameron Diaz) travels to Europe with her boyfriend Wolf
(Christopher Eccleston) but she dies under mysterious circumstances. Then in 1976
Faith's sister Phoebe (Jordana Brewster) decides to travel to Europe as well and
try and find out what happened to her sister. In France she looks up Wolf who has
stayed there and she wants him to help her retrace the steps her sister took and
answer some questions. He is reluctant but decides to travel with her. Along the
way he fills in the gaps of the occurrences and tells Phoebe that Faith had joined
up with the Red Army who are an extremist group that is involved in terrorism.
Phoebe and Wolf engage in a romance and this complicates the trip to Portugal where
Faith died. Their is several things wrong with this film and it all has to do with
the script. First, the romance between Wolf and Phoebe is all wrong and does
nothing for the story. It rings completely false and comes across as forced. It
seems weird that Wolf would engage in a romance with his dead girlfriends sister.
Secondly, Wolf knows completely what happened to Faith but only lets out little
chunks of information every 15 minutes or so. Wolf will look at Phoebe every 15
minutes and say, "There is something I didn't tell you"! Gee, thanks a lot Wolf! If
Wolf had come clean the first time he talked to Phoebe then the film would have
been over in about 30 minutes. Another thing that bothered me was that I don't
think this film recreated the 1960's at all. Diaz wears hippie clothes but the time
period just didn't ring true. I did enjoy a few things like the authentic locations
where the film was shot. It is a very good looking film and the scenery is
beautiful. The performances are all good especially by Brewster and Diaz. Besides
"The Fast and the Furious" I had never really seen Brewster in anything. But after
watching her performance in this film I came away very impressed. She's very good
here and I hope better roles come her way. The script is told in a very contrived
way and the film never comes across as believable.
I've never really been sure whether I liked this documentary or not. It was shown
on Channel 4 before a cut down version of Revelations, and is on the Revelations
video tape before the uncut show. The documentary is basically friends of Bill
saying how great he was for an hour with video clips of the show mixed in, a bit
like a trailer for the film you're about to watch. It also features David Letterman
grovelling like a worm for dumping Bill off the his show before he died, the
reason? Bill made a joke about how Pro-Life people should picket funerals, and
Letterman had Pro-life advertising. Anyway look out for the video as Revelations is
Bill at his ranting best :)
This video is a fantastic testament and insight into the work of Bill Hicks.
Thought provoking barely begins to describe it.It's funny and moving and
educational and a whole host of other things that are good for you. Make sure you
see it.
One of the earlier reviews of this movie ends with "Only for big fans of the lead
actors or fans of exotic Romance/Adventure Holywood movies...," as if those weren't
reason enough to love it! Anyone who, after seeing this movie, complains about
Connery's accent, or the lack of historical verisimilitude, or the realism of the
political motivations, or any other extra-movie concerns, simply doesn't love
movies. See it and be awed by the star-power of the two leads, the exotic,
romantic, photography and music, and the bold adventure of a truly escapist film.
This is proof that Hollywood can "make 'em like they used to" when it really wants
to. A solid 8/10.
 Well-known comedians meekly admit they wish they could do real satire
like Bill Hicks. Inbetween these pitiful testimonies, we are treated to what an
exceptionally talented comedian can achieve when he could otherwise be chasing fame
and fortune. He didn't get his own talk show, but at least he was no one's puppet.
I'll put this as plainly as possible for those of you unaware of Bill Hicks'
legacy. He was quite simply the greatest stand-up comedian in the world, almost
certainly in my opinion the greatest that ever lived (his stand-up idol being the
great Richard Pryor, whose battles with addiction he paralleled). His death in 1994
went barely noticed in the popular media, coming just weeks after Kurt Cobain had
committed suicide. His tragic death at such a young age eclipses any sense of the
injustice that he was criminally ignored during his life, of course. But the harsh
truth is clear as day: nobody has stepped up to claim his mantle. There is not a
stand-up comedian alive with nearly the skill and invention. The
observation is made in the affectionate tribute Ìt's just a ride' that stand-up
comedians often view the job as a stepping stone to richer pursuits - lame movies
and morally-driven sitcoms, made to occupy - but never enrich - the lives of an
unimaginative audience. It's everything that Bill Hicks spoke against. His sermon
was always a rallying cry for people think for themselves, to scrutinise authority,
to come together as one race. His appeal continues to grow with every
passing year since his death. His star will continue to shine long after so many
lesser lights have blew out. Once you've been exposed to his brilliant,
intelligent, but ultimately compassionate output, you will be enriched and
rewarded. The man himself was fond to quote Dylan: `To live outside the
law you must be honest', he said. Bill Hicks was honest, beyond that he was the
funniest of them all.
This documentary about the life and comedy of Bill Hicks features bits from Hicks'
"Revelations" and other stand-up gigs. It also features interviews with fellow
comedians and people in the industry who knew him, as well as reporters and
journalists who talk about how his political commentary was raw and brutal. I enjoyed it very much. I had already seen "Revelations" but the comedy
clips were still refreshing. It's a nice balance of comedy and documentary that
will explain Hicks' popularity to non-fans and please those who are already
familiar with him. I rated it a ten.
A genius. My genius. I remember the exact second in 1994. I was sat in a pub in
Shropshire, England. I recall the exact seat. "Bill Hicks dies of cancer" said the
headline in the NME. I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. Buy this
DVD. If you don't find something in it one way or the other I'll be
astonished. RIP Bill, I wish so much you were still here.
The numbers don't lie, 109 people have voted for this film. That says a great deal
about the standing of one of the most intuitively insightful comedians of the late
20th century. And for those of you who know the work of Bill Hicks, if he were
alive today, imagine what he would have to say about the boy president from his
home state? That his short career remains unrecognized is a sad situation and this
film, or rather these two films explain why. First, you see how his talent was
obvious from the start, again and again, those who knew Bill Hicks always say he
was not only funny, he was also unique. The film also shows how the quality of his
material was too challenging for many in the entertainment industry. His drinking
also contributed to his career problems, but that is less evident in this film. And
then the second film is a complete performance. If you have never seen or heard
Bill Hicks, this is a wonderful introduction to the person and his dark but
intelligent humor. Especially due to the fact that the topics are now almost 14
years old, yet remain ironically up to date is underlined by the fact that many of
the events took place under the first President Bush. Watching them
together - first the biography and then the performance - makes you aware of how
greatly talented this young man was, how quickly his life passed and how the
American media can sometimes act as the great big homogenizer. Let's make sure
nothing is too provocative, nothing will be too interesting And the result? Well,
as the man himself said, go to sleep America, your government is in
control........... In his lifetime, at least in Great Britian this artist was
recognized for his talent and was successful there. 11 years after his death, 109
people at IMDb can say something about the film. After you've seen them both, I
hope you understand why more people should be listening to Bill Hicks.
Albert Pyun delivers a very good action/drama about a junkie who tries to rip-off a
big crime-lord. A lot of style and many very cool actors. Burt Reynold is
excellent.
When I first watched this movie I thought it was a very strange movie. But I know
that the director almost always has a purpose when he makes a movie. So I decided
to watch it one more time. The second time I watched it I realised that Albert Puyn
is a very talented and a very original film maker. In the beginning the viewer was
told that the movie took place a decade after the fall of the communism in the
eastern Europe. But they had clothes and cars with a design typical for the 1950's.
They had plutonium which I think is a symbol for the futuristic trade. I think that
it means that the movie's real time is not specified. The music in the movie is
creating a long music video which tells some parts of the actual story in the
lyrics, specially for the intro and the outro. Albert Puyn is using red
and blue back-color when he's showing the symbols for communism (red) and the
capitalism and western world (blue). One can notice that Ice-T, has the name Mao
(communism) and that when he's in focus the back-color is red. The american cop,
starring Burt Reynolds, is always filmed with blue back-color. The club where Mao
and his gang hang out is also with red back-color. Crazy six is pendling between
the red and the blue color. The white little dog that Mao had in the
beginning symbolize, I think, the controlling force. Mao had the dog in the
beginning but the cop took it in the end. That symbolize, I guess, the fall of
communism and the replacement of the capitalistic way of thinking from the western
world in Eastern Europe. I think Crazy Six is a very well-made movie.
Albert Puyn creates an sci-fi/action movie with a politicial depth. It's a
different but a very special movie about the communism fall in the Eastern
Europe. I'm looking forward to watch another spectacular movie of Albert
Puyn.
This film is an excellent teaching tool as a pre-study of "To Kill a Mockingbird."
In conjunction with a study of the novel itself, "...Caged Bird..." can be used as
an independent literary study or as an introduction to TKM.
Oh my GOD ! I can truly say that Maya Angelou is one of the world's most intriguing
and important people, especially of my culture. She is incredibly inspiring and her
story is the story of a great woman ! When I first picked this movie up I thought
to myself the cast was wonderfully put together now lets see them in action ! Maya
Angelou is already my favorite PoetEss and now one of my favorite actresses and
speakers. I believe she is the greatest of all time. This movie had me on the edge
of my seat and reaching for Kleenex while at the same time reminding me that no
matter where you come from if you decide that you are going to be great then you
will be great ! And Ester Rolle played a wonderful supporting role...... 100%
AWESOME...and now even "I know Why the Caged Bird Sings."
I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast
majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this
film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done
that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a
happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me
literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking.
I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film,
I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I
am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and
is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist
than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for
my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an
excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half
sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or
significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was
great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather
abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very
Freudian psycho-thriller.
Okay,I'm a history buff,and okay,I'm a action film junkie,so of course,this film is
on my top ten of all time.I really love the action scenes,and the unique weaponry
of the period.I sort of have doubts about fighting two-handed sword from horse-
back,and the Raisuli sword seems more katana-like than scimitar-like,...oh
well,I've never fought from horse back,either. I love the attempts at
philosophic proverbs,too.The typical desert tribesman probably couldn't read the
Koran,so they'd take his word for it.Several writers have criticized Connery's
brogue;well,on vacation as a youth,I met a family of South Africans in our
west,Dinosaur National Monument,and although they spoke Africaans between
themselves(yeah,second generation Germans can hear the difference),they spoke
English with a Scottish brogue.Seems that who teaches you affects your
pronunciation.Scottish Missionary?
Leos Carax is brilliant and is one of the best film and camera guys in the business
so it should come as no surprise that Pola X is an almost perfect filming of the
most gut wrenching story ever. Seriously. If I could have figured out some way to
climb inside my video monitor, I would have thrashed Pierre to within an inch of
his life. No one has the right to be that self absorbed and that stupid, both at
the same time, except maybe Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. After
spending 134 minutes with Pierre, I need a large glass of brandy. Never have I been
so angry at a main character. Ok, having said that, Pola X is a stunning movie with
one of the few totally honest sex scenes I've ever seen in any film....which means
another piece of brilliant filmmaking....and I'm talking graphic here, by the way.
Pola X will beat the hell out of you, though, so make sure you're up for it if you
decide to watch it.
Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du
Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of
youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well
aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without
thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times.
Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a
monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its
way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos
Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's
more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last
reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a
romantic in the german sense of it.
I watched Pola X because Scott Walker composed the film score and I admire his
music a lot. Frankly, I expected a somewhat pretentious and possibly incoherent
French movie. I was wrong. The vision of the film quickly managed to engage my
attention to the fullest - starting with the opening sequence, which shows black
and white footage of military airplanes throwing bombs at graves at the sounds of
music and Scott Walker's beautiful wailing voice. The film explores the identity
crisis of Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu - a brilliant choice for the role) and his
consequential (self-)destruction. The story is divided into two parts the first
depicts Pierre's carefree life in a beautiful house in the French countryside and
the second follows his utter personal disintegration after he abandons everything
and moves to Paris to live in squalor with his supposed half-sister. Both parts
contain some amazingly stunning photography the first very colorful and bright,
the second utterly gloomy and nearly apocalyptic - adding up to a true aesthetic
feast. Pola X is a fascinating and quite unique movie experience.
I agree with "johnlewis", who said that there is a lot going on between the lines
in this film. While I do think the pacing of this film could be improved, I do
think that the complexity of the relationships between the characters is
fascinating. Examples : Pierre is going to marry his cousin,
even though his love for her seems very cousin-y ? Pierre and his
stepmother have a rather...curious relationship. Pierre, Lucie, and
Thibault seem to have a triangular relationship, and the actual points to the
triangle are not quite certain... Lucie's brother is a bit of a eunuch,
or is he ? And Isabelle, who is she really ?? Overall, I
think it was worth my time. An interesting film, and one that makes me want to read
Melville.
Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'.
The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the
overwhelmingly negative reaction. The shock value is the least
appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of
proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of
those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and
idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have
seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into
an unforgettably emotional epic. I can't stress enough the importance of
disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with
an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on
edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary
in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at
once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to
make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year.
This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that
that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main
character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It
is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you
liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment," you will probably like this if only for
the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, "What is it
that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for
another set?" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a
conservative you will not like this movie. Besides other philosophical
questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well.
The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also,
there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main
characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give
this movie a 7.
No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder
about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the
first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring,
disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and
the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think
that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of
his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to
more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then,
Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-
the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious
group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between
playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording
sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old
steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-
mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in
the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that
his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who
had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because
the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled
hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu
then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or
destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and
extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous
sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene
which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people
are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never
happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario
come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The
differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme
French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an
excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if
harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and
turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film
were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making
an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that
far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves
defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.
At times I really wonder when I look at the comments here it seems as if most
people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and
liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a
good film! The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main
character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention. Maybe
it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most
people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie
definitely doesn't fit as background noise. And no. Good directing
doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means
following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that
doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good. I
liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The
opening scene is really special. I also liked the acting Guillaume
Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself
playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is
a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms
all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose
is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions
or explaining himself. People are wondering where this or that person
came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is
left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on
everyone. And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as
the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and
obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which
was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at
by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene
where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is
surrounded by books on Bosnia.
When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first
publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to
that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines
like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the
writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp
departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly,
he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances
that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however,
to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would
have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps,
but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite
appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and
more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes
more and more miserable. "POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this
novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves
little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that
Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message
so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films
have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer. I recommend
a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this
movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.
I would like to know if anyone know how I can get a copy of the movie, "That's the
way of the World". It's been about 30 years since I've seen this movie, and I would
like to see it again. Earth Wind & Fire transcend the nation globally with their
inspirational music and themes. It was unfortunate that this group didn't take off
like their counterparts in the early 70's, but as previously stated, racial tension
existed in the United States which prohibited equalized exposure for the African
American musical groups. It is good to see that Earth Wind & Fire continuing their
success. I would like to add this movie to my collection. Someone please help me if
possible. Thank you for your attention. Milton Shaw
Taken the idea out of a true diplomatic incident "The Wind and the Lion" is a very
good adventure film set in the deserts of Africa. El Raisuli (Sean
Connery) head of an Arab tribe kidnaps an American woman(Candice Bergen) and her
two children to obtain some concessions for his country out of American president
Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith). Out of this simple plot John Milius gets a very
complete and enjoyable movie in the genre. The outdoor dessert
locations, an impressive color photography, very well handled action sequences and
perfect settings turn the picture in a sort of epic one with an undeniable sense of
greatness. The musical score is also remarkable an fits accordingly. Sean Connery is very good as the Arab leader and proofs he can handle almost any
kind of role. So is Candice Bergen as the woman who shows strength under dangerous
circumstances but deep inside is scared and has her weaknesses; she gets to admire
Connery and even understand his complete different focus on life arising from their
also completely different cultures. Brian Keith plays one of his best roles ever as
American president Teddy Roosevelt. Most entertaining and very good
cinematographic sample in the genre. Give it chance, you won't regret it.
Harvey Keitel gives a typically top-rate performance in one of his first-ever lead
roles as brash, ambitious, uncompromising young staff producer Coleman Buckmaster,
a real talented hot shot with a discerning "golden ear" and the son of a famous
jazz pianist to boot. Coleman's eager to cut some tracks with the smokin' R&B
outfit the Group (none other than Earth, Wind & Fire in their awesomely funky
prime), but his rigidly commercial greedhead label A-Chord Records run by uptight,
mob-connected middle-of-the-road square Jerry (a properly unhip Ed Nelson) wants
him to record a hit single for the hideously insipid Carpenters-like pop pap trio
the Pages, an allegedly squeaky clean bunch which includes smarmy pedophile step-
dad Franklin (a perfectly vile Bert Parks), bitchy, neurotic daughter Velour (a
fine, flighty turn by perky, comely brunette Cynthia Bostwick), and hedonistic
smack addict son Gary (former 50's juvenile sitcom staple Jimmy Boyd). The
extremely naive and idealistic Coleman must learn pronto how the music business
truly works and play the lowdown dirty game as best he can or else he'll lose both
the Group and his credibility. Adopting an acrid, incisive, corrosively
harsh and unsparingly biased script from syndicated columnist and rock journalist
Robert Lipsyte, director Sig Shore (who's most famous for producing "Superfly")
shows a decidedly cynical and unflattering depiction of the various bribes, pay-
offs, broken promises, back-stabbings, duplicities and double-dealings which are an
unpleasant, yet intrinsic part of the largely corrupt rock music business, with
particularly thoughtful thematic asides concerning Art vs. Commerce, fighting to
retain one's artistic integrity, and the then recent push to homogenize rock into
bland, useless, creatively stagnant mainstream respectability. Moreover, this
gritty, downbeat gem offers a rare fascinating, minutely detailed and wholly
believable backstage glimpse at the recording process as recording booth console
cowboy Coleman struggles gamely in his own words to "make chicken salad out of
chicken s**t." Appearing in nifty bits are disc jockey and legendary "fifth Beatle"
Murray the K as leering, lecherous DJ Big John Little (Velour bites his hand after
Big John paws her thigh during a live on-air interview!), New York soul DJ and host
of NBC's "Friday Night Videos" Frankie Crocker as his own jazzy'n'jivin' self, R&B
singer-songwriter Doris Troy (she penned the lovely "Just One Look") as a church
pianist, and tubby, bald-pated 70's blaxploitation favorite Charles MacGregor as a
priest at a wedding. The rather poor sound and Allan Metzger's sloppy
cinematography inadvertently add to the film's overall ragged, rough-around-the-
edges documentary-style authenticity. Although technically a bit lacking, this
movie overall still rates as one of the great, most bitterly pessimistic unsung
behind-the-scenes rocksploitation gems from the 70's.
Okay...it's 2005 and when you finally get to look at this film, you will probably
exclaim that it is dated. But here's the thing, the screenplay was bold, the
exposure of the music industry at that time was as bold as well...and it took some
time for this to get music that was created by African Americans to be promoted on
the same level as white acts. In some cases it still is - but back in the 70's this
film addressed some of the "background" many never knew. Now we've got "American
Idol" - "Pop Idol" and other such things that allow us into the minds of the
"record execs" and how they think they should market something that sells and not
market talent. When I was a kid, I loved the Earth, Wind and Fire
release of "That's the Way of the World" which contained some of their biggest
hits: "Shining Star", "Reasons", "Yeanin', Learnin'" and the title. Little did I
know this was a SOUNDTRACK of a MOVIE...until I moved to Los Angeles and got the
wonderful "Z" Channel. The "Z" Channel showed this film as part of a
"Harvey Keitel" retrospective. Gee, I had no idea Harvey Keitel DID so many movies
-- and when I saw this one, I was surprised. This movie is not a cinematic
masterpiece, but it does deserve more merit than it got. It's a nice little film.
More than a "vanity piece" for Earth, Wind and Fire, Harvey Keitel does a great job
as a torn record executive trying "to fight the system". There are a lot of lessons
to be drawn from this, and a lot of "insider" trade that was exposed. If
you can find this uncut...it's worth a look.
I haven't seen this film since it came out in the mid 70s, but I do recall it as
being a very realistic portrayal of the music business ( right up there with Paul
Simons "One Trick Pony " ..another vastly underrated film IMO ) Harvey
Keitel does an excellent job as a producer caught between the music he believes
in , and the commercial "tripe" the record company "suits" want him to work
with. Since I spent my entire career in the music business as a composer
/arranger /producer, I can really vouch for the verisimilitude this film possesses.
 If it should ever come out on DVD uncut, I'd buy it!
A widely unknown strange little western with mindblowing colours (probably the same
material as it was used in "Johnny Guitar", I guess "Trucolor" or something, which
makes blood drips look like shining rubies), nearly surrealistic scenes with
twisted action and characters. Something different, far from being a masterpiece,
but there should be paid more attention to this little gem in western
encyclopedias.
Dakota Incident is a curiosity for several reasons. It will be obvious from the
start that it was made long before anyone ever thought of political correctness.
Although, the Ward Bond character softens the edge with "maybe we can communicate
with them, after all they're humans, too" type of dialogue. His part stands side-
by-side with the preacher attemtping to communicate with the Martians in War of the
Worlds. In fact, it's uncanny. The title is curious too. Use of the word "Incident"
contributes an importance and sophistication to the film that probably didn't hurt
boxoffice. The contrived assortment of characters and Linda Darnell's fancy dress
and hat are wonderful dated touches that make Dakota Incident a cool western
artifact from the mid-fifties.
This is a cute little French silent comedy about a man who bets another that he
can't stay in this castle for one hour due to its being haunted. And, once the guy
enters the house, it looks much more like a crazed fun house or maybe like the
after-effects of LSD!! While there ARE ghosts and skeletons, there is a weird
menagerie of animals, odd special effects and gags as well. It's awfully hard to
describe but the visuals alone make the film worth seeing. HOWEVER, understand that
the self-indulgent director also had many "funny gags" that totally fell flat and
hurt the movie. His "camera tricks" weren't so much tricky but annoying and stupid.
IGNORE THESE AND KEEP WATCHING--it does get better. The film is fast paced, funny
and worth seeing. In particular, I really liked watching the acting and mugging of
Max Linder--he was so expressive and funny! Too bad he is virtually forgotten
today. For an interesting but very sad read, check out the IMDb biography on him.
I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember
it very well. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember very well
are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally
cast. The writing was also very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I
hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up,
I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even
though I haven't seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever
brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for
good.
Being a 90's child, I truly enjoyed this show and I can proudly say that I enjoyed
it big time and even more than the classical WB cartoons. I don't know
why; early 90's cartoons had something special; I don't know if it was the
uncertainty atmosphere, a generational change, whatever. But "Tiny Toons" kept the
90's vibe and delivered one of the most popular, funny, and underrated cartoons
ever created. The memories are murky but I can only say that I enjoyed
every single episode and product related to the show. Easily, none other cartoon
made me laugh in a tender way (before getting into dark sitcoms oriented for
teenagers). The characters were all funny and had the peculiarity of not
having a true lead character. Every single character was hilarious and deserved to
be called a lead.
After the success of "Muppet Babies" Warner Brothers chalked up "Tiny Toons". But
instead of making Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and all the rest of the Looney Toon gang
kids, they created new animal characters who were kids with their own distinct
personalities but personalities that nonetheless mirrored their predecessors. The
leads included Buster & Babs Bunny (no relation, which became their running gag or
catch phrase), Plucky Duck, Hampton Pig, Dizzy Devil, Shirley 'the' Loon, Elmira,
Montana Max, Furball, Sweety, the rats and assorted animals of Perfecto Prep, and
the original Looney Toons cast themselves. The "Tiny Toons" lived in Acme Acres and
attended Acme Looniversity, where the Looney Toon gang worked as teachers who
served as mentors to the younger generation the ins and out of comedy. During the show's run, various pot shots were taken at the Bush SR.
administration, pop culture, and coupled with various other gags and spoofs. Buster & Babs, arguably the show's main characters, as mentioned above,
were similar to Bugs Bunny in some respects, but they also had their own differing
personality ticks and comic styles, namely, Babs' tendency to impersonate anyone
and everyone, while Buster, capable of being a great goof himself, usually played
straight man (or straight rabbit) to Babs' antics. Plucky Duck was a virtual copy
of Daffy Duck (not screwball Daffy but egomaniac Daffy), with nearly as big an ego
as Daffy and just as much of an obsession with upstaging the Buster & Babs as Daffy
had with upstaging Bugs, though he usually fell flat on his face in his attempts,
yet he remained strangely endearing through out. Hampton was an even more shy
version of Porky Pig, and he had the thankless job of playing Porky to Plucky's
Daffy. Shirley, the blond duck gal, was a new age valley girl type whom Plucky
would go in and out of phases of mocking or vying for her affections. Dizzy was the
purple version of the Tasmanian Devil. Furball was the silent Sylvester and Sweety
was the pink Tweetie bird. There was also the purple female skunk who longed for a
boyfriend and the pint sized versions of Wile Coyote and the Road Runner. Evil was
defined in the form of Montana Max, a rich kid who was always out to make a buck or
make people's lives miserable. There was also Elmira, a deranged animal lover whom
everyone feared. And then there was Godo Dodo, an odd thing-a-ma-gig creature who
had no clearly designated species except that he was from "Wacky Land" or something
like that. Pop culture references included Batman (quite frequently
actually), Michael Jackson, Vanilla Ice, Dances With Wolves, Indiana Jones, Star
Trek, Supergirl, fast food joints, the Ten Commandments, the Twilight Zones,
Saturday Night Live and even the Simpsons, among others. Not only funny,
but it also managed to be warm and touching, something it's successor "Animaniacs"
never quite attained. Also followed by "Taz-Mania".
OK, the show was a little uneven, but I still loved it. I found the main two
bunnies annoying, but Hamton & Plucky were always amusing. I really want
the Baby Plucky episodes on DVD (or even VHS). Please release those! Specifically the "Potty years" episode aired on 11/22/91; the "Going up" episode
aired on 9/17/92 and the "Minister golf" episode in 11/92. They are the
funniest bits of the whole series and even over a decade later we still reference
these bits! (I have nothing more to say, please reduce the minimum to
something like 5 lines and rewards us for brevity!)
1904. The North African nation of Morocco is hanging onto a tenuous Independence,
as the various European powers - France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Spain, and now
the United States - are vying for influence in the region. The Sultan (Marc Zuber)
is a weak puppet; his uncle, the Bashaw (Vladek Sheybal), who is being manipulated
by the French and Germans, is the real power behind the throne. Enter Berber
Chieftan Raisuli (Sean Connery), the leader of the Rif tribe and "the last of the
Barbary Pirates", who kidnaps an American missionary, Eden Pedecaris (Candice
Bergen) and her two children and takes them hostage. Back in the US, President
Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) threatens to go to war over the issue: "Pedecaris
Alive or Raisuli Dead!" - seeing the issue as the perfect way to exercise his "Big
Stick" diplomacy, though Secretary of State John Hay (John Huston) is not so
confident. However, the Raisuli has less sinister plans for the Pedecarises, who
are more than capable of handling themselves in any event. John Milius's
great historical film, based VERY loosely off of a true story (i.e. Pedecaris was a
middle-aged man), is a wonderful bit of escapism. It has some amazing action
scenes, a witty, well-written script, a fine cast enjoying themselves with the
material, and does not overstay its welcome like, say, "Pirates of the Caribbean"
or the "Lord of the Rings" movies. It's not really an "epic" film in the strictest
sense, but it's one of the best pure action movies ever made. While the
historical context is shaky, the storyline is interesting, and as some reviewers
point out, it is even more pertinent today than it was when made. As President
Roosevelt says, "America is like a grizzly bear" - fierce, strong, but a little
blind and reckless at times. At the time of the film's setting, America has just
been propelled onto the world stage as superpower, following their resounding
victory in the Spanish-American War - and Roosevelt seizes this incident as a way
to prove America's worth. In real life, it didn't quite work out that way, but
allegorically it works well. While written from a right-wing perspective, Milius's
screenplay is pretty accurate in assessing America and its place in the world. He
admires Roosevelt and his method of "big stick" diplomacy, and correctly recognizes
(in the words of Roosevelt) that while America may be feared and respected, they'll
never be truly "loved" by the world, no matter what they do. And there are some
scenes - like Roosevelt's target shooting of European leaders and the almost-comic
surprise attack by Marines on the Bashaw's palace - which show America's reckless
and violent side, while others - the climactic showdown with the Germans - show
their heroism. The historical/political context of the film is, of
course, merely meat on the bones of what is essentially a rousing action/adventure
film. There are some brilliantly done action scenes, such as Raisuli's rescue of
the Pedecaris's from double-crossing tribesmen, which features some of the best
swordplay in any film. The opening entrance of the Raisuli and the aforementioned
march and attack of the US Marines are brilliantly done bravura set pieces. And the
final battle, which combines elements of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Wild Bunch",
while a major historical fantasy (a three-way battle between Germans, Americans,
and the Rifs), is a superbly staged, adrenaline-pumping sequence. The
excellent cast gives some wonderful performances. Everyone seems to be having a fun
time with the film, and it shows. Sean Connery is surprisingly convincing as a
Berber with a Scottish accent, but manages to pull off his interesting, well-drawn
and chivalrous character who comes to respect his hostage and abhors modern,
uncivil warfare. Candice Bergen, an actress whom I've never been fond of, gives a
fine performance as the feisty Eden Pedecaris, who is every bit as tough as her
captor. Brian Keith is an amazingly convincing TR - you really feel he must have
been like this, an athletic, blustering, yet practical and intelligent man with an
admirable sense of self. The scenes of Roosevelt boxing and target-shooting while
discussing foreign policy are some of the greatest "bad ass" moments in movie
history - and who can forget lines like "Why spoil the beauty of the thing with
legality?" John Huston provides solid support as the weary, cautious Hay, acting as
a perfect foil to the much more impetuous Roosevelt. Among the fine
supporting cast, the best are Geoffrey Lewis as Samuel Gummere, the cynical
Ambassador caught in the middle of the political intrigue, and Steve Kanaly, as the
gung-ho Marine Captain who cheerfully advocates (and carries out) "Military
intervention!" as the blunt and simple solution to the whole complex situation.
Other familiar faces such as Vladek Sheybal, Nadim Sawalha, Roy Jenson, Larry
Cross, Marc Zuber, and Darrell Fetty also do fine work, no matter how small their
role. Spaghetti Western fans will recognize Antoine Saint-John ("A Fistful of
Dynamite") as the German general and Aldo Sambrell as one of Raisuli's
tribesmen. "The Wind and the Lion" is, all around, a wonderfully done
adventure film. It has something for everyone: wonderful gun- and swordplay, a lot
of humor, a tough, feisty heroine (and her two cute children), a nice (if
unconsummated) romance, and an interesting (if fanciful) political/historical
context. It's not a masterpiece, but hey, it wasn't trying to be. I give "The Wind
and the Lion" a stirring nine stars and my highest recommendation.
They just don't make cartoons like they used to. This one had wit, great
characters, and the greatest ensemble of voice over artists ever assembled for a
daytime cartoon show. This still remains as one of the highest rated daytime
cartoon shows, and one of the most honored, winning several Emmy Awards.
It's now 2005 and 15+ years since this cartoon first aired. I haven't actually
watched it seriously or closely in about 10 years. Now that I'm an adult in my 30s
I can look back with a serious eye as I watch the episodes again. In
concept, the cartoon is partly an homage to the classic Looney Tunes but also its
own original show. There are a few episodes that are structured like the old
cartoons. For example, there is a singer that attacks Buster and so he exacts
revenge on this singer's concert -exactly like the old Bugs Bunny cartoon. The
ensuing cartoon is similar to Looney Tunes, just in a different era. If you look at
the old Looney Tunes, they did an awful lot of stuff exactly like Tiny Toons did.
The old Looney Tunes made a lot of social commentary and parody. There were
celebrity impersonations. There were a lot of corny period jokes, slang, and
dialog. The comedy was surreal and wacky. You can say this exactly for Tiny Toons
as well. The comedy styling is 'spiritually' the same. Most definitely a throwback
to the classics which hadn't been done well (if at all) in cartoons in the decades
prior to this show. We recognize the cultural references in Tiny Toons and we can
roll our eyes when something we don't like comes up. But the reason we don't think
Looney Tunes are corny is because we weren't alive back in the 40s. Also, Looney
Tunes was original back in those days but today cartoons are rehashed over and
over. So it's easy to perceive Tiny Toons in an unfair light due to our exposure to
current events and our overexposure to cartoons in general. There
certainly are differences in many respects - the timing, the delivery, and
obviously the duration of the shows. They are two different styles from two
different periods, being done under two very different circumstances - Looney Tunes
being made for adults in theaters and Tiny Toons being made for kids watching TV.
Even so, they did a good job making an original show with original gags AND still
paying homage to and patterning after the comedy stylings of the old Looney
Tunes. Since Tiny Toons had a lot more time to play with, they had some
genuine moments of great animated inspiration. You only have to look at episodes
like 1 minute to 3, the baby Plucky toilet episode.. there are so many more. For
example, one of the best comedy dialog exchanges ever animated is in
ThirteenSomething when Babs and Buster are on the phone in a split screen, hoping
each misses the other. The miscommunication is spectacular. Notably, the character
development in this episode and in several others (usually the ones penned by
Deanna Oliver or Sherri Stoner) is rather good. The female characters were taken
seriously as personalities and developed, unusual considering the opposite is
usually true for cartoons of that period. This was the first modern
cartoon that had lots of both pop culture-referential and self-referential humor.
This was way ahead of its time. Tiny Toons really opened up a door for writers to
take comic liberties that are so common in the cartoons today, instead of doing the
boring old crap we endured as 80s kids. Yes, I loved Transformers and Thundercats,
but Tiny Toons totally jumped away from all that. It was a breath of fresh air.
Bakshi's New Adventures of Mighty Mouse may have been a precursor, but Tiny Toons
made this surreal style of comedy cartoon writing a real success. As a
kid I totally overlooked some jokes. For example, one episode is an homage to the
Marx Brothers that I completely ignored as a teen. Now I have a newfound respect
for it. There are so many inspired gags that I never noticed that are genuinely
brilliant. It's that kind of comedy that makes me think of Looney Tunes and Family
Guy. I NEVER noticed that kind of comedy as a kid. I've been thinking this for most
episodes I watched recently. You'd notice these kinds of things if you
actually WATCHED the show. Unlike some other reviewers here who I know are unfairly
judging it, I've seen all the episodes and have thought about them thoroughly,
exposed both as a kid and as an adult. You can tell there was an awful
lot of care taken with the voice acting too. I'm not talking about just the main
characters, but the side characters were done really well and creatively too. But
back to the main characters, some of the main characters were brilliant. Tress
MacNeille had, in my opinion, her best performances in this cartoon. She hasn't
been the same since. Rob Paulsen also did some incredible stuff here, too. This is all not to say the show didn't have some bad episodes. It had plenty. It
had a lot of mediocre ones, too. But by far it certainly had a lot of genuinely
funny episodes. Especially back when it first aired it was actually funny to
watch. Out of 10 I give the show an 8.5 - and kudos for pushing the
envelope and breaking down the doors leading to a new era of cartoons.
"Tesis", "Open your eyes" and "The Others" were proof of Amenabar's talent and
skill as a filmmaker, but (in my humble opinion) were also flawed films in their
attempt to outsmart the audience, always offering one turn of the screw too many,
favoring cheap thrills, twists and turns over depth and resonance. Lucky for
everyone Amenabar chose a subject for his new film that would not allow a surprise
ending, focusing on characters and the emotional ties that bind them. The result is a little miracle of a film, beautifully written, photographed,
scored, acted and directed. Everyone involved in this film delivers a carrer-high
performance,behind and in front of the cameras, from the wonderful cast (Bardem
shines, but Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo, Clara Segura and Lola Dueñas give the film
an amazing authenticity) to Aguirresarobe's exquisite lensing. The film
taps on many relevant issues and emotions effectively , it addresses heart and mind
with equal power and delivers a final punch that stays with you long after the
credits roll. This is a brilliantly executed film that not only will stand as a
landmark in Spanish cinema, but will surely become a pleasant surprise when it
opens in the abroad (Sony Classics has paid a record 6 million dollars to
distribute it) Don't be surprised it it manages to get in the Oscar race... There's
no stopping Amenabar... Buen trabajo, Alejandro!
This is probably the best movie filmed in at least the last five years. I've always
believed that making people cry is far more difficult than making them laugh. If
you want to see 400 adults crying out loud in the same room, go see this movie.
It's breathtaking. Javier Bardem performs the role of his life. You will cry, you
will laugh, you will smile... The most deserving fact is that in Spain everybody
knows about Ramon Sampedro. Personally I knew the full story and even the end of
it. So, the excellence of the movie is in the way that the story is told. And in
this field, Amenabar is a THE master. This movie is a MUST.
When I first saw "Before Night Falls", Javier Bardem had just been nominated for an
Academy Award. I thought "he's got it!". He didn't. I watched "Mar Adentro" last
night. Please give it to him this time... This is an actor. Convincing, touching,
emotional, brilliant. See also "Los Lunes al Sol" and you will understand what I am
talking about. He is an absolute chameleon and I swear it's not only the result of
make-up work. This movie is so beautiful, so well done, the characters are so real.
Congratulations to Alejandro Amenábar (how about a Best Director nomination?). I
also have to mention the make-up artists. I can't think of another word but
magnificent. I really hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves. As far as I
am concerned, it already has...
" I have wrestled with death. It is the most unexciting contest you can imagine. It
takes place in an impalpable grayness, with nothing underfoot, with nothing around,
without spectators, without clamor, without glory, without the great desire of
victory, without the great fear of defeat, in a sickly atmosphere of tepid
skepticism, without much belief in your own right, and still less in that of your
adversary. If such is the form of ultimate wisdom, then life is a greater riddle
than some of us think it to be." Marlow in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of
Darkness" It's difficult to make lyrical the subject of death in any
work of art. Yet movies have recently made bold attempts to humanize it to the
extent that it is embraced as a part of the cycle of all living things, and it can
be chosen rather than legislated. "Chosen" is the operative word for Alejandro
Amenabar's Sea Inside, based loosely on the true story of the Galician sailor Ramon
Sampedro. It is a drama about euthanasia without prejudice clothed in love, poetry,
and friendship. If it sounds like Barbarian Invasions (2003), in which a cancerous
professor says farewell to lifelong friends and loves before he takes his life,
then you are right. In fact, Sea is better because it spends more intimate time
with the protagonist before he goes, a remarkable feat with not one of those
moments in the least dull or uninteresting. Javier Bardem as Ramon has
expressive eyes and commanding voice for the romantic quadriplegic, a combination
of tough realist and poetic sufferer. Belen Rueda plays the disabled lawyer Julia,
who becomes an imaginary lover for Ramon, increasing in radiance as her life
degenerates with disease. Added to the already almost soap opera circumstance is
Lola Duenas as Rosa, a blue collar visitor who initially tries to dissuade Ramon
from seeking death but quickly falls in love with him. Talk about romanticizing
disabilityThis guy has unbelievable luck attracting substantial women, and he
can't move a finger. But talk he can, proving the ultimate argument about what
women want: love that speaks, not just makes. I will refrain from
mentioning the major motion picture now up for an Oscar that features euthanasia as
its climax in order not to spoil the experience for first timers. Sufficient it is
just to say both films are successful in opening up both sides of a contentious
subject without forcing a specific point of view. The religious right has a right
to complain that the former film and Barbarian Invasions celebrate suicide; it has
no right to accuse the beautifully balanced Sea Inside of the same. "A
life in this condition has no dignity," Ramon says. The irony is he conducts
himself with supreme dignity that makes anyone question his determination to end
his life. "The Sea Inside" is a formidable entry in 2004's Oscar nominations for
best foreign language film.
Once again Almenábar has provided us with a top quality film. This director is
amazing, and he's proven that he's equally talented and effective when crossing
genres. The excellent character development of the movie, through
dialogue and personality quirks, but with more subtle details as well (Ramon's
father's gaze), allows the audience to identify with the protagonists very closely,
making the importance and emotional impact of the events which take place all the
more profound. The visuals are at times, simple, at times stunning (the dream to
the beach), and I think Almenábar's films really benefit from the fact that he also
composes the music - it matched the film's varying moods flawlessly. More than just a film about euthanasia, which in itself is an important issue,
this film tackles the duality of a man who at times genuinely seems to enjoy life
(albeit in a quite limited way), and yet one who is unswerving in his desire to
die. The overwhelming sadness of the film is punctuated by well-timed quips of
humor, which seem all the funnier because they provide a welcome respite from the
melancholy you will certainly feel. Although clearly in favor of
euthanasia, this film does an excellent job representing the myriad points of view
of Ramon's friends and family. Most poignant was Ramon's father, when he said,
despondent, "There's only one thing worse than losing a child. That the child wants
to die." Excellent writing, acting, directing, cinematography, music -
10/10.
Since many other users have already explained and commented the storyline, I won't
do it. However, I'd like to restate that Bardem's interpretation is
terrific, as also are those of the other actors and actresses in this film. Reading the previous comments I've noticed that some people criticize the
fact that the film doesn't show points of view opposed to euthanasia and that those
little present are ridiculed. In my honest opinion this is far from true. There are many characters that move in a gray zone between loving Ramón
Sampedro and wanting him to stay, and understanding his desire to die. Most obvious
of those are the family. For instance, Ramón's sister-in-law never talks for or
against euthanasia. Another such character is Gené (the social rights activist)
who, in the last moment, tells Ramón to re-think it all. The scene clearly shows
that she doesn't want him to die. Then there are characters who are
clearly against euthanasia. Ramón's brother is clearly against it, as is his father
("There's only one thing worse than the death of son, and it's having a son that
wants to die.") Other users have commented that the discussion between Ramón and
the priest is ridiculed and filmed to make us think that Ramón is GOOD and the
priest is BAD. Well, no doubt the scene is comic, but that doesn't mean the priest
is caricatured or ridiculed. From my point of view, the comedy in this scene comes
from the fact that the priest is trying to convince Ramón to keep on living using
arguments totally alien to Ramón's thinking. The priest's speech goes on the line
of "God gives and God takes", "We aren't the owners of our own lives, they belong
to God"... and so on. The comedy arises from the fact that Ramón is atheist and all
the priest is saying to him is therefore nonsense. This film is the
antithesis of manicheism, it leaves the spectator the chance to think on the
subject and make up his/her own opinion. And above anything else is a chant of
FREEDOM.
I have seen 'The Sea Within' today and I loved it. The actors of the movie are
wonderful (specially Javier Bardem, of course), but I thought that Belén Rueda
would have a better role. Lola Dueñas, Clara Segura and, specially, Mabel Rivera
perform excellent interpretations. And I cannot forget Celso Bugallo and Joan
Dalmau (brother and father of the protagonist). There are two technical
aspects I loved very much: Aguirresarobe's photography and the score by Amenábar
himself. I liked the song, 'Negra sombra' ('Dark Shadow'), by Luz Casal with music
of Carlos Núñez. In short, I think that the Spanish Academy should
choose 'The Sea Within' in order to compete in the Oscar Awards. I liked other
Spanish productions, such as Almodóvar's 'Bad Education', but Amenábar's film is
much better than them. 'The Sea Within' deserves all the awards.
A friend of mine asked: "Doesn't one have to be pro-euthanasia in order to like
this movie? Is it a mistake of the movie to infer most quadriplegics want to end
their lives?" Interesting questions. As far as I can see (correct me if
I'm wrong), there is only one quadriplegic who wanted to end his life in The Sea
Inside. Think Ramón Sampedro addressed this in the movie as well. It is he who
wants to die. It is he who is fighting for his right to decide his death. He is
speaking for himself and not other quadriplegics. Though his pioneering work,
depending on one's perspective, may prove beneficial or damaging to quadriplegics
down the road, his primary objective is a personal one. But one thing this movie
does (my opinion anyway), is that it forces us the viewers to ask ourselves the
inferring questions my friend so succinctly put forth. After my first
viewing of The Sea Inside, I walked home in a conflicted blur. I struggled to
reconcile with this exasperating notion; why would Ramón want to die? Given the
love, care and sacrifices so unconditionally showered on Ramón by the people
surrounding him, why would he doggedly cling on to his hurtful decision? Then, on
my second viewing, a shared thought between Ramón and the lawyer lady entered my
consciousness. It threw up a telling observation: "...total dependency comes at the
expense of intimacy." Most human beings crave for such an intimacy. Of course, how
much we value such "needs", depends largely on the individual. As a
person with a familial-biased sensibility, I empathised strongly with the
caregivers in this movie. Why can't Javier consider the sacrifice and the love from
his family and friends? Is he blind to it all? I would think not. The miracle of
The Sea Inside therefore, is its insightful depiction of a very humanistic tug of
war. When we are faced with the guardianship of a sane but incapacitated loved one,
whom has expressed a calm, conscious and rational intent to die, what then is the
right thing to do? Is caring for and keeping this loved one alive, against his or
her will, a pious gesture? Does it show up the worth of our love? Or does it merely
soothe our "selfish" fears of irreplaceable loss? With so much understanding
accorded to caregivers, wouldn't their invalid charges, by submitting themselves to
the total dependency of others for survival, also be an overlooked act of
sacrifice? Rhetorical or not, how much is "dignity" worth to an individual? Is
living (or dying) with dignity a privilege or a right? If we really care and love a
person, should we also respect their eventual decisions in life (as in death)? A
torrent of questions the movie might have asked, answers to which, I'm in no
position to provide. In our eagerness to intellectually demarcate the
merits of pro-life or pro-choice, we run the risk of ignoring a sea of grey that's
engulfing the people most intimately affected, the caregivers and the ones they
care for. The Sea Inside hence attempted to present the delicate yet complex
relationship dynamics between them. Intuitively, this film understands one thing;
that the nature of "sacrifice" is never one-sided. In this tug of war, we should
endeavour not to win arguments, but to intently observe and hopefully determine,
who is the "stronger" party to make that sacrifice. The Sea Inside is a
sobering film. It opened my eyes to things I don't wanna see. And for that, I am
grateful.
Why couldn't the end of the movie have been Sean Connery's men fighting the French
instead of the Germans. Ever since the French had occupied Algeria in 1830, the
tribes from Morocco and those of Algeria were making raids on the French military
and civilian settlements. This movie could have been a continuous of that
historical aspect where the French had seize the Rasuadli so his followers would
not be raiding Algeria, and then his followers would have attacked the French to
free him. The movie is still stereotypical of shootouts between the
Germans and the Americans. When the Americans shoot the Germans, their guns (even
the pistols) make loud noises, create large bloody bullet wounds, and their enemies
are screaming after being shot. When Germans shoot at the Americans, their guns
don't make large sounds, do not create bloody wounds, and their enemies make little
or no sound after being shot. In real life, the American Krag rifle was
the worst rifle America had ever produce until the early version of the M-16 came
along. The Krag was hard to maintain, not reliable, and the rifle bolt was always
jamming. The German Mauser was one of the world's finest rifles. We were so impress
by it during Spanish American war, that we made a copy of it and call it the
Springfield rifle. Finally, the people of Morocco must had a word for
artillery since the French were using them in their raids against Morocco. I didn't
like it when they made the Rasuldai feel stupid that there was no word for
artillery in the Moorican vocabulary. Instead, the Rasuadli stated that the
Europeans had guns on wheels that make the ground shake.
It's a soap-opera drawing upon an applied ethics idea. A movie about human
suffering and death is not necessarily a good movie. I didn't get any emotion from
it, the ideas are not at all new, the tension lacks, it becomes tedious towards the
second half but towards the end I think it becomes quite interesting in a burlesque
way. I mean you have this middle-aged, paralyzed bald guy who gets more women than
Don Juan. He doesn't seem to suffer as much as you would expect from someone
completely paralyzed for over 28 years, he has no issues with God (and one would
probably expect that too), the people around him seem to be the perfect slaves (I
can't get out of my mind Bergman's Cries and Whispers, similar to this one in many
respects, which simply bursts with emotions, and not all of them humane) etc. This
movie is the perfect recipe for housewives who look for some emotional thrill but
don't expect to be blown away. The movie is worth seeing among all the cynicism we
get today for its sincere intention to present a modern ethical issue without any
desire to arouse the viewer. Amenabar doesn't rub your face in it and he doesn't
take sides, he doesn't want to make us fanatics for a particular idea. Still I have
no clue as to why this movie was so highly regarded.
I suppose it's quite an achievement to be able to present to an audience a true
tail about a frail man; a tail in which the protagonist will spend the majority of
the film on his back, in a bed and totally unable to move. And yet the achievement
is in the film's effectiveness as a dramatic piece; as a recollection of a true
story and I guess as an argument as to why people should have the right to die if
they so wish to. But the film isn't a political statement and perhaps thankfully it
shies away from too many scenes of debate although it does include one for the sake
of argument anyway. More-so, this is one of those foreign language films that
presents its lead character as a cripple whom can do nothing but talk to the people
around him and yet is able to come across as engaging and compelling anyway. So rather than be an out and out argument, the film is more a sweet yet
timely dramatic piece about another person wanting something or in search of
something; the only difference is that by attaining this 'goal', it would mean the
termination of a someone's life and it would be achieved by not physically going
anywhere. Javier Bardem plays real life Galician Ramón Sampedro, an individual who
at a much earlier age dived into a clearing of water that was too shallow for such
activity. This rendered him bedridden for the rest of his life and his wish to die
is the focus of Chilean director Alejandro Amenábar's film. We've seen so many
films in our lives in which characters have certain 'goals' or targets one must
meet before the film is over to provide a satisfactory experience for the audience,
but the change of pace in The Sea Inside is gentle; it does not involve young,
energetic, attractive heroes going off to do battle in far off places but a real
person after something that means so much to them. Even if you do have a
strong policy, either pro or anti-euthanasia, you may find yourself hoping Ramón
gets what he wants at the end of it all anyway. The film sets its tone very early
on with Ramón giving a speech on why he wants to die to watching family members,
immediately introducing the situation and subject to the watching audience who may
not know what the film is about. Interestingly, some of the family members are
'anti' what he wishes which might place any audience member that feels strongly
about the subject in their respective shoes. But the purpose of this set up is to
tell the audience 'No, this isn't one man after something who incidentally has the
whole of his family backing him to the end'. Quite easily, the film could've gone
down a route in which it is the Sampedro family vs. everybody else but some are
anti-Ramón's idea; some are too young to acknowledge what's really going on and
others are seemingly too distraught to even have an opinion other than they just
want Ramón to stick around a bit longer, they love him after all. The
Sea Inside is a following of a story revolving around a victim of sorts. Ramón is a
quadriplegic and it is his perspective we see things from. This is something that
may disjoint viewers or have the film come across as quite odd given we are being
presented with a film from the point of view of a victim rather than an instigator
or a lead character in a film that is always inducing the cause in the cause and
effect drive. But this is no criticism and it's a credit to the director for
delivering such an approach in the effective manner in which it is. The film asks
questions; it offers a scenario to its audience. If you were in Ramón's position:
what would you do, or think about or dream of or talk about? Consequently, dreams
about lawyer Juila (Rueda) are not so much shot for the audience's pleasure as much
as they are an ever so slight window into one man's escapist fantasies from his
predicament. The study of Julia intensifies somewhat later on when a she
begins to share certain similarities with Ramón and that is when she begins to have
strokes that are a result of a disease of her own. This trait seems timely in the
progression of their relationship and adds a further ingredient of connection on
top of an already engaging friendship. This is because Julia feels the physical
pain and restriction, not in a sense that she isn't able to get up and walk, but I
think she realises the value of life given how emotionally bad she felt beforehand.
While the film is based on a true story and covers the subject of euthanasia, it
feels like more of a down to Earth drama about a man in a situation in which he is
prepared to fight for what he wants but must do so verbally. It's refreshing to see
films like The Sea Inside as it not only references history and gives us an insight
into that but as a stand alone film, delivers on an emotional and engaging level.
I just saw Mar Ardentro and felt that I had to comment on this film. Euthanasia is
a difficult topic in any field and unfortunately is can sometimes distort the true
value of a movie. Many people have raved about the excellent cast and it's
beautiful imagery/camera-work. Certainly Javier Bardem is an actor that brings
something extra to each film he makes. To say that he encompasses the real Sampredo
is a little silly since I don't think that any of the reviewers have known Sampredo
personally. To lie still and use a certain charm is a acting skill that although
well performed doesn't constitute a 'perfect' performance. Bardem just does what he
does well...and that's it. The camera-work is beautiful and evokes feelings and
perspectives that the movie itself lacks to deliver. Sampredo here is shown as a
man that is bend on dying so much that he leaves his loving family behind and
marries a woman that he only seeks out when the other will not help him in his
quest for a dignified death. Now I'm not here to say anything about the right for
or against euthanasia. The problem is that when commenting movies like this you can
hardly escape it. The movie's subject is so strong that you're almost compelled to
discuss the movie in that strong subject matter. I find it a weakness for the movie
-unintentionally- portrays Sampredo as a unsymphatetic character. Someone who is
much smarter then his family as portrayed in the simple cousin that doesn't "get"
the double layered poem directed towards him. Someone who will leave a loving and
caring family because HE thinks his life is undignified. A scene that is juxtaposed
to the female lawyer who according to the movie makes the "wrong" choice ending up
in a far state of dementia thus indicating that Sampredo's choice was the right
one. The woman that constantly seeks him out is almost disregarded for the
beautiful lawyer but suddenly is married by Sampredo when she agrees to help him
die. These choices make Sampredo into a calculated figure no matter how charming
Bardem portrays him. Argumentive I would say it doesn't convince fully and I kinda
think that Amenabar didn't intend on adding this unbalanced element in his film.
For a young director it's still an impressive film and it certainly has it's strong
moments (the discussion between the priest and Sampredo for instance). The camera-
work IS impressive and the film is well acted. But 10 out of 10...no the movie
doesn't reach that excellence.
THE SEA INSIDE (2004) **** Javier Bardem, Belen Rueda, Lola Duenas, Mabel Rivera,
Celso Bugallo, Joan Dalmau, Alberto Jimenez, Tamar Novas, Francesc Garrido, Jose
Maria Pou, Alberto Amarilla, Nicolas Fernandez Luna.(Dir: Alejandro Amenabar) An inspiring tale of a living death; Bardem is superb The true
life account of Spanish quadriplegic Ramon Sampedro and his petition to fulfill his
desire for euthanasia by the right to die may not be considered a likely source of
inspiration but this film is just that. Sampedro (played superbly by
Bardem) was a virile, energetic young man when he lost the function to his limbs
after a tragic diving accident (recounted horrifically in flashback with a visceral
jolt to the senses) and for nearly thirty years lay paralyzed in bed while his
loving family cared to his every need. Although his abilities to move were nil his
mind was very much active and proved skillful as an inventor, poet, author and
artist that kept his mind busy until he could no longer bear the thought of living
longer in his stunted condition. Enter beautiful yet also afflicted with
a crippling disease attorney Julia (the ethereal Rueda who matches Bardem
beautifully as if they were indeed soul mates) is hired to see through Sampedro's
final wish to end his life and in turn becomes an aide de camp when he begins to
open up to her like to no one ever before. Not too long has time passed and Julia
begins to investigate her charge's past discovering many letters hidden away by his
family. When Julia confronts Ramon with this he at first is reluctant to discuss
any thing with her but eventually he agrees with her that this may help his case
and the project becomes a book in the making a memoir/biography by way of free-
style poetry and prose. The film is a heartbreaking tale of the human
spirit and how love eventually triumphs over heart ache in many forms including for
Ramon the unlikely love he shares with a complete stranger named Rosa (Duenas) a
single mother who sees him on TV one day inspiring her to bicycle to his remote
farmhouse in Spain to get to know him and possibly change his mind about ending his
life. Filmmaker Amenabar, who co-wrote with Mateo Gil the fascinating
screenplay, allows some fantasy into the mix when Ramon envisions himself magically
leaving his bed and flying across the bucolic landscapes to the eventual sea where
he suffered so many years ago the cruel twist of fate that has imprisoned him for
three decades. The film is not a complete downer with a sly wit and occasionally
humorous tone throughout that doesn't dilute the impact of the story's final act.
Kudos also to the remarkable make-up job by James and Jo Allen do a tremendous job
in aging the vibrant Bardem to an aging man to full effect that should get them an
Acadamy Award nod. Bardem and Rueda deserve Oscar nominations as two
people with so much in common and despite Rueda's Julia being married to a loving,
doting husband, that a pair of people so made for one another it is down right
impossible they were never together to begin with. That's just one of the cruelties
that rings true but it is not by definition of the film as its whole; it is a must-
see and one of the year's best.
As I expected would happen, too many reviews of this film (from professionals and
amateurs alike) have focused as much if not more on the film's ideology. That's
because The Sea Inside (aka Mar adentro) is a film about euthanasia. Specifically,
it's a true story about an infamous Galician named Ramón Sampedro, who fought for
many years for the right to assisted suicide, who was denied that right by the
Spanish constitutional court, and who--well, I don't want to ruin the ending of the
film for you. The real life Sampedro catalyzed a national debate on
euthanasia in Spain. Now with producer/director/writer/composer/editor Alejandro
Amenábar's (Abre Los Ojos, 1997, and The Others, 2001) "biopic", The Sea Inside,
another rhetorical aid has been provided in the international debate on this hot
button issue. But as I keep saying (to deaf ears?), your opinion, pro or
con, on the film's ideology shouldn't affect your rating of the film. You're not
supposed to be rating the philosophical or political messages that Amenábar wants
to make. You're supposed to be rating the film, as a film. Maybe that's a bit too
idealistic, as none of us can likely completely divorce our evaluations from our
ideological biases, but idealistic or not, that's the goal. So forget
about the philosophical and political issues for a moment. As a film, Amenábar has
turned in one of his most elegant and mature works to date. He does not focus on
societal debates. He does not focus on Sampedro's legal/political struggles. He
focuses on Sampedro as a man, living out his days confined to a bed in his
brother's home. Sampedro, played here in an amazing performance by
Javier Bardem, was a quadriplegic. As the film begins, he has been a quadriplegic
for 26 years. That condition was brought about, as Amenábar shows us through
marvelously shot flashbacks, by a diving accident--Sampedro was distracted by a
beautiful woman, miscalculated the water, dove in, snapped his neck, and almost
drowned. As a quadriplegic he eventually began writing poetry, some of which was
published in a book entitled Cartas Desde El Infierno ("Letters from Hell"); in
real life Sampedro's book became a best seller in Spain. Perhaps taking Sampedro's
artistic work as a cue, Amenábar has created an elegantly poetic film. Most of The Sea Inside is set inside Sampedro's bedroom. The focus in these
scenes is Bardem's complex and sublime performance. As a quadriplegic, Bardem is
limited to moving his head and talking. He has mastered subtle changes of
expression and inflection to convey a deep character with a multifaceted,
intellectual approach to life. Bardem and Amenábar have Sampedro often waxing
philosophical in understated speech, but there's always a combination of a wicked
sense of humor, passion for the aesthetic--including music and women, and a sadness
and even occasionally bitterness not far below the surface. Different underlying
emotions occasionally break through like waves on the skin of the ocean. The people Sampedro interacts with most frequently facilitate this in
complex ways. These others include his sister-in-law, Manuela (Mabel Rivera), who
has been his chief caretaker since Sampedro's accident; his brother, José (Celso
Bugallo), who is one of the vocal objectors to Sampedro's wish to die, and with
whom there is an underlying unresolved issue (it seems like maybe José was the one
to save Sampedro from drowning?); his nephew, Javier (Tamar Novas), who is perhaps
the most understanding towards him; a right-to-die advocate, Gené (Clara Segura); a
pro bono lawyer, Julia (Belén Rueda), whom he wanted because she had a degenerative
disease, CADASIL (Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical
Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy), and would thus by more empathic, and who he
falls in love with; and Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a local woman who works at a cannery
and moonlights as a DJ, who heard about him from the media, who wants to convince
him to desire to live, and who falls in love with him. The bulk of the
film consists of these characters interacting with Sampedro in his room. There are
also a few other ancillary characters, including Sampedro's father, who remains
oddly distant, and a notorious and media-conscious priest, Padre Francisco (José
María Pou), who does his best to change Sampedro's mind via philosophy/theology (in
a scene often mistakenly characterized as "comic"--it has an attendant comic
element, but the scene is primarily very serious). That most of the film
takes place in Sampedro's room ingeniously gives the couple significant changes in
setting greater impact. Sampedro's room has a nice, big window, which he says he is
satisfied with as an observation point on the world. Maybe even more importantly,
he regularly imagines the window as a launching pad through which he flies across
the hillsides to the ocean, which he always loved, and which has been the most
influential force in his life--it provided his living when he was younger and took
his mobility away. Amenábar gives us a fantastical sequence of Sampedro imagining
one of his flights to the sea. It is beautifully shot, with low angles (presumably
from a helicopter) of the hills rushing by, until we follow a stream to the wide-
open ocean, which in this film represents freedom, the infinite, and natural
forces. The other significant change of setting arrives with Sampedro
finally taking to a wheelchair (he otherwise refused them, saying they "mocked his
immobility") to make an appearance in court to help plead his case. Amenábar gives
us a poignant, melancholy travelogue, shot subjectively, of Sampedro viewing life
and the world in action from the car window. Whether you agree with
legalizing euthanasia or not, it's difficult to deny that this is a well-acted,
well-scripted and well-constructed film. You may not believe that it's a ten (and
that's even more unlikely if you disagree with legalizing euthanasia), but it's
still worth watching as a fine example of artistic, sophisticated film-making.
-Facts (I): "Mar Adentro" relates the well-known (at least in Spain) story of Ramón
Sampedro, a Galician quadriplegic who killed himself (helped by some friends) after
28 years prostrated by his condition. Judges had denied several times his petitions
of active euthanasia. -Facts (II): "Mar adentro" becomes THE MOVIE OF
THE YEAR in Spain. Everyone talks about it: politicians, singers, ordinary
people... Everyone likes it, even the critics' opinions are unanimous. The film
wins a lot of prizes (Golden Globe, Oscar, Goya...) and annoys catholic community
and life-lovers quadriplegics. A star is born. -Facts (III): The
intensity and the quality of the actors in "Mar Adentro" are just amazing, and this
makes mi wonder how come we have to watch the same bad young actors in the most of
Spanish latest movies. I don't know if Javier Bardem is a great actor or a great
imitator (there's quite a difference between one thing or the other); anyway, his
job is just impressive, as well as Lola Dueñas', Belén Rueda's, or the job of all
the guest starrings. This is (the actors selection) the strong point in Amenábar's
movie. -Facts (IV): Alejandro Amenábar learned his lesson there at the
Cinema School, there's no doubt about it: he's got a privileged brain. He takes
good control of each and every one of the technical aspects, he knows what the
audiences want, he knows how to touch the right chord, even if that turns him into
such a demagogue (just like Spielberg is -one of Amenábar's idols-). -
Facts (and V): If you criticize a movie such as "Mar Adentro" it will seem like you
have any kind of trouble with the moral issue the story tells about. There's a trap
in this kind of pictures: you have to differentiate between the movie itself and
the moral concepts. If you don't like "Schindler's List" that does not mean that
you agree with Hitler's philosophy (or do you?). So, for me, it is a good film and
an extraordinary story (since it is a real story that makes it much more
extraordinary). Grandiloquent, self-kind, and everything but neutral (no matter
what Amenábar or Bardem have said about it: those characters that are not in favor
of euthanasia come to no good at all!!). 50 % Hard / 50% way too sentimental. -Epilogue: "Mar Adentro" wouldn't be by no mean in my ranking of the best
50's Spanish movies of all time. Nobody has special merits in the story but Ramon
Sampedro himself. He IS the movie. Now, Alejandro Amenábar is gonna become the more
international Spanish director ever, maybe he'll go to live to Hollywood; but some
of us would like to watch him filming a simple story, without bit final twists,
without living dead nor dying alive... "The Others" is still his best movie. *My rate: 7/10
This movie tells about the real life story of Ramon Sampedro, who lived for 27
years lying in bed after having broken his neck, and fights a battle to get legal
permission for someone that can assists with his death. Javier Bardem is
one of best actors of his generation. Consider this: he has to carry this movie
with only his face! Unbelievable that he didn't even got an Oscar-nomination. Now
we can all see that the Academy is a joke! The supporting cast was terrific! The
optimistic Rosa, his lawyer Julia, the rest of the family...Each and everyone has
his/her own opinion about the fact that Ramon wants to die. Whether your
for or against euthanasia, put your opinions aside, because this movie deserves to
be seen by people all over the world! Half way through the movie I started crying
and it didn't stop until the credits rolled. This movie is so heartbreaking but
also wonderful to watch and I can't wait to see it again. I give it a 9/10, and in
my opinion it is by far the Best Film of the year so far.
The true story of a Spanish paraplegic, Ramón Sampedro, who fought for decades for
the right to be euthenized. This film, along with the Best Picture winner of the
same year, Million Dollar Baby, caused a stir that year with their depictions of
disabled persons desiring death. Both advocates for the disabled and (unfortunately
for the disability advocates) conservative pro-life groups protested both films,
and their Oscar nominations. The nominations also came during the entire Terry
Schiavo debacle, just to put it all in some historical perspective. The protests,
especially from the disability groups, against Million Dollar Baby make some sense
the film clearly depicted, without wavering, the life of a paraplegic as
worthless. The film's central character, Maggie Fitzgerald, becomes a paraplegic,
doesn't seem to get any counseling whatsoever, no help whatsoever, and immediately
wants to die. The film is, honestly, pretty dumb and uncomplex. The Sea Inside,
based on the true story, is certainly a lot more thoughtful on the subject. It most
likely got railroaded into the same category as Million Dollar Baby without its
protesters having even seen it, an incredibly common phenomenon. The film does give
time to many different sides of the argument. And it immediately declares that the
wish to die is that of the protagonist and the protagonist alone. It is guilty of a
couple of crimes, though, and I'd still understand why disability groups could have
a problem with it. First and foremost, there's the protagonist's meeting with a
paraplegic bishop. I don't look kindly on the way he's depicted. His orally
operated wheelchair is depicted as absurd, and there's almost a comic sequence
where his effeminate, boy-toy servants are dragging him, in his chair, up the
stairs. He can't even reach the room in which Ramón is located, and one of the boy-
toys is forced to carry the conversation between them. I had to think, gee, maybe
if Ramón lived in a slightly more wheelchair-accessible household, he wouldn't
spend his entire life in bed, and might find life more fulfilling (who knows how
closely the film depicts the reality). Director Amenábar (The Others) also includes
some laughable scenes that try to make this film about suicide more life-affirming,
like a cross-cut sequence where Ramón looks thoughtful and his lawyer's baby is
born. But besides a few ugly moments, the film is very good. It hurts that someone
may want to die when they have the ability to bring so much joy and insight into
the lives of others. However, in the end, our lives do belong to us. Shouldn't we
have the right to choose? The film's strongest asset is its supporting characters,
and the actors who play them. It depicts how Ramón's fight and decisions affect
those around him with a beautiful precision. The family members in particular are
great, and Ramón's final departure from them is absolutely heartbreaking, and had
me in tears. My favorite performance in the film comes from Lola Dueñas, whom I
also felt gave the best, or at least certainly most undervalued, performance in
Almodóvar's Volver last year.
THE SEA INSIDE a film by Alejandro Amenabar. Almodovar has always single
handed the flag for Spanish cinema for years now, out of nowhere came Amenabar
reinventing genres and injecting some new blood to the otherwise malfunctioning
Spanish industry, now in a big gamble he switches from psychological terror to
social drama, well the big ones would be, are audiences ready to embrace the swing
and more important can he hold the flag? This is the story of Ramon Sampedro, a
sailor that in his twenties was paralyzed from the neck down in an accident at the
sea and his fight with the Spanish government for the right to end his life. The
story has the traces of an afternoon made for TV melodrama and the only way this is
going to work is through words and honest performances and they both come in
spades. Mateo Gil and Amenabar co-write in a way where the audience is not meant to
be lead blind to a death end but they are encouraged to make up their own minds in
the process and that is a brilliant stroke, this is not a movie pro death but a
movie in favour of the ultimate illusions of our time LIBERTY. There is a few
laughs spare a long the way, like when the church comes home in a wheel chair to
deconstruct Sampedro beliefs but is mostly a valley of tears through out, punches
coming from all fronts even when you think you are safe his father that to that
point didn't make any sense comes up with the most moving line of the entire movie.
It is a heartbreaking experience specially when Sampedro seems more full of life
than most the people wandering the streets and everyone around him tries to
convince him of the wonders of life even those who are helping him to die but when
you strip a man of his dreams The film is almost exclusively built on close ups
bringing a claustrophobic feeling that makes the audience more sympathetic with
Sampedro. That's for the actors a huge challenge that must construct their whole
performances with their eyes and the eyes don't lie. Bardem was not granted his
second Oscar nomination, probably in favour of Eastwood, but in my opinion he was
the only one who could have shadowed Jammie Fox. This role reminds me of the great
Gregory Peck in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD where the acting looked effortless and I
reckon Bardem has reached that status where the line of what is acting and what is
real has become completely blur. I was never fond of his early work but since
Almodovar's LIVE FLESH he is on a roll, LOS LUNES AL SOL, THE DANCER UPSTAIRS and
the Oscar nominated BEFORE THE NIGHT FALLS made him an international star and
although he and Banderas come from the same Almodovar background is fascinating to
see how different paths they took and how Bardem has now become a real reference
for Spanish cinema in the whole world. A golden globe, 14 Goyas, jury prize at
Venice and probably an Oscar with permission from THE CHORUS BOYS, Amenabar
directs, co-write, edits and puts music to a high caliber drama, he has pull it
off what about some Science Fiction now? Whose life is it anyway?****.
In Spain, the former sailor Ramón Sampedro (Javier Bardem) has been quadriplegic
for twenty-eight years and is fighting in court for his right of practicing
euthanasia through an association that defends the freedom of choice and leaded by
his friend Géne (Clara Segura). Ramón is introduced to the lawyer that is defending
his cause, Julia (Belén Rueda), who has a degenerative fatal disease; and meets
Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a lonely worker that has been abused by men. Their relationship
changes the behavior and viewpoint of life of Rosa and Julia. The
Chilean Alejandro Amenábar is, in my opinion, one of the best contemporary
directors. His filmography released in Brazil is composed by excellent and original
movies: "Abre Los Ojos", "Tesis", "The Others" and "Mar Adentro". Javier Bardem is
probably the best actor in Spain in the present days. Their association produced
this sensitive drama about a very polemic theme, the right of committing
euthanasia. This drama is never corny or depressive, since the screenplay uses
humor as a relieve valve in the most dramatic situations. The performances of the
cast are perfect, with characters having and defending different positions
regarding this unpleasant theme. The dialogs and lines are very solid and
intelligent. I noted in IMDb plot outline that this movie is based on the real-life
story of Ramón Sampedro. Unfortunately, neither the movie nor the DVD gives this
important information. My vote is nine. Title (Brazil): "Mar Adentro"
("Sea Inside")
This is a perfectly watchable adventurous movie to watch, with a great cast and a
good story, based on true events. It's interesting to note that the
story of the movie is based on true events. It's above all for most part an
adventurous story, with all of the usual ingredients you would expect from an
adventurous movies set in an Arabic world. So, lots of sword fighting, good old
fashioned honor, religion and a rich proud country. But the movie is also filled
with humor, to make the movie a light and pleasant one to watch. The
constant cutting back and forth between the Morocco plot involving Sean Connery and
Candice Berger and the American plot line involving Theodore Roosevelt (Brian
Keith) wasn't the best possible approach in my opinion. The two things have totally
different paces, totally different characters, it are just totally different
worlds! Of course both story lines are connected and focuses on the same thing but
the contrast between the two worlds is just too big to let it work out. It doesn't
at all times make the movie feel connected and a bit disjointed. The American plot
line is most of the time more political while the Morrocan plot line is purely
adventurous and action filled. In the end you could perhaps even wonder what the
whole point or Roosevelt in this movie was. Seem that John Milius is just a big
admirer of him. Often the American plot line would take away most of the pace out
of the far more interesting and more action filled fast paced Morrocan plot line.
After all, John Milius always has been at his best as an action director. It isn't until halve way through that the movie fully gets on steam. The
most- and largest scaled action of the movie then kicks in. Especially the large
scale end battle does not disappoint. I wish the entire movie was like this. That
way this movie would had also been a better known one, no doubt. The
movie has a great Jerry Goldsmith musical score, that is perhaps way better known
than the actual movie itself. The movie is also a good looking one with great
production design and nice looking action and battle sequences in it. Appereantly
the movie only costs $4,000,000 to make but that is really hard to believe,
considering the settings and size of the movie. I mean John Milius his best known
movie "Conan the Barbarian" cost about $20,000,000 to make but was a far more campy
looking one and was less impressive on its scale. Quite funny to see an
Arabic speak with a big fat Scottish accent but hey, it's Sean Connery so you just
simply tend to accept this. He suits his role well. So does Candice Bergen. It's
always hard for a female character to come across as believable and work out in a
movie such as this one but she manages. Also John Huston plays a great role in this
movie! A perfectly fine watchable movie! 7/10
Alejandro Amenabar, the young and talented Spanish director, clearly shows us he is
a serious film maker. Anyone doubting it, should have a look at his latest film
"The Sea Inside". This is a movie that has been rewarded with numerous accolades,
not only in Spain, but throughout the world, wherever this wonderful movie has been
shown. If you have not seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop
here. Ramon Sampedro is a man confined to bed. Being quadriplegic, he
depends on the kindness of strangers for everything. Since his accident, Ramon only
thinks in one thing alone: how to end his life! This is the moral issue at the
center of the story, based on the real Ramon Sampedro's life. Mr.
Amenabar tells the story from Ramon's point of view. There is nothing here that is
false or manipulative on his part. After all, he relies on facts that were well
known in his country as this case became a "cause celebre" in favor of euthanasia,
a theme that no one in that country wanted to deal with in Spain. With
its background of being a predominantly Roman Catholic country, Spain has evolved
into one of the most democratic societies in Europe, a distinction that is more
notable because of its long years dominated by a dictator. Yet, in spite of the
advances in that society, the idea of taking one's own life, is something not
clearly understood by the majority of its citizens, who still considered this
subject as something that could not be done in their country. Ramon
Sampedro was a man that loved life. He lived an intense life as a young man when he
enlisted as a sailor to discover the world. Having no money, this was the only way
for him to see other lands, experience other cultures. Ramon's love affair with the
sea, is something that people in Galicia learn to love from their childhood.
Imagine how that same friendly sea is the one that takes away Ramon's life, as he
knew it! In a second, Ramon goes from a vibrant young man into a vegetable! Ramon's family is shattered by the experience. Suddenly they must leave
everything aside to take care of him at home. His brother and sister-in-law, are
stoic people that deal with the situation as a matter of fact. Their lives become
something of an afterthought, because Ramon's life comes first. They tend to the
sick man without protesting, or blaming Ramon for the sacrifices they must make to
keep him alive. That is why, in their minds, the Sampedros can't
comprehend Ramon's wishes to end it all. Haven't they given up having a normal life
to take care of him? This moral issue weighs heavily on these uncomplicated and
simple people because in their minds, they are doing what came naturally. The second subject of the movie is the legal issue of the euthanasia and
the well meaning people that suddenly enter Ramon's life in their desire to help
him put an end to his suffering. There's Julia, the lawyer who is herself
handicapped and suffers from a rare malady. There is Rosa, the fish cannery worker
who becomes infatuated with Ramon. Javier Bardem, makes a brilliant
Ramon Sampedro. His transformation is total. We don't doubt from one moment he is
no one else but the paralyzed man on that bed. Mr. Bardem can only use his face in
order to convey all the emotions trapped inside Ramon. Mr. Bardem makes this man
real. This is perhaps Javier Bardem's best role of his career. He surpasses his own
award winning performance as Reynaldo Arenas, the late Cuban poet he portrayed in
"Before Night Falls". In the supporting roles, Belen Rueda, makes an
impressive appearance as Julia, the woman fighting her own physical problems. Lola
Duenas is also effective as Rosa, the kindred soul that loves Ramon deeply. Celso
Bugallo, as Ramon's brother shows a man at a crossroads of his own life. Mabel
Rivera makes a compassionate Manuela, the sister-in-law that never asks anything of
life, but tends to Ramon without questioning why she has to do it, at all. Mr. Amenabar also has composed the haunting music score for the film. He is a man
that never cease to surprise. One wonders what his next project will be, but one
wishes him success in whatever he might decide to do in the future.
I had the privilege to watch Mar Adentro last Friday, and I am still shocked by its
beauty, the powerful work of every single actor and actress and Amenabar's
unbelievable ability to narrate the story of Ramón Sampedro, who was well known in
Spain for asking for a legal euthanasia, lost the court cause, and eventually died
in front of a camera drinking a glass with poison, freezing all our hearts with his
determination not to go on living forever immobilized because of an accident.
 Before watching the movie I was already mesmerized by the strong
symbology in its title, which I would translate as "Into the Sea" and not as some
suggest "Out to sea", and which is taken from an original poem written by the man
this story is about. Then I watched the movie. Oh my friends. This is Cinema with a
capital C. The narration flows to take you to the heart of every single character:
Sampedro, reincarnated in a Bardem that you forget from the very beginning, is in
the center as a man full of sense of humour and full of hope, and his hope is to
die, because for him, the life he is living is not worthy to be lived. The rest of
the characters but one dance around him and respect his decision because they see
him as a human independent being (forgetting he depends on the others for
everything), even though they do love him so much. And this is what the movie is
about: love. You can feel it, you can breathe it in the skin of every character.
You witness the growing of the feeling within three women who meet him in the
movie: Gené, the member of the association that defend his right to die with
dignity, his friend, her story in the movie is the hope for us the lucky ones that
can live a normal life in this world; Rosa, the woman who meets a good man in the
middle of her list of broken relationships and pain in the hands of all the men who
used her and despised her; Julia, the woman who shares a tragic destiny with Ramón,
and eventually acts in a way we cannot but only understand. However,
before meeting these women Ramón knew what was love like, because you cannot meet
him without loving him, and he is deeply loved by his abnegated family: Four
characters unique in their humbleness and bravery, each with their own thoughts
about his decision, each thought respectable in its own way, because the terrible
thing about this story is that nobody is to blame for what happened. That, sadly,
life sometimes is that terrible. From this familiar quartet I specially liked Mabel
Rivera's work as Ramón's sister in law, Manuela: a terrific performance. I would like to draw attention to three episodes that are for me the best
climax points I have seen in a long time, and if you haven't seen the movie don't
read this, pass over this paragraph and read again from the next one starting "Mar
adentro", let the movie show its secrets to you. The episodes I loved were: 3. The
best love scene I have seen in a movie, when I really felt love invading the
screen, is when Ramón dreams awake that he is flying to meet Julia in the beach and
they kiss each other. 2. Gené speaking by phone with Ramón, the day before he is
going to do it, and he tells her it is better they say goodbye at that very moment,
not to put her in trouble with the authorities. And then she knows it is the last
time they are going to talk, and she has fought for his right to die... but she
does not want to lose him, because she loves him as a true friend, and even though
she is respecting his decision at all cost. 1. The best. A young Ramón in the
beach, looking at his girlfriend under the sun, jumping to the water from the rocks
to a sea that is retreating. We see the crash, we hear his voice recalling what
happened and claiming he should have died that very moment. The face of Bardem,
face downward, shown to us from the bottom. And the hand of a friend who pulls him
from the forehead and brings him back to a life that will be a hell for him in the
next 30 years. There are many others, like the impressive ending, in spite of the
fact that in Spain we know too well what Ramon did. Mar adentro did not
deceive me, Amenabar never does, but this time he has to thank the actors that took
part in the project, and who maybe took it personally, because this is not just a
movie, it is an elegy to a man who died alone when he was asking to die "legally",
which meant for him, as Bardem pointed out, dying with the people he loved and who
loved him around.
This story about a man's 28 year struggle for a death that would liberate him from
his already dead body becomes a masterpiece to be remembered,thanks to a team of
artists in a state of grace. Directed, written,edited and scored by Alejandro
Amenabar, it touches you from the very first images, and doesn't leave your eyes
and your heart to rest until the last credits, thanks to Alejandro and a group of
wonderful actors and actresses at their best. Bardem is an acting animal:One of
those few comedians that can make a masterpiece from almost any character, the
supporting actresses are great in their roles and the story is told with such a
sensibility that one laughs and cries in the same minute, as we used to do with the
great old masterpieces. The year's best film in all senses. 10 / 10
This small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It
is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important
side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning
itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and
underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different
landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding
acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-
presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a
wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real
talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and
heart. Six stars out of five.
Director and co-writer Alejandro Amenabar didn't make things easy for viewers of
his taut, a bit overlong but very disturbing story, accurately based on a Spanish
man's struggle to obtain assisted suicide. "Mar Adentro" ("The Sea Inside") is
gripping and its impact far exceeds the time spent in the theater. With
the award-winning Canadian movie, "The Barbarian Invasions," folks got to see a
family along with a coterie of devoted friends address the wish of a beloved albeit
irascible man to end his life. In that movie, the center of attention suffered from
progressive, incurable cancer and his descent into a terminal stage was fast.
Emotional as the scenes were, death was inevitable - the question was how gentle
could it be made through solicited intervention. Ramon Sampedro
(brilliantly played by Javier Bardem) is a different story. For well over two
decades he's been a quadriplegic because of a diving accident. (Very sharp viewers
may detect a terrible irony as to why he ended in that condition because of his
improvident dive.) Once a world traveler and lover of beautiful women, he now lies
trapped in an immobile body, his every need attended to by a truly devoted family
who willingly surrender much of their privacy and time to sustain their beloved
relation. Rosa (Lola Duenas), a single mom of two small boys, enters the
Sampedro household out of what might have been mere curiosity to learn about the
paralyzed man's plight but she becomes both an emotionally supportive centerpiece
for Ramon as well as an amusing but occasionally aggravating presence. A nice
performance by Duenas. The problem, of course, is that Sampedro isn't
sick in the normal sense. He may well live for decades more with proper care. So
his softly but persistently voiced desire to end his life with "dignity" creates a
moral dilemma for friends and relatives who, not surprisingly, react from different
ethical and religious perspectives. Ramon is the poster quad of a group
dedicated to changing Spain's laws concerning assisted suicide. "Death with
Dignity" is their watchword. Gene (Clara Segura) is a sensitive activist who
enlists the aid of pro bono publico counsel, Julia (Belen Rueda). Julia has her own
health issues which carry an indefinite but catastrophic prognosis. Happily married
to a devoted spouse, she bonds emotionally with her client. What follows
is an acutely sensitive interplay of values and emotions. Ramon lives with his
brother and wife, their technophile teenage son, not the intellectual Ramon is, and
his aged dad who can't stop grieving over his son's cataclysmic descent into
absolute helplessness. The moral and legal issues are played out through
excellent acting and short vignettes including a courtroom scene in which formalism
triumphs over any judicial interpretation that might take into account Ramon's
feelings and views. It may be Spain but the issues are alive in most countries,
including the U.S. Especially amusing is a shouted, first floor to
bedroom, debate between Ramon with a drop-in, lecturing Jesuit priest, also a
quadriplegic but one whose hidebound dogma casually masks the absence of a soul. Special kudos to Mabel Rivera, Ramon's sister-in-law-Manuela, for a
wrenchingly authentic portrayal of a strong woman who holds the family together.
And the same compliment fulsomely extends to Belen Rueda, Julia, who segues from
objective advocate to close friend to a woman hurtling towards a dark fate. The director imposes no value judgments allowing each character full range
to express his or her feelings effectively and, at times, movingly. Like "Dead Man
Walking," this movie can support any view about its deadly subject. No
one can stop a person from committing suicide if he/she is determined but the
universal tragedy of the world's Ramons is that without assistance, life in a body
in which only the heart beats and only the head can move is a sentence no court
could pronounce on the most depraved of criminals. The cinematography is
well-matched to the story and the beautiful Galician scenes are an intended
contrast to the limited views the once globe-trotting Ramon experiences from his
special bed. 9/10
Greetings again from the darkness. Director Alejandro Amenabar creates life against
all odds in this based on a true story version of one man's struggle to control his
destiny. The great Javier Bardem is fascinating to watch in his role as Ramon. His
eyes and head movements leave little doubt what is going on in his mind. The dream
and fantasy sequences are not overused so prove very effective in explaining why he
wants what he wants. Rather than force us to answer the euthanasia question, the
real question posed is , What is Love? At every turn we see people in love, looking
for love or dying to be loved. The script is tight and keeps the film moving
despite being filmed mostly in one room. The supporting cast is wonderful and we
truly feel their pain and how each family member deals with Ramon's decision. This
is a gem and deserves to be seen.
Many more eloquent reviews than this have described the quite spectacular acting,
casting and styling of this film. It appears that the only negative reviews focus
on a perceived imbalance in the film's handling of the core moral question
(euthanasia). This film is, bar the final scenes, meticulous in
stressing Ramon's belief that he's not making some grand point but merely that, for
him, a life devoid of dignity is a life not worth living. We, as viewers, see an
enormous amount of dignity in his life - we see family and friends and culture and,
but for its physical limitations, a life fully lived. Central to the tragedy of
this film is that there is really only one person who thinks that Ramon's life is
not worth living - and that is him. To watch this film and say that the
only counter argument comes from the visit of a bumbling priest is a nonsense. The
priest's visit is pure farce, a direct assault on the simplicity of the Spanish
Catholic Church's response to the issue of euthanasia. However, the sister's
parting words to the priest momentarily expose the powerful 'pro-life' sentiments
quietly underpinning the entire film. We are constantly encouraged to see the hope
and the beauty of a life lived with love. As the film progresses, we may gradually
be encouraged to understand Ramon's reasoning but we are never reconciled to his
decision. I do not remember a film which moved me and provoked me as
much as this.
If you go to the cinema to be entertained, amused, so as to fill up your time, do
not go out of your way to watch this film. If you go to the cinema to
appreciate the depths of human-kind, the feelings of real people, to explore the
characteriology of personalities, if you go to the cinema to absorb magnificent
photography, be sure to put this film very high on your list, preferably in first
place. The experience is profoundly rewarding, causing the intelligent viewer to
make diverse reflexions over the meaning of life itself. With 'Mar Adentro'
Alejandro Amenábar has surpassed the best he has done to date, and even redeemed
certain deviations in his earlier films which smacked a little of being aimed at
Hollywood. This is not the case with this visual poem put to music: Hollywood could
never get anywhere near the effect of this tinglingly inspired human - and humane -
story. In no way should one interpret 'Mar Adentro' as an apologia for
euthanasia; this story, based on the real life of the Galician fisherman Ramón
Sampedro, is a cry from the bottom of the heart for life and love, a reaching out
for human compassion, for understanding emotions. Sampedro was an articulate and
intelligent man who after a diving accident off the rocks of the Galician coast as
a young man was condemned to live the next 27 years in bed. 'Condenado a vivir'
(2001) (TV) was the first version of this man's life on which I have already
commented. However, Amenábar has succeeded remarkably at portraying this man, with
his permanent enigmatic smile and witty sense of humour, in an equally articulate
and intelligent way. And Javier Bardem rose to the occasion, met the
challenge head-on, complete with a Galician accent, producing an electrifying,
compelling, enthralling performance, such that the actor and the fisherman become
fused into being the same person on screen. Here, indeed, is an occasion to doff
your cap, and softly mutter 'chapeau'. Bardem is driven on in his task by a
magnificent cast, especially Belén Rueda, Lola Dueñas, Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo
(Los Lunes al Sol) (qv) and Clara Segura, Galician and Catalan accents taking
prominent part. Amenábar produces wonderful dialogues as these six
rotate among themselves one-on-one, or in groups, with excellent chemistry, thus
demonstrating that this young Chilean-born Spanish director is an artist who knows
what he is at and how to get his results; his global concept of the film includes
his own music, interspersed with pieces by Beethoven and Puccini on Sampedro's
record-player. Whilst viewing 'Mar Adentro', I found myself a couple of
times comparing him and this film with Stephen Daldry and his masterpiece 'The
Hours' (qv). I refer to the way in which the dialogues work with tenseness and
passion and that careful sense of timing in each scene. Javier
Aguirresarobe's photography is superb as usual. As I have mentioned elsewhere on
IMDb, he does not simply film the events and scenes - he captures even the feelings
and the atmosphere of the moment, deftly catches that look in the eyes, light and
shadows, such that his work behind the camera is at once another player in the
story. A superb artist. 'Mar Adentro' is another landmark in the history
of Spanish cinematography, among the best five or six works of art produced here in
the last 25 years. This film places itself alongside such cinematographic art as
'El Sur' (qv), 'Los Santos Inocentes' (qv), 'El Abuelo' (qv), 'La Lengua de las
Mariposas' (qv), 'Las Ratas' (qv), 'A Los Que Aman' (qv), and I think I must add
'Te Doy Mis Ojos' (qv). Superbly orchestrated story of a real man, and
those who loved him around his bedside: not to be missed.
When i watch this movie i too get excited when seen bed scenes of miss world. She
has beautiful and charming body. When cute lady do bed scenes and show her fully
nude body... i think male have hard to resist....i think its time for cute girls
like hrishita bhatt also do nude scenes. At least no one wants to c nude body of
ugly women like Seema biswas to c in bandit queen.I concur with what mallicka.b has
said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on
the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-
so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would
have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of
her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should
have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a
bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a
good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was
not at all impressed
I saw this movie at the Locarno Film Festival in Italian-speaking part of
Switzerland. Aishwarya Rai is good-looking. I rate this movie
7/10 because of its nice moments. * spoilers ahead * It has
some really nice cinematic moments in it, specially at the end. Though
my general feeling is this is too long (over 2 hours and 40 minutes) and containing
too much dialogs. And nearly no dancing at all. Clearly a Bollywood
movie like Lagaan or Devdas is quite a different kind of movie compared with
Chokher Bali.
Writer/director John Milius takes a little-known incident from American history and
extrapolates wildly in all the right ways. The result is a grand adventure tale
that showcases two of its stars in memorable, larger-than-life roles: Sean Connery
as the wily Arab sheik with an inexplicable Scottish brogue, and Brian Keith as
President Theodore Roosevelt, itching for the chance to put that "big stick" to
good use. Aided immeasurably by Billy Williams' glorious widescreen
cinematography and a magnificent score by the always reliable Jerry Goldsmith, this
early effort seemed the harbinger of a talent to rank with contemporaries Lucas,
Coppola and Spielberg. Although Milius served up tantalizing glimpses of his
ability in scripts for JEREMIAH JOHNSON and APOCALYPSE NOW, his career seemed to
take a downward turn not long after he started directing, ultimately foundering on
dreck like CONAN THE BARBARIAN and RED DAWN. Here's hoping that he will
again find his way.
Its a very sensitive portrayal of life with unquenched or constrained desires. What
does one do with desire in a culture and society with rigid norms? One husband
finds outlet with the immigrant - since immigrants don't belong or aren't accepted,
they don't need to conform and dam their desires. The other husband looks for
solace in spirituality and tries to evaporate his desire into nothingness. It fails
- of course - and he breaks down in the last scene for multiple reasons. Sita still
cared enough for him to find that moment to let him know that he is not responsible
for her deviant outlet to her blocked desires. The mother in her still couldn't
find the strength to destroy his myth. She sees him as a child who is glorifying
himself in his lust-control but should she give him the opportunity to finally grow
up? Both the wives find courage and togetherness through their shared rejection by
their husband. But the final act of rejection was by the grandmother -
she could not break free from her rusted mindset to accept Sita's desire. A decade
and more of receiving care was not enough to break the shackles of her
culture. Seems like it was easiest for the househelp to let his desires
flow - since he's anyway damned by his culture - being at the bottom of the
hierarchy. Since there is anyway no respect and expectations, might as well taste
sin.
It seems a lot of Europeans and Americans see Indian movies for the wrong reason; I
see some people are complaining that this movie did not have any dance sequence! A
class apart from their Hindi counterparts, Bengali movies tend to be more
realistic. Rituparno Ghosh is one of the best young directors in India, being
widely known for his choice of subjects for the movies and the strength of his
scripts. 'Chokher bali' is a perfect example. A faithful adaptation of the Nobel
laureate Tagore's novel dealing with the pursuit of sexual pleasure of a Bengali
widow, the director gives a new dimension to the much acclaimed and controversial
work.
Its very tough to portray a Tagore novel along cinematographic lines.And if you
forget an obscure production of 1967 then its the first time that chokher bali has
been done on a grand scale. Overall the sets looked fantastic with the right
touches for making a successful period drama.Prasenjit,so used to doing crass
commercial stuff made a good effort.I saw the Bengali version and found that
Aishwariya's voice was dubbed,which made her dialog delivery a bit poor. While the
director did a good job portraying each of the characters with finesse,yet there
was very little in the way of meaningful plot,probably a lack of the story
itself.However the development of the characters including those with minor roles
seem to be the strongest point.Its tough to make some Tagore stories into films,as
only the visual parts seem to get realized.
The Hindi version of the film is 121 minutes. Set in Bengal in the early 1900's,
the film (based on Tagore's novel) draws an analogy between the British
colonization of India and the subjugation of women. An educated and beautiful
woman, Binodini becomes a widow within a year of her marriage, but she does not
accept the constraints imposed on her as a widow by her society. The film has a
beautiful look to it but perhaps Aishwarya Rai is out of her depth in portraying
Binodini's strong character with its subtle combination of idealism and
deviousness. Binodini's idealism does not come across, and as a result, the analogy
between women and colonization remains somewhat buried.
What do you do if you're Aishwarya Rai, coming off of a blockbuster film like
'Devdas', with some skeptical critics still relentlessly unsatisfied with your
astounding performance or convinced by your strong screen presence and stellar
acting skills, what do you do? Go home, sit down and pout? No. If you're Aishwarya
Rai, you sign yourself up for the next strong period piece that comes along and
continue to prove yourself worthy of all the praise, kudos, great scripts and
equally great roles. And that's just what she did with and in 'Chokher Bali - a
passion play' where she stars and shines as Binodini, a young widow who causes
controversy way ahead of her time. Directed by Rituparno Ghosh {who later goes on
to direct her in the equally stellar 'Raincoat'}, Prasenjit Chatterjee {Devdas in
Bengali} costars.
I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really
enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more
serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would
say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When
you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise
people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before
watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen.
Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and
cinematography...go watch it!
I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which
appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't
conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to
its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a
role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which
is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of
over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't
help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw
Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed.
I saw 2 hour version of Choker Bali. I cannot say that is long. The movie has a
certain natural pace to it and does not seem to lag at any time. The costume and
the set are reminiscent of what we would see in old movies. Aishwarya
Rai has done a good job of acting. It is indeed a mature role with enough scope for
acting within the story. The script also supports the story very well. Aishwarys
acts as the unfortunate widow whose husband dies in the first year of marriage. The
movie is about the passions and desires of such a character and the conflict she
faces with the downtrodden condition of widows in those times. Her best
friend in this movie is played by Raima Sen has also been well-handled. Her
innocence and her admiration of Aishwarya's capability to speak English and act
educated has been done very well. These are indeed some of the prevailing mindsets
of those times. We can see how far we have come from such an era! The
movie speaks of womens liberation as subtle line of the story. I found the
development of the story very similar to Ghare Bahire also written by Tagore. It
does rope in some action from the independence struggle and puts in contrast the
struggle for Indian Independence against the silent struggle for womens
rights. A well made movie definitely worth watching. Aishwarya's acting:
par excellence. Rituparna has handled the story with great care. Yet another
classic from Rabindranath Tagore.
Chokher Bali A passion play. Based on Rabindranath Tagore's novel of
the same name, this is a classic tale of deception, adultery and relationship
exploitation. Set in 1900 Bengal, director Rituparno Ghosh transformed the Nobel
Laureates' acclaimed literature into a delightful visual treat. Tagore's
story elaborately deals with the Bengali society, through his central character,
the rebellious widow, who wants to live a life of her own. We are taken into the
picturesque part of Bengal, where we meet our heroine, the beautiful, young widow
Binodini (Aishwarya Rai). Despite her gorgeous looks, two handsome men,
the rich Mahindra (Prosenjit Chatterji) and his friend Behari (Toto Roychowdhury),
denied marrying her. Mahindra chooses a naive Ashalata (Raima Sen) over
Binodini and marries her. Leaving behind the country life, the free-spirited
Binodini accompanies Mahindra's mother to Calcutta as a caretaker. Soon, her
friendship with Ashalata flourishes. It looks like, the two, addressing each other
as 'Chokher Bali' (sand in the eyes), share an enduring bond. The English-speaking
Binodini captures a special place in the house. But, soon, she unmasks her real
face. Manipulating good-natured Ashlata, Binodini gets closer with Mahindra and
fulfills her sexual desires. When, she is thrown out by the enraged
mother of Mahindra, Binodini seeks solace from a reluctant Behari. The remaining
part of the story shows how the lives of these four characters crisscross and
culminate in an unimaginable climax Aishwarya walks through the rolea
manipulative, rebellious lady, still gaining the viewer's sympathywith a ballet
dancer's elegance. The other lead artistesProsenjit Chatterjee, Raima Sen and Toto
Roychowdhuryare equally brilliant, in enacting their characters. While
Tagore penned this 'mould-breaking' story at the turn of the 20th century, the very
idea of widow marriage was a taboo, even among the upper class! Narrating the
nations' freedom movement in parallel, the author asserts the importance of
individual freedom from the caged life. Kudos to the art director, who gave life to
the early 20th century Bengal, and applause to the cinematographer for capturing
those sets with verve. This 'passion play,' by Tagore, has been
fervently converted to the screen by the ablest filmmaker without loosing its
originality.
Chokher Bali was shown at the (Washington) DC Filmfest April 15, 2005. The
director, Rituparno Ghosh, was there to give a short introduction and answer
questions afterwards. As always, I think Aishwarya did a fantastic job.
I can understand those who think she should be been more aggressive or more bitchy,
but would that really be realistic in 1904? Possible, maybe; realistic, I'm not so
sure. I think her interpretation was valid, although there could certainly be other
ways to do it. I hate to use the word, but this was the most
"inaccessible" of the Indian movies I have seen so far. I know a fair amount of
Indian history, Hindu religion, etc., but the level of detail here was far beyond
me. Clearly you would have a much better understanding of the movie if you were
intimately familiar with Hinduism and its customs, esp. as they were c. 1904. I
missed a lot of things--one of them being the fact that the mother-in-law would
want Binodini in the house as sort of a counter-weight to her daughter-in-law
Ashalata. *spoilers* Ghosh had several things to say that explained the
movie much better for me. First, the original Bengali version was 20+ minutes
longer. So what was left out? Apparently three main things: a beginning segment
where Binodini (Aishwarya) leaves E. Bengal for Calcutta. According to the
director, different characters are speaking W. Bengali vs. E. Bengali--setting up
some of the political comments later. Of course all of this is lost in the Hindi
version, and certainly to a non-Indian like me, it wouldn't have mattered anyway--
but a set-up of the Bengali situation sure would have. Next, there was a segment
where Binodini was writing a poem--a sign of her independence, etc. Finally, some
more business about the jewellery. So, although some people think it was too long,
I think the original, longer version would have been clearer. The
women's hair was apparently another sign (Ghosh again)--the mother-in-law had short
hair (short hair for Hindu widows), her sister--also a widow--had longer hair (more
modern!), and of course Binodini/Aishwarya had extremely long waist-length hair
(rejection of status of widowhood). The ending really threw me--all of a
sudden Binodini, who had never had a political thought, is writing a political
manifesto? Whoa! Ghosh explained that he was in Locarno, at a film festival, when
the subtitles were done. The subtitles use the word "country" throughout Binodini's
letter. Gosh said a more appropriate word would have been (I forget his exact word)
something like "self" or "independence"--she was talking about her own liberation
and "finding herself"--not about Bengal, India, and the British. So why does
Binodini just disappear the day after finding Behari again? Apparently because
during her stay on the Ganges she realizes that she doesn't need a man--any man--to
define/complete her. She can just be herself. So she rejects Behari, who she threw
herself at a few months (?) before, and just goes off. Of course I'm not sure how
she buys her next meal, but that's another question. The red shawl
(Ghosh again)she buys represents "revolution" as well as "passion." I'm not 100%
sure why she puts the shawl on the dying woman, but perhaps she is rejecting
passion/revolution? The binoculars, which Binodini uses throughout the movie (to
watch Mahendra and Ashalata, the boat on the Ganges, etc.). She is being a voyeur
to see a life she yearns for but can't have. At the end (I missed this!) she leaves
the binoculars on the table with the letter, showing that she doesn't need them any
more--she's going off to lead her own life. Finally, the Tagore quote at
the beginning saying how he apologized for the ending... Apparently Tagore wrote
this as a serial, hooking his readers with the sexy widow bits. But at the end he
sold out to conservatism and had Binodini kneel down at the feet of Mahendra and
Behari, begging their forgiveness. One of his students (?) wrote to Tagore taking
him to task for his sell-out ending...and Tagore replied with his apology for the
ending. In the movie, of course, Ghosh goes in the other direction.
I´ve been able to see this great movie at the Fantasyfilmfest in Berlin and when I
went out of the cinema I felt like being drugged down *g*! I´ve really seen lots of
movies and there are just a few I´d call perfect like Fight Club or Koyaanisqatsi!
Subconscious Cruelty is now one of them! Half of the people watching it in Berlin
went out of the room and I can understand this absolutely because it can be a real
shock for someone living in his/her perfect world day by day dreaming his/her
dreams not thinking bout the horror on our planet-in our life! I don´t think I have
to describe the story of the film for you because of the people having already
written on this page! It´s a movie that shows everything and more!!! Gets 10 points
+ from 10!!! It´d be cool if you people who have also seen it loving it would write
me an e-mail!So far I haven´t met anyone as impressed and pleased by it as I am!!!
Finally sorry for my bad english-I´m not a studied person (und das ist auch gut
so!!! :-))))))
This is one great, sweeping, movie you will remember for a long time. It is about
history, America, the change of times, Teddy Roosevelt, Morocco, a kidnapped
American and her children, and the leader of the Berbers, with the blood of the
Prophet in his veins. This movie is based on a true story--like Jesse
James was a banker. An American WAS kidnapped in Morocco and the Marines went part-
way to the shores of Tripoli to rescue him. So much for that. You know Hollywood.
Sean Connery is the Berber chieftain and Muslim leader. Candice Bergan is the guy
who was kidnapped, along with her two kids; the son is Rex Harrison's grandson,
Simon, no less. John Huston is Secretary of State, with a great John-Huston-style
straight line at a State Dinner, watch out for it. Brian Kieth IS Teddy Roosevelt,
all-American, all-male, a character that is an interesting commentary as modern as
today. The sweep and beauty of the desert and Morocco are shown
beautifully in the cinematography in this film, which will stay with you, a
haunting and compelling memory. The score is as sweeping and exotic as the
images. This is a story about two cultures, both with grand ideas and
historic pasts, struggling for the future without an idea at all about one another.
In any event, the struggle comes down to might versus ingenuity. Then at
the last, there is the little boy--remember the little boy? What do you think HE
thinks?
i´ve seen this piece of perfection :-) during the fantasy filmfest in berlin and
when i went out of the cinema i felt like being "drugged down"! i´ve seen a lot of
films but there are just a few that i´d call perfect like koyaanisqatsi or fight
club-subconscious cruelty is definitely one of them!!! half of the people went out
of the screening in berlin and i can understand them absolutely! this is not a
movie for "normal" people with dreams and illusions! a person that is living in
his/her dreams day by day not wanting to see all the horror in our life and on our
planet will be very shocked by this film! if someone reads this now who has seen
s.c. and also thinks it´s great: just contact me-so far i haven´t met anyone who
shares my opinion-it´d be cool!!! this film earns 10 points out of 10!!! finally i
´m really sorry for my bad english-i´m not a studied person!!! (und das ist auch
gut so *g*)
The dreams of Karim Hussain are to be feared. When the right hemisphere of his
characters overpowers the left, shocking images of blood, dismemberment, and
various abominations are released. Religion won't save you, nor will mother nature
or your own family. Hussain's dark poetry, because that's what this film really is,
destabalizes all institutions of sanctuary. `Subconcious Cruelty' is a
current crowd pleaser on the horror\fantasy festival circuit. The film's opening
meditation on madness is both well written and profound. The protagonist's desire
to profane the birthing process which brought him into the hell he inhabits unfolds
with horrific and credible illogic. From here the film continues deeper into the
subconcious and tackles mother nature. Hussain offers depictions of lusty pagan
fertility and writhing mushroom madness. Nature is exposed as blood-drenched and
violent in Hussain's frightening enlightenment. `Subconcious Cruelty' is
disturbing to all and rewarding to those who see past the shock into the mature
themes of life, lust and madness this very worthy film explores. CJ Goldman
deserves kudos for his special make-up, as do David Kristian for unnerving sound
design and Teruhiko Suzuki for score.
When you have waited years to see a film that you have heard on the grape vine
about obviously your expectations are high right? f**k yeah!But when this baby
dropped through my door little did i know what f***ed up visuals would grace my TV
and warp my fragile mind. First off Karim Hussein is a film fan like all of us
growing up on a diet of Argento/Fulci/lynch etc.....and it shows in this film, but
in a good way. Although i didn't really know what the hell was going on on my first
watch of this gem i was just amazed by the visuals,the lighting and of course the
performances from everyone who was involved Karim must have truly believed that he
was going to push the boundaries in film-making(which trust me he does)and that he
was going to have a hard job convincing the actors to do the same........ So what can i tell you about "subconscious cruelty"?Well without spoiling
it....its a deep insight into the human psyche with images of violent and sexual
madness which toils into madness.....a truly unforgettable experience....... keep you eye on Karim Hussein he can only go onto better things..... I viewed the full uncut print of subconscious cruelty on a double disc DVD
from Infliction films which is loaded with extras.....please note there is a
censored hong Kong release out there avoid this version.
I finally got hold of the excellent Sazuma DVD of this film which is loaded with
interesting extras. I have read quite a lot about it, and I unfortunately missed it
at the Stockholm Film Festival. It doesn't quite deliver as I thought it would but
it is still worth watching if you like strange and unique movies. I much rather
watch this again than any of the recent so-called horror films vomited out of
Hollywood these days. What detracts from the experience for me, is certain music
cues which sound dated and rely too much on cheap synth sounds. For me, all these
tonal/harmonic elements of the score could have been lifted out, and replaced by
David Kristians excellent sound design. But that is just my opinion. Otherwise this
is a daring, angry picture with welcome meditative and poetic parts, like the
fading of the photograph sequence which is beautiful. I look forward to seeing
Ascension, and I applaud Mitch and Karim for their efforts in producing non-
mainstream cinema. They are a great inspiration as I soon embark on my own short
film production.
Karim Hussain's masterpiece of art/gore--this cat is definitely a talent to look
out for. We have in this several longer vignettes interspliced with some shorter
segues. This is all in all a very powerful film that relies on its intense graphic
imagery and symbolism and it is not for all viewers. The film kicks off
with a short called OVARIAN EYEBALL. Very short segment that has a nude woman
placed on a table naked. An unseen woman's hand covers the supine woman's face with
a red cloth and makes an incision in her abdomen out of which an eyeball stalk is
extracted. I've got nothing too much to comment on this one due to its
brevity. HUMAN LARVAE is one of the films lynchpins and it is a totally
unflinching portrayal of a perverse act committed by a disturbed man who has an
incestuous love for his pregnant sister. This is one of those "must be seen to be
believed" type things. I will say that this film has some of the best effects I've
seen in an indie horror film but the subject matter will make this an undeniably
unpleasant experience for most (not me though--I live for this!). REBIRTH could have been cut out of this film all together. This is the film's
weakest segment and it has a bunch of nude people f!cking bloody holes in a field
and whatnot. Very short but this one kind of blows the film's momentum. RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM is one of the most profane representations of religious
imagery that I have ever seen and it totally kicks ass. Think "P iss Christ" or
menstrual blood paintings of the Virgin Mary. Very hard sexual/sexually
violent/gory imagery is presented in this piece and it is definitely not for anyone
who will be offended by sacrilege. Subconscious Cruelty is one of the
best films I've seen under the banner of extreme horror it will be a very divisive
film amongst horror fans and the filmgoing public in general. Some will call it
trash, some will call it brilliant. I don't see much middle ground. I thought this
film was pretty damn original and I will recommend it to anyone who is adventurous
enough to try it. 9/10.
Going into this movie I knew two things about it. I knew that it was a real extreme
flick, and I knew that it was somewhat artsy. Both appeal to me in their own right,
but when placed together it can be something truly unique. And this was damn right,
without a doubt, unique. Like I said above, it is an artsy film. The way they used
some intense sound, it reminded me a lot of an Aronofsky film. Visually I haven't
seen anything like it. The cinematography and lighting were done very well. The
movie seriously uses visuals and sounds better than anything I've seen in a while.
Especially when you consider the experience these young filmmakers had (couple 20
year olds), you really have to take your hat off to them. The movie
isn't easy to describe or even discuss. There isn't an actual story.you could say
it revolves around the right and left side of the brain and how they control your
lifeI think. It's four segments, or four ideas brought alive through visual and
auditory extremes. There is some talking hear and there, but it's mostly a non-
speaking film. The first segment is the shortest and it revolves a naked
body and an eyeball. Try and guess what happens.wrong. The second segment is my
favorite. It involves a brother and a sister (who looks a little like Sarah
Silverman, but with bigger boobs). The brother is crazy and the sister is somewhat
of a whore. I would say this is the most extreme of all the segments, and the most
well made. The gore effects in this one were great. The third segment revolves
around a bunch of naked people sexing it up with mother earth. It's probably
considered the weakest of the bunch, but still is smart and well made. The fourth
segment is probably the strongest of the film and I'd also say the deepest. For
myself I'll have to view this a couple times to understand what's truly being said.
I know that it tackles Christianity in a way that would most likely make your
mother feint or throw up.give it a try. Subconscious Cruelty was
recommended to me and I'm proud to say this is now in my movie collection. It's
extreme, violent, gory, very sexual and surprisingly pretty damn thought provoking.
The next line I'm about to say has been used in almost every review I've read for
this film. "This movie is not for everyone." Now ain't that the truth. If you're
into extreme films and/or you're just a lover of film that wants to see something
different.check this out. 8 1/2 outta 10
Well, it's safe to say that Subconscious Cruelty is one weird film! Supposedly an
insight into the human mind, Subconscious Cruelty is comprises four macabre and
bizarre tales of the extreme. The first segment, entitled 'Ovarian Eyeball' is
really just a warm up, but it's good in that it gives the viewer an idea of what to
expect from the next three segments. It simply sees a naked woman laid out on a
table, while another woman cuts into her abdomen and pulls out a human eyeball!
I've got no idea what the point is, but it certainly makes for visceral viewing.
The following story is the best of the bunch, and takes in the "old favourite" sick
movie theme of incest. The segment follows a man who lives alone with his pregnant
sister. He's repulsed by her pregnancy - yet he wants to have sex with her anyway,
and naturally he gets his way. This story stands out because of the monotonous and
'matter of fact' narration, as well as the ending - which doesn't fail to deliver
the shocks. This segment is well acted, well filmed and easily the highlight of
Subconscious Cruelty. Naturally, the next two sections aren't as good as
the second one; so the only way from there is down, but director Karim Hussain
still manages to pull something out of the bag before the film ends. He doesn't do
it right away, however, as the third segment is the weakest of the film, and simply
sees a lot of people have sex with the ground. It's very surreal, and therefore
memorable for that same reason; but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it,
and I was in the mood for something a bit more morbid after the second section. The
film ends on a high, however, as while I'm not entirely sure what the point was -
the final segment features the film's best imagery. This segment focuses on
religion, and certainly isn't for anyone that values it! Director Karim Hussain has
achieved something here - as while this collection of four 'extreme' stories
doesn't come together as a complete whole, the film almost feels tasteful as it's
shot in such an eloquent and eye catching manner. The director would seem to have
been imitating the highly respected surreal director Luis Buñuel, albeit with gore,
rape and incest; and if you ask me, he hasn't done a bad job at all. Not for
everyone, but certainly worth a look for extreme fanatics!
"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen.
"Salo" and "Cannibal Holocaust" didn't bother me that much, but there's a strange
psychological element to "Subconscious Cruelty". This film invades your
subconscious mind with shocking taboos, surrealist visuals and one of the most
unsettling film scores and sound designs. Repulsive at times; yes, but its visual
flair can be compared to Avant Gard directors such as Alejandro Jodorowsky, Dario
Argento, Dusan Makavejev and David Lynch. Take the most extreme elements of those 4
directors and throw in the graphic violence of a film by Luico Fulci, and you might
be able to guess what you're in for. The film is divided into 4 parts.
The first part "the Ovarian Eye" is real short. A narrator tells us about the the
parts of the brain and its functions. Then a nude woman gets her stomach cut open
and an eyeball is pulled out. The second part "Human Larvae" is kind of like the
film "Eraserhead" but with incest. It deals with a man's sexual obsession with his
pregnant sister. Where's Frued when you need him? The third part is my absolute
favorite. It reminds me of "Begotten" and Jame's Broughton's 1972 short film
"Dreamwood". In this segment people have sex with the earth. Men hump bloody holes
in the ground, girls masturbate with tree branches. The branches bleed when broken.
Watch in horror as a man gives fellatio to a knife sticking out of a woman's
vagina. These people really know how to get in touch with nature. The
last part of the film is the most disturbing and at times it borders on hardcore
pornography. This part of the film made me think of Jodorowsky's "the Holy
Mountain", "Sweet Movie" and "Cannibal Holocaust". I've never been more disturbed
in my life by what I witnessed. A business man gets his privates pulled apart by
fishhooks. Yuck and Ouch! Two women urinate on a Christ figure and proceed to
cannibalistically eat him like communion bread and sodomize him with a tree branch.
Poor guy. The last part was so extreme that if I ever watch the film again, I'll
have close my eyes or slightly fast forward. Karim Hussien and Mitch Davis are
obviously very talented, To think they did this project in there early 20's.
Hussein went on to direct the Tarkovsky influenced "Ascension" (2002) which is a
much better film and he co-write the screenplay for Nacho Cerda's after dark horror
masterpiece "the Abandoned". "Subconscious Cruelty" is a fascinating and unsettling
journey; with images that come from the unthinkable realm of everyday human minds.
Well, sort of.
Finally watched this shocking movie last night, and what a disturbing mindf**ker it
is, and unbelievably bloody and some unforgettable scenes, and a total assault on
the senses. Looks like a movie from the minds of Lynch (specifically ERASERHEAD),
Buttgereit, and even a little of "Begotten". What this guy does to his pregnant
sister is beyond belief, but then again, did it really happen or is it his brain's
left and right sides doing battle. That's the main theme of this piece of art, to
draw a fine line between fantasy and reality, and what would happen if the right
side of the brain that dreams and fantasizes overtakes the reasoning and logical
left side. And the music in this movie is unbelievable, a kind of electronic score
that is absolutely perfect. Even though this movie is totally shocking and pretty
disgusting in some of the most extreme scenes (including hard core sex) you will
ever see in any movie, I viewed it as a work of art, and loved it. And that music
still amazes me, I have to try and find the soundtrack if is available. Watching
"Subconscious Cruelty" is a real event, and not something the viewer will easily
forget. And a note to gorehounds, this is a must-have. Warning... Be
careful buying this movie, because some prints have fogging on the graphic sex
scenes and extreme gore, especially the copies from the Japanese release.
First off - this film will not be for everybody. There are scenes of extreme
graphic violence and "disturbing" images that by their nature alone will turn off
many possible potential viewers. Obviously from the reviews on this board -
SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY has divided those that have seen it. I'm among the ones who
liked it very much for several different reasons. I feel this was a very ambitious
(and quite competently pulled off...) undertaking for a bunch of 18/19 year olds
with no budget and little experience. I think that each aspect of the film - the
direction, the acting (though the character's performances are more likened to
stage or free-form performance because of the nature of the film...) the
production, the FX, the score/sound design - all are far superior to many films
I've seen that exceed these kids budget and experience ten-fold. I honestly haven't
been this impressed with an "art-house" style horror film since Nacho Cerda's
GENESIS... First off - I'm not going to pretend to understand and/or
grasp all of the graphical content in this film - but knowing that this wasn't a
straight-narrative type of film when I went into it, I wasn't disappointed with how
it played out. SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is 4 relatively short vignettes that all sort
of revolve around the theory of right brain/left brain lust/anger/psychosis vs.
restraint/compassion/"normalcy". To very briefly give a synopsis of each
"chapter": OVARIAN EYEBALL basically just has a naked girl who has an
eyeball cut out of her abdomen. I'm sure it's symbolic of something - I don't think
I was paying that much attention at that point and this one blows by pretty quick.
 The next "episode" - HUMAN LARVAE - is a nihilistic, horrific,
genuinely creepy story of a guy who's both in love with and repulsed by his
pregnant sister, who gives into his growing psychosis which leads up to the
shocking conclusion of that particular chapter. HUMAN LARVAE is the best of the
bunch in my book, and will probably get under your skin. The dead-pan narrative
dialog accentuates the growing tension as you know something horrible is going to
happen - but you're not quite sure what it is. Do yourself a favor and if you are
interested in seeing this film - don't do too much research on it. Come into it
with an open mind and an iron stomach and I think you be pleasantly surprised,
especially with this particular episode. REBIRTH has a bunch of people
in a field screwing the ground and blowing trees and stuff. Apparently an "arty"
interpretation of the rape of the earth or something to that effect. Not bad, but
this one is pretty short too and I sorta missed the point on it... And
RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM seems to be about religion and religious hypocrisy and also
along with HUMAN LARVAE, has some of the "hardest" images/messages of the whole
feature... OVARIAN EYEBALL isn't anything to write home about, mainly
because of it's very short running time but does make a decent segue into the
insanity to come...and REBIRTH is also kind of short and not quite as thought
provoking, but HUMAN LARVAE (especially) and RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM are so off-the-
wall and well done that they more than make up for the other parts. I think the
main reason that I liked this one so much is that as "shocking", "repulsive",
"violent" and "excessive" as it is, it is also done very beautifully and you can
tell this was a real labor-of-love from those involved. Nothing about the film
feels cheap or rushed, and even if the content isn't completely decipherable, it's
undeniably original - and that alone up's the points some in my book. Not that
every "weird art-house" film that has an unintelligible plot should be praised for
it's "originality", but SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is the type of film that I do think
I'll watch a few more times in the near future to see what other interpretations I
may gain from it. Again, this film is ABSOLUTELY not for everyone - with some VERY
extreme scenes of gore, murder, rape, incest, sacrilegious imagery, etc...that is
definitely there to shock the viewer into taking a harder look at this film. I have
to say it worked for me, and I'm anxiously awaiting the Hussain/Cerda collaboration
that is rumored to come next. Check this one out if you have the stomach for it -
9.5/10
I like The Wind and the Lion very much. It was a good movie. I thought that since
I'm young and it was made so long ago I wouldn't like it all that good, but after I
saw it, i was amazed of how good it was. My family liked it, my friends liked it,
everyone I showed it to liked it. I liked it because it showed how Arabs and people
in Morroco was treated during the Early 1900's, by the Germans, French, and even
the Americans. If I was a High School History teacher, I would definitely show it
to my student's, From a High Schooler's point of view. I give this movie a good 10
out of 10. My grandparents liked it so much they bought it for themselves. My
little 3 year old cousins even sit down and watched it. Systemoffell
"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most beautiful films I have ever
seen.Still it's extremely grim and gory at times,so fans of politically correct
mainstream horror garbage shouldn't bother.The film mixes many wonderful visuals
with plenty of sleaze and gore.It is extremely odd,vicious and disturbing,so fans
of bizarre cinema won't be disappointed. My favourite segment from "Subconscious
Cruelty" is "Human Larvae" which shows us a twisted relationship between a young
man and his pregnant sister.The birthing scene is particularly nasty and not easily
forgotten.The last segment "Right Brain/Martyrdom" has to be seen to be
believed.It's incredibly harsh and blasphemous with scenes of genital mutilation
and grisly torture.We see Jesus Christ captured by three naked females who mutilate
him,ripping flesh from his chest,licking a wound on his knee and pissing on
him.There is also a Jesus statue with a projection of a swastika on
it."Subconscious Cruelty" is a truly memorable film that should be seen by fans of
extreme cinema.Check it out.
The movie ". . . And The Earth Did not Swallow Him," based on the book by Tomas
Rivera, is an eye-opening movie for most people. It talks about the exploitation
that migrant farmworkers go through in order to survive. Sergio Perez
uses impressionistic techniques to depict Rivera's story. He uses sienna and gray-
scale effects to depict some of the scenes, and he uses specific photographic
techniques to make the scenes look like they took place in the 1950s. Perez also gives life to the film by using time-appropriate music, including
balladeering and guitar playing. I feel that it is a good film to view
because it shows in detail how migrant farmworkers live, what they do for
entertainment, and their beliefs.
I was very moved by the young life experiences of a man who rose so high in the
academic world. A hard life surrounded by the love of a close family and extended
family of companion workers created a person able to succeed in the world. For the
most part the Hispanic culture is shown as I have always observed and admired -
hardworking, optimistic, and truly family oriented. The points of religious
superstition were quite authentic to the Catholic church. Without a doubt,the
actress who played the mother deserves an Academy Award. Her prayers for her
missing son moved me to tears. I will recommend this stunningly thoughtful film to
my friends and family.
Recently finally available in DVD (11/11/08), Severo Pérez' film...and the Earth
Did Not Swallow Him (1994) is based on one of the most highly regarded and
discussed novels in Chicano literature. Tomás Rivera's ...y no se lo tragó la
tierra/ ...and the Earth Did Not Devour Him (1972) is still generally acknowledged
by many critics and serious readers as the classic Chicano novel. Originally
written in the Spanish characteristic of South Texas and also translated into
English, Rivera's novel continues as an indispensable presence within the Chicano
literary landscape. Perez' film, originally made as a highly-rated
American Playhouse PBS production has taken some time to be released in DVD. One
can only wonder about this matter because its high quality is not an issue. The
film, and now DVD, however, remains, so far as I know, the only cinematic
adaptation of any Chicano novel and clearly is a tribute to Earth's incredible
staying power. This cinematic version also strikes an exceptionally deep-rooted
nerve that is, I maintain, both specifically ethnic, yet also generally universal.
Doubts about Earth perhaps might have arisen because it is too "ethnic," too alien
from a basic American mainstream, too much a "foreign" art indie, too limited in
economic resources. Yet, Perez in his version of art, in my opinion connects very
effectively, artistically, and creates a sharply-etched portrayal of a Chicano
migrant collectivity that focuses on daily family life. As far as a production done
with relatively limited economic resources, its lovely cinematographic work and
haunting music go much beyond its available funding. Simply viewing the film makes
manifest this film's (or DVD) artistic value. Briefly, .and the Earth
did not Swallow Him portrays in a neo-naturalistic way the plight, the suffering,
and the despair of Chicano migrant laborers as they follow the crops northward from
South Texas to Minnesota in 1952. The local priests bless the beat-up, overstuffed
vehicles of these Chicano laborers who can no longer find work in the area and must
follow the agricultural trail of the migrant worker northward. This Chicano
collectivity, like the depression-era Joads in Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath,
forms an epic tide, driven by economic need, a survival instinct, and anguished
despair, and ultimately a barely flickering faith. A tribute to these people of the
earth, a collective hero, the DVD is centered on a focal family, and most
especially emblematic is a young protagonist within the family, a boy, perhaps
twelve or so. This work then, also, functions as a bildungsroman. Ultimately, the
viewer's sense of identification is generated through the experiences,
subjectivity, and the struggles of the protagonist. Poverty, alienation, child
labor, illness (sunstroke and a pregnancy death), discrimination, school
absenteeism (the boy's escapism from the bullies of discrimination is spent lying
down in a lovely, peaceful cemetery) are laid bare as matter of factyet, also
symbolically. Worse still, the problematic conflict between the youngster and his
mother goes beyond socio-economics and political conflict, into deeper realms of
psychology and metaphysics. In a desperate but artistically rendered struggle, the
youth battles his mother, an archetypical Mexican-American traditionalist, a
representative of god's will, content with prayer, resignation, consolation, and
acceptance. The rebellious youth cannot believe in a god that would permit such
evil and suffering to be visited upon them. How can God be so cruel, he asks, since
his little sister is certainly purely innocent, as to come down with serious
illness in the fields? At this point, the boy must overcome obstacles even more
daunting than poverty and discrimination. The issues now include death, doubt, and
despair, and lack of meaning. And he has few resources available to himstrength of
character, his own will power, his intelligence, and a powerful survival instinct.
In this desperate, but artistically rendered struggle, the unnamed youngster, the
central figure, feels the necessity of his enduring, of his achieving a heightened
sense of meaning, and, the viewer hopes, a renewed and strengthened Life Force that
can serve as an inspiration to Chicanos and others. This stark battle
makes use of a plot device just touched on by the original work to tie the episodic
work together: missing immigrant laborers from Mexico who leave no trace upon their
death, although this DVD deals not with Mexican but Mexican-American migrant
laborers A highly existential work: anguish and despair; a quest; a focus on a
Project; and redemptionall under the auspices of free will in spite of the
deterministic socio-economic and religious circumstances. Perez has a
long list of credits basically as a documentary filmmaker. His many awards are
confirmatory. The producer Paul Espinosa is also well-known and has been likewise
honored for his work. The 1994 film, in fact, won and deserved a number of awards:
first place, audience favorite at the Santa Barbara Film Festival in 1995; first
place at the Cairo Film Festival; and a number of other well-deserved awards. In my opinion this film and DVD, Earth, by Perez is the best Chicano film
that has been made.
I first saw All the Rivers Run on TV when I was a kid and loved it. It was great
seeing a mini-series that was set and filmed in a place so close to home. Living
fairly close to Echuca, I loved going to the historic port to see the paddle
steamers. The first one I ever had a ride on was the Pevensy(Philadelphia in the
movie). I love how it takes its time to let the events unfold. Nothing feels rushed
as most movies are today. The acting was fantastic. All the Rivers Run was
perfectly cast and I just love the crew of the Philadelphia. Mac is always amusing
to watch with his trademark raw onion sandwich after a big night out. Easily
deserves a 10 out of 10 and is one of my favorites mini-series of all time along
with the Dirtwater Dynasty.
As an adventure mini-series, this is about as good as it gets. I viewed it when it
was originally shown on HBO. Sigrid is totally believable in her role as
Philadelphia, and the whole production was first rate! See all 400 minutes of it if
you can. I highly recommend this mini-series. Amazing that I can't rate it
officially, but for you readers/users I will let you know it's a solid 10!
Sigrid Thornton (SeaChange) was seemingly born to fill the role of Cato's
Philadelphia Gordon, in this story that is often compared with Margaret Mitchell's
American Civil War classic Gone With the Wind. Waters (Heaven Tonight) is in
arguably his best role also as her larrakin love interest, and the two leads head a
wonderful Australian cast in this, arguably the most well-known and best-loved of
Australian miniseries. It's an outstanding production all round, though
don't try watching all of it in one hit, and it deserves to be remembered as a
magnificent portrayal of life in pre-Federation Australia. Rating: 8/10
I have to hold Barney drilling my head every day; well.. I guess there must be
reasons. First, I'm convinced that our kids are not stupids, they are just kids,
but they know (my 1 and a half years old son "selects" what to see) what's nice or
disgusting. Did you see the news? Do you think your kids HAVE TO KNOW the reality
as it is? Maybe..or maybe not; we (the adults) have the responsibility about what
we want for our kids, and what to teach them. A film of drug dealers? news about
massacres in Middle East? Of course, the kids must know there is a Real Life,
but... they are kids; let's give them some mercy. What do you want for them? If you
wanna have kids trained on weapons or the best way to kill a neighbor, go ahead,
impose them Lethal Weapon, Kill Bill, any manga's anime, tell them Santa's a
depraved who enters through the chimney directly to violate them. I want illusions
for my son (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Barney and Friends is the best; in
fact, the show have a lot of defects, I read other comments and I agree with most);
maybe the happiness is made of dreams, or illusions. At least, I want to teach him
to grow WITHOUT FEAR BUT CAUTIOUS, that learns to think and believe that everything
is not serial killers or hijackers, whom they're reasons to worth to grow. That, at
least, he can be a little happy with his own dreams. So, parents, don't
underestimate your kids; they know what they want.
I have seen this show when I was younger. It is a really good show to watch. It is
very educational for children 1 to 8 years old. Barney is definitely super DE
duper. B.J. is pretty funny. Babie Bop is very cute. The kids are very cool too.
This show is about learning about numbers kinda like sesame street but different
type of show and characters like Barney the purple dinosaur, B.J. the yellow
dinosaur with a baseball hat on his head, and Baby Bop the cute green dinosaur with
a pink bow. The first one that started was very old Barney and Friends show. But
then the second one was different to be new episodes. Also the last one in the 2000
was new scene of Barney's park. They also have a show of Barney at Universal
Studios in Florida where you see Barney, B.J., and Baby Bop and then when the show
is done you get to go play, shop and meet Barney. It's a very good show watch this
show when you learn about many things you will like it the movie, and the live show
at Universal Studios Florida.
I can understand how Barney can be annoying to some, but the hatred he gets is very
ridiculous. Barney was made simply right from the beginning and simplicity isn't
bad, especially for the young ones he entertains. I personally find this show to be
very underrated period. Barney & Friends is a very educational show in my opinion
and even 17 years after its debut (and nearly 21 years after the character's debut
on home video), he proves time and time again that he still appeals to young
children. Maybe less so than in the early 90's where Barney was the Hannah Montana
of the time, but he's still a classic. As a fan of Barney myself, I feel that I
should defend him in a way that doesn't seem like spam. The way the purple guy
teaches things may be very simplistic and unrealistic, but would you rather have
them hearing about war? Be thankful some one (a costumed dinosaur, but still) is
there to comfort kids and let them be kids simply. In this day and age, I feel that
we rush our kids to grow up and Barney is there to say you can still be a child at
heart. In addition, many of Barney's lessons on current episodes about plagiarism,
being honest, and yes... even death, could appeal to everyone, not just his target
audience. Besides, our children need to learn to be kind and respect others for who
they are, and he helps them do that. In short, Barney may be annoying to some
people and I completely understand why, but cut him some slack. All he and his
friends (along with HIT Entertainment, his production company) are trying to do is
help kids not only learn necessary skills, but to have fun and to also look at the
positive parts of life. If more people listened to their children's favorite
character and viewed him through their eyes, maybe we wouldn't be so negative about
him and possibly life itself.
This is one of my all time favourites. All the actors do a great job. Comparing
this movie to "Lawrence of Arabia" does no justice to both movies. "The Wind and
the Lion" levels a much lower budget with fantastic actors portraying heartwarming
characters in a heartwarming atmosphere. Action and beautiful pictures are provided
as well, which all together guarantees a favourite movie to me.
OK. Is Barney the best children's show of all time? Of course not. But in some of
the comments left by other members of IMDb you would think it was a multi million
dollar production with high class actors and a ridiculous budget for special
effects. Well guess what? It's Barney for God's sake. He shows children good
behavior, good manors and that it's OK to be who you are. For those of you who find
him annoying that is because you are not five years old and the show was not meant
for you. To the IMDb member who wrote the review on the first page I think you may
have gone a little too far. Did you actually describe a Sesame Street character as
"down to Earth"? Grow up everyone, this is a great show for preschoolers and
actually does help children learn in a fun and creative way.
I was a bit surprised to see all of the hate comments on here. Sure it's not the
best kid's show, but don't people stop despising Barney this much after the fifth
grade? Okay, everyone hates Barney. Okay, I think his voice and songs
are annoying. Okay, he's kinda creepy and strange. I'm fourteen years old, so I
know well enough. But here's the thing. Kids? They LOVE this show. When
I was a little kiddie of two or three, my parents spent more time chasing me around
the house than they did anything else. Nothing could hold my attention for more
than ten minutes. Face it, that's how toddlers are. Even the most patient ones
can't sit still long enough to give their parents a break. There's too much to do
and see and explore, too much trouble to get into. And then came Barney.
I don't know exactly what it is about the purple dinosaur that's so amusing to
children, but they sure do love it. I know I did. I was hooked on the show, and
wanted to watch it over and over. Yes, the songs kind of drove my parents nuts, but
to be able to watch their kids learning, and being excited over something that can
really hold their attention span, it's worth it. I learned my ABCs and 123's, the
magic words and brushing your teeth. I'd grown out of it by five or six, of course,
but by that point at least I was a little more patient, and gave my parents a
break. My nieces and nephew all went through the Barney stage growing
up, much to their mother's delight. I know what keeps Barney on the air. He
entertains. Of course there's Big Bird, Ernie, and Oscar, and they're great, too.
But at the toddler stage, it seems that more kids prefer the big singing dinosaur.
And that's enough for me.
Barney is about "IMAGINATION" what you guys do not have if my preschooler never
wanted to play pretend like they do in that show then i would be worried. What 2 or
3 year old actually gets all that anyways its all about the colors and the singing.
For those of you saying that all they do on Barney is eat junk food and recommend
Sesame Street better well what about "cookie monster" thats all he eats but i
haven't seen anyone comment that one. I do agree that sesame is a better
educational show but barney is just like a show for fun don't be too serious if you
didn't like your child watching TV and worried about them understanding things you
don't believe then you shouldn't be propping them down in front of the TV in the
first place because all of that is fake everything is fake actors are fake so why
don't you take your fake brains and put it to use and think if you have a problem
with a fake television show for kids then turn it off and play with them yourselves
and teach them what you want them to learn not BIG BIRD or Bert & Ernie or barney
someone who used to watch all those shows and turned out fine.
I don't understand why everyone is hating on Barney. If you hate the show so much,
then Don't WATCH IT! Its stupid how everyone is changing the "I love you" son to "I
hate you." If you don't like it, fine. Whatever, thats your opinion. But there is
no point to degrading the show, when it isn't even that bad. OK, so its corny, and
yes, it has its flaws, but its a kids show. Kids don't want to be sad and
miserable, they want to be happy. And Barney helps that. And even in the show,
there are moments of sadness and anger and etc. And yes, Barney uses magic. But the
kids see Barney as a figment of imagination. Kids need a place to escape to express
themselves. The world is a miserable and hard place. We all need a place to express
ourselves, and be happier. Barney does this to us. This show is great. I watched
Barney when I was younger. Yes, some people find it stupid. But I watched it, and
I'm top of my class. It might not necessarily make you smarter, but that's not the
point. I believe that the point of Barney is to provide a place where kids can be
kids and the spirit of childhood can be expressed. Where imagination lives on. So
many teenagers now are unimaginative and are scared to express themselves. Barney
helps encourage that. Barney helped me to not be afraid and to just show myself for
who I am. I'm a sophomore at high school now, an AP student with a 4.0, a drama
student with a love for theater and art, and with a new baby cousin who loves
Barney. I watch it with him and enjoy it and sing along with it. Yes, its corny and
silly, and whatever, but its great for kids. Who wants to be an adult who doesn't
have time to have fun? Im a kid at heart and I love Barney. Its great for kids and
those who are a kid at heart. Its a great show for babies and toddlers.
So stop hating. Say that you don't like it, but stop it with the "Dumbest show
ever" or "Barneys a load of bull" or whatever. Keep it to yourself. Take a chill
pill or whatever. Here's something: I never liked Sesame Street. But you don't see
me going: "Grover is a load of bull" or "Cookie Monster should die" or whatever. I
hate all of the BULLSS**T that people say about books or movies, like Barney or
Twilight. If you hate it, OK, whatever. No one cares. Don't go saying hate things
about it, cuz you might just offend someone.
yes barney is nonsense now but when i was a kid it made perfect sense. i
haven't gotten any smarter but i enjoyed it. as a child i was mocked because no one
could say my name so i changed it. ever since i was 4 I've gone by the name Tina
from barney because i could relate to her being from a different culture. i'm 17
now and barney is a huge part of my life . ...my name came from it.... i cant dis
the show i grew up with no matter how stupid it seems now. i don't care
if i get blocked i have nothing more to say. they shouldn't make the minimum 10
lines because some people just don't have much to say. OK done
Mighty Like A Moose is one of many short films Director Leo McCarey did starring
Charley Chase. What a dandy it is! Charlie and his wife both undergo plastic
surgery to improve their hideous appearances unbeknown-est to each other. They then
meet at a party and become smitten with each other. Now they can't allow each other
to find out they're cheating. That's the preposterous premise of this frantic
farce. Vivien Oakland, one of the few comic short leads to have a flourishing
career long after the silents, is perfect as Charley's long of nose wife. Charley
has an awful case of buck teeth, which are quickly dispatched at the dentist's.
After a party is raided by police for no other reason then to practice raids,
Charley and his wife frantically try avoiding each other at home for fear the
alterations in appearances become known. Both have been photographed with their new
features at the party. The hilarity back home culminates in Charley trying to teach
the no-good-nick cheating with his wife a lesson. The no-good-nick of course is the
new Charley, which his wife comes to realize long before Charley teaches a lesson
in faithfulness. This is one of Charley Chase's better efforts. *** of 4 stars.
Okay. To enjoy this silent comedy short you MUST suspend disbelief concerning the
major starting point for the film. If you can't then you'll probably be more likely
to score this film a lot lower. Charlie Chase has a HUGE overbite and his wife has
a nose large enough to have its own area code. Unknown to each other, they have
both been saving to have surgery to correct these defects. Apparently, plastic and
dental surgery was better back in the 1920s because neither seemed to have any need
to recuperate from these major surgeries and they looked just dandy right away!!
Okay, remember I said to ignore this, right?! Okay, well you also have to then
ignore the difficult to believe idea that both could then meet and have no idea the
other is their spouse. Okay,...now that you allowed yourself to accept these two
silly premises, the film gets really, really good. Charlie makes a pass
at her and she makes a pass at him. Both are shocked and thrilled because no one
has ever really considered them attractive. So, because of this new vanity they
agree to go on a date. But, they both sneak back home--not wanting their spouses to
know! Anyway, they meet later and are quite attracted to each other. But what about
the poor spouses supposedly at home? Well, they both learn that the other is
married and both anticipate their marriages will result in divorce because they
really want to be with each other! Late in the film, Charlie figures out that the
woman really is his wife and he goes through a very funny sequence where he plays
both the boyfriend and the old husband--by changing his clothes and putting in
false teeth when he plays the hubby! It really is a laugh riot to see him bouncing
in and out of the room as he appears to be fighting with another person! You really
have to see it to believe it. However, the wife sees an ad with Charlie's before
and after photos and knows what's happening. In the end, they both feel pretty
foolish!
(***Minor spoilers***) If there's something in the world of silent
clowns that puzzles me, it is that Charley Chase never got his well deserved "break
through" in the movies. Oh well, maybe it isn't that strange, really, inasmuch as
he never starred in any full-length features. But when I think of it, such an
explanation makes it all only more mysterious -- because why the heck didn't Chase
get any offers to play the leading lead in features? One explanation is that his
character, no matter how amusing, was simply too realistic to suit a longer story;
without the burlesque elements that Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon and other
comedians possessed, it can be assumed that the comedy he made and which worked so
well for twenty minutes would get repetitive after a few more reels. I don't quite
buy this, though, as Chase's gag construction is magnificent and could, I believe,
at its best maintain the interest of viewers alone for a longer period; at least I
am tempted to think so when MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE runs the show. Mr. Moose
isn't extraordinary handsome, and Mrs. Moose is hardly a "classic beauty;" he
possesses the truly biggest front teeth of any human being on the planet, and she
has a remarkably large nose. Both of them takes plastic surgery without the other's
knowledge, and when they meet by accident just a little later, he doesn't recognize
his wife and she doesn't recognize her husband. A number of hilarious
misunderstandings begin, with many clever gags all the way through. I don't think
I'll reveal anything further, to make the viewing more enjoyable for you. Because
if you're a fan of silent comedies, or even if you aren't, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE
offers so many memorable moments within such a short time that I would look upon it
as a downright shame not to see it; silly indeed, but no less extremely funny.
From start to finish, this 1926 classic two reeler from the Hal Roach Studios seems
to sum up what was fun about the 20's. It stars the now forgotten comic genius,
Charley Chase and was directed by the legendary Leo McCarey, who was unknown then
but would earn his keep with Roach and graduate to greener pastures in the 30's and
40's. Recently released onto video and disc, this is one of the ten best examples
of silent screen comedy and should be seen by audiences of all ages. Although today
his star has virtually diminished, Charley Chase was considered the leader in the
short subject comedy field in the waning years of the silents. He helped the
careers of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy before they were brought together as a
team, Leo McCarey and a host of other talents. It is a shame that he is all but
remembered today. Check out this little gem of a film. Once you do, you will be
seeking out other films from this classic comic. He had his hand in over 300 films
and many of them survive. Rediscover this lost giant of a film from a bygone era
and its giant star.
While it may not be his most laugh-packed film, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE stands as one
of Charley Chase's most satisfying farce comedies, twenty minutes of clever sight
gags, nicely choreographed physical comedy, and amusing quips (rendered via title
card, of course) all based on a wacky and wildly implausible premise. We're told up
top that this is "a story of homely people-- a wife with a face that would stop a
clock --and her husband with a face that would start it again." Soon we meet buck-
toothed Charley Moose and his wife Vivien, who has an enormous nose. But there's no
point in discussing plausibility when our plot hinges on such a patently
unbelievable series of interconnected coincidences: i.e., first, that Charley would
have his overbite corrected the very day his wife would have her nose fixed,
second, that each spouse would keep their respective cosmetic surgeries secret from
the other, and third, that when bumping into each other in public afterward,
Charley and Vivien wouldn't recognize each other. Sounds like a bit of a stretch,
doesn't it? Multiple stretches is more like it. Clearly, we're in the world of
farce here and just have to roll with the silly plot twists, so as long as you can
relax and forget about plausibility you're likely to enjoy this short. MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE gets off to a leisurely start as the various complications of
the story are established, but things pick up once Charley and Vivien have "met"
and made a date to attend a party together at the home of Charley's dentist. They
each rush home excitedly, enter separately and are at first unaware of each other's
presence. (Mr. & Mrs. Moose appear to be quite wealthy, incidentally, as they live
in a mansion the size of a luxury hotel.) There follows a beautifully timed
sequence somewhat reminiscent of Buster Keaton's THE NAVIGATOR in which husband and
wife dash about the house without ever quite meeting up face-to-face. And once they
arrive at the party the comedy really kicks into high gear as Charley is forced to
dance with gawky wallflower Gale Henry. Henry, an estimable player in her own right
who starred in many short comedies dating back to 1914, is hilarious as the dance
partner who brings great vigor but little grace to her dancing. There's also an
elegant cinematic touch during this sequence, when the camera pans down to show us
only the shoes of Charley, Gale, Vivien and Vivien's dance partner, yet we're able
to follow precisely what's happening between the principles by watching their
feet. Unfortunately for Charley and Vivien the party they're attending
is raided, and from there on the complications multiply when they manage to escape
the police dragnet and return home. When Charley realizes that his newly-prettified
wife was attempting to step out with another man he resolves to each her a lesson .
. . while conveniently forgetting, of course, that he was attempting to do the very
same thing. The last few minutes of this film offer some of Chase's funniest
physical comedy, capped with a good sight gag for the punchline. MIGHTY LIKE A
MOOSE leaves the viewer with a warm glow, and surely ranks with the most amusing
comedies produced by the prolific, sadly underrated Charley Chase.
When I reviewed the video for a local magazine, I called it "the greatest
achievement in the history of the American cinema." That was not wholly tongue in
cheek. TW&TL remains Milius' best work, and it's sad that he has so little
opportunity to work anymore. However, TW&TL remains a striking exposition of what
once was known as The American Character, largely on the strength of Brian Keith's
superb portrayal of Teddy R. (Obviously Milius--and Keith--admired TR tremendously
to make two films about him, including "The Rough Riders.") It's hard to fault this
film at any level: a splendid balance of action, levity, relationships, and the
serious topic of America coming of age in the world. Furthermore, TW&TL has
exceptional appeal across the board: note the stats showing it rates best with
under-18 males, females 18-29, and over 45! Clearly Candy Bergen struck a
responsive chord with women as well as men.
1st watched 8/31/1996 - (Dir-Tim Robbins): Very thought provoking and very well
done movie on the subject of the death penalty. Deserved more recognition and
publicity than it received.
One of the more lucid statements against the death penalty ever filmed, quite a
frontal attack against the most disgusting way of doing justice. The final
sequence, with that parallel between the crimes that the convicted Poncelet
committed and his own execution are just superb. No, what about the work
of Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon? It leaves you breathless, they're two giants and
their performances achieve the highest levels of emotion. Tim Robbins
put clear that he's not only a good actor, he's a nice director as well. *My rate: 9/10
I have just seen this broadcast on Channel 4. Having seen some of the earlier
comments here I think I would like to state firstly that I am not in favour of the
death penalty. With that out of the way, I was expecting great things of this film,
but it just didn't quite deliver. Dead Man Walking is very cleanly done, with good
performances all round, and a good script. In fact it's hard to fault it
artistically. However, I felt that although it attempted to confront the issues
surrounding capital punishment, it seemed to become sidetracked by the
religious/moral stance (hardly surprising given that the main character is a nun).
Although I'm not a heartless individual, I didn't really empathise with any of the
characters in the story. If you don't take religion seriously then you probably
won't see much in this film. I think that Peter Medak's Let Him Have It was a much
more powerful and moving film, and I would strongly recommend anyone considering
watching this to go and see that.
This movie has two new features in relation to the message conveyed by other
equally good movies about death penalty and executions. Those are the stress also
given to the drama endured by victims' parents -- without for that reason
disguising the hatred and desire of revenge they feel or lessening the horror that
execution represents -- and the Christian vision of all the questions implied. We
must also point out that in this movie the sentenced man is not the usual nice
innocent person we see in other movies dealing with executions which doesn't lead
us to abandon the idea that a penal execution is no more than a legal murder
anyway. Last but not least we must mention the extraordinary emotional weight put
on the last moments of the execution course with all the catharsis shown by the
convicted's last words and the detail with which the act of the execution itself is
viewed in a parallel cut with images of the murder scenes in the forest to stress
that we are being confronted with another murder so pitiless as the latter but
performed in a cold and supposed "legal" way.
I saw this movie many years ago and it has never left my list of all-time best
films ever made. When I first watched it, I was just beginning what has become a
life-long passion for justice. It gave an interesting perspective of the death
penalty and also gave me a few things to think about. When you have a
cast like this one, you are right to assume it is going to be nothing short of
fabulous. This is, by far, the best role I have ever seen Sean Penn play (along
with I am Sam). He nails the role, doesn't glamourize his actions while doing so.
He manages to maintain a level of debauchery throughout the movie that I think was
very important. Up until the very end, he does not try to be seen as anything more
than what he is. He is a sick man who regrets his past, but still makes excuses for
it. He ends up able to redeem his sense of self-worth as much as a convicted (and
guilty) murderer can through the aid of Susan Sarandon's character, Sister Helen
Prejean. Her character taught me about good will towards others without making me
forget how horrible a person's actions can be and without making excuses for
them. The supporting cast was also top-notch. I was surprised to see a
small cameo of Jack Black in this film given the funny-man he has become today! I
loved this movie for both personal reasons and just because it was a work of
cinematic art. And, in my opinion, this is one of the rare exceptions when the
movie far out-did the book.
Before seeing this film, I suggest the viewer puts away any expectations that the
victims of the crimes depicted will get equal treatment and consideration as the
perpetrator. There have been many films about crime victims. This one is about the
murderer. "Dead Man Walking" finds realism in simplicity of the story:
there are no crack lawyers coming to save William Poncelet and no dramatic story
twists. The film does not attempt to put him in a good light; he is guilty, he is
repugnant, is a racist, and was responsible for heinous murders. Given all this, we
are asked to do something very difficult: look at him as a human being despite his
crimes. In this way, the film challenges the notion that the death penalty provides
"justice". Whether you are for or against the death penalty, the film raises
questions about whether the guilty can find redemption, inequity in the justice
system, and the appropriateness of the death penalty. Great performances
by both Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. In particular the last moments of the film
show the true depth of Penn's ability.
Just to clarify, Matthew Poncelet wasn't a real person, but a character combination
of 2 killers who were BOTH convicted and sentenced to die for a murder of two
teenagers. I read the User Comments and they react as if Matthew was
real. The character is based on a mixture of two killers, Elmo Patrick Sonnier and
Robert Lee Willie (who murdered separate people) and the murder itself was based on
the one Willie committed. The conflict of both Willie having someone else present
and both parties swearing the other did the killing is worked into the story as
well. Prejean's approach is unique in that she not only is ministering
to the convicts as they wait for their death and aiding them in taking
responsibility for their actions, she also reaches out to the victims' families, to
help them know that the convict did, indeed feel remorse for what they did-
effectively aiding both parties. Everyone posting here seems to have
strong beliefs on the Death Sentence. It's not my place to say it's right or wrong-
in theory punishing death with death makes some sort of Karmic sense, however
denying a person their freedom for the rest of their days, although costly, makes
more sense to me-being stuck in a small room 23/7 (with one hour of exercise)for
the rest of their days to be reminded of the cruel thing they did seem a more apt
punishment-they are technically alive, but denied living. Say someone killed
someone so they could get out of the responsibility the person they killed required
(like Susan Smith killing her poor kids by shoving her car into a lake). I find it
fittingly ironic that they would not get that "freedom" they craved and would now
have to spend the rest of their days imprisoned. Prejean's point comes
through the story very well. She has my respect-she manages to find that balance-
she isn't supporting a killer, she is guiding them to accepting what they did. If
they didn't feel some kind of remorse, they wouldn't be asking for spiritual
guidance. Ona final note, when Poncelet apologizes to Delacroix parent
for killing his son, the parents of the girl who was also murdered mutters
something about why he didn't apologize for her death. I think the point was that
throughout the movie, Poncelet denies killing both kids. There is doubt in
Prejean's mind he did both killings-there is a friend who was sentenced but not to
death-my thought is that Poncelet killed the Delacroix boy and the other man
murdered the girl-hence Poncelet was taking responsibility for what he did. Had he
been responsible for the girl's death, he probably would have apologized for that
as well.
Dead Man Walking, absolutely brilliant, in tears by the end! You can not watch this
film and not think about the issues it raises; how can you justify killing (whether
it be murder or the death penalty) and to what point is forgiveness possible (not
just in a spiritual way). Don't watch this film when your down! But WATCH IT!!!
Having read most of the comments I feel like I have a word to say as well. What bothers me most is that most people here are think that this movie is either
pro or con to the subject of death penalty and whether it worked with them. I
remember having read an article back in 1995 when the film was published (yes, it
has interested me so much ever since I heard that it would come out that I have not
forgotten about the articles I read back then) in which Tim Robbins said that he
did not want to make a movie to convince audiences of neither one nor the other. And I think that is completely right. I have to admit that I believe that
in the way he made this film he did tend a little bit to the anti-death-penalty-
side, but nevertheless people are still allowed to make their own choice. And this
is a very rare thing in American films. I have shown this movie to many
people since it came out and I have seen all kinds of reactions. Death-penalty-
supporters became opponents or became even stronger in their belief. And many
death-penalty-opponents (including me) grew stronger in their belief that death
penalty should be abolished everywhere in the world. But I have even seen opponents
turn into supporters. This and the fact that people here seem to fight about it
shows to me that there are really many ways of looking at it. So whatever effect it
has on you, the important thing is that it makes you THINK. This is one
of the few movies that really gives you the choice, that does not shy away with a
simple path by making the convicted either bad or innocent. This may be a tough
thing for people who prefer being entertained or tought a lesson. There is no
lesson here you need to find one yourself. Everyone praises the acting,
directing and the music but since this has been said so many times the I will not
repeat it all again. So if you have not seen this yet, do so - if you
dare to be challenged!
If you think about it, it's nearly unbelievable that a film could be made about the
death penalty (one of the world's most controversial topics) that offends neither
those for nor against. It's a testament to Tim Robbins' extraordinary intelligence
and sensitivity, traits that can be seen in his acting roles as well (Shawshank
Redemption, Jacob's Ladder). This film in fact hints at a subtle
compromise between the "for" and "against" camps... so subtle that it can't be put
into words, subtle to the point of vanishing, yet one gets the sense after watching
the picture that a compromise is possible, that somehow it can be worked out if
only we look deeply enough...
This was my late wife's favorite film. I'm sorry she did not live long enough to
have the video as I'm sure she would have worn it out. What can we say? A great
romantic story and the push off of two great men, the Raisuli and Teddy Rex. Sean
Connery and Brian Keith are great in these roles. But while Connery is his usual
sexy sex, it's the late Brian Keith who gives us a solid performance as the
mercurial Teddy Roosevelt. Back up is provided with Candy Bergen, gorgeous in her
early 30s, as the kidnapped American widow. Great back-up also comes from the great
John Huston as Teddy's beleaguered SecState, John Hay; Geoffrey Lewis, from the
Clint Eastwood films is great as the hesitant US Ambassador, Gummere; the late
Vladek Sheybal with his demonically evil stare is great as the Beshaw and more is
given by Steve Kanaly and Roy Jensen whose faces we have seen in several
backgrounds. All in all, this is a film filled with wonderful romance, mindful of
an era long gone. Mindless story? Not at all. The issue of big nations pushing
around smaller ones for their own hegemonical interests is as true today as it was
then. Overly romantic? Not really-- certainly not maudlin in any sense. Fun to
watch? You bet. I own the video and will watch it again and again. I suggest you do
the same.
This was the most thought-provoking capital-punishment movie ever! It refused to
seem one-sided and the emotions felt throughout the story are as real as it can
get. This movie had one of the most 'human' (And I use this term in a good way)
compassionate religious character ever! This movie actually caused me to go out to
find and read the book (Which is rare for me). Sister Helen exerted more of a
spiritual tone than a religious(Which is also rare). And it presented both sides to
the issue so that people on both sides who watched the movie wouldn't feel that a
point was left out. And we have the director to thank for that. This is not a film
for entertainment. But it is film that delivers a message that can reach to the
core of your heart. I can't think of another film like it.
This movie is about a very delicate argument and if you are searching for something
that makes you think here you are right. Tim Robbins has made a wonderful job and
the result is a kind of docu-drama that should be shown in schools (for the strong
themes treated). What about the actors? Well, they are simply great; Susan Sarandon
is truly 'the face of love' and Sean Penn is unbelievable as almost always. An
absolutely must-see!
Tim Robbins makes a wonderful film. His wife (susan sarandon) gives a wonderful
performance as the sister Helen Perjean who wants to help Mattew Poncelet (Sean
Penn) who is accussed of murder and who also will die of an injection... 120
minutes of splended acting and touching scenes is what you get. Great acting and it
is a film that gives something to think about! Susan Sarandon deserves
the oscar of 1995 best actress. It is probably one of her greatest films ever.
 I didn't see 'The Craddle will Rock" but I sure have to see more films
of Robbins. Rating: 9 / 10 or ***1/2 out of 4. Go and see.....
This is the most human and humane of movies that I have seen in a long time. The
ironies abound, Susan Sarandon as a nun, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon in a movie
that doesn't preach but neither does it condemn. It is cinema verite at it's best,
and yet the story is fictionalized from several real events. Which of
the two is more amazing, Sarandon or Penn? It is easy to say who is more likeable,
but it is hard to say who is more convincing. they are simply magnificent. You may think that all killers should be killed or you may argue that life
without parole is no life and that death is more merciful. whatever your personal
feeling, this movie gives you a chance to pause and reconsider. At the
end one simply wants to sit in silence and reflect. That is what great drama does,
it gives catharsis, it creates a moment in time, a shared memory that touches our
humanity.
"Dead Man Walking" is a film not about the death penalty, but about the people
involved in a death penalty case -- the killer, the families whose kids were
killed, the nun who becomes his spiritual advisor, and what happens. It tells the
story with little fanfare but a lot of compassion and sensitivity. I have it on
DVD, and every time I watch it (not often, it's never an easy film to watch) I'm
more impressed by what Tim Robbins and the entire cast did here. So revealing that
it could be a documentary, so compelling you can't take your eyes away, so subtle
and yet so powerful... "Dead Man Walking" is nothing short of a masterpiece. It
doesn't matter whether you're for or against the death penalty (or even have no
opinion), this movie will have you thinking about the issues for sure. It takes a
courageous screenwriter and director to look this material in the face without
flinching even once, and everyone involved in the film pulls it off -- there isn't
a single scene that rings false. A masterful film, but don't expect light
viewing... to some, the final scenes could be more graphic than anything
imaginable, even though no blood or violence is shown. You get drawn into this film
and become a participant, and there's a character for just about everyone to
identify with. 10/10.
Susan Sarandon is, for lack of a better word, incredible. In my opinion (and yes I
do understand that not everyone will agree with me here), she is one of the
greatest actresses EVER and should have at least 2 oscars to her credit. I mean,
that was an AMAZING performance in Lorenzo's Oil (but then I think every
performance of hers is amazing) and they gave it to Emma Thompson...what was that
about??? And by the time she got this oscar, she'd been in the industry for some 25
years. I couldn't think of anyone who deserved it more, especially for a
performance as brilliant as her portrayal of Sister Helen Prejean. But then again,
she is over and above all the artificiality of Hollywood and doesn't need an oscar
- people know she's good anyway. This film carries some very deep,
thought-provocing messages, so needless to say it is not to be taken lightly. Tim
Robbins, of course, can't escape credit here. You would think that, because of his
person feelings against the death penalty, the portrayals made in this movie
wouldn't be accurate. However, both sides of the death-penalty debate are given
even weight. On one side, you see the interesting side of Matthew, the human side
which makes witnessing his death rather heart-wrenching. At the same time, you see
the way he savaged his victims and the constant torment of the understandably
grief-stricken parents. One word for Tim - BRAVO. A brilliant movie and,
like I said, a well-deserved and long awaited oscar for Susan.
This movie is a story of a Catholic nun as an advisor of convicted killer on death
row. The movie describes what she does as a nun, who does not have any productive
role. She might have had doubt in her actual role. But eventually she does the role
only a nun could do, who has nothing but faith in Christ. In America, there are so
many movies that describe condemned criminals or jails. Those scenes, especially
execution, are too much different from Japan.
The greatest effort plus the finest cast ever assembled in a movie by The Director
Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon And Sean Penn on the front row. Someone said that
this movie is good because directed and written by Tim Robbins but i convince you
that Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon had give me a truly superb performance that i
cried my heart out. Their acting is so real! No doubt about it that this movie is
rated 4 and 3/4 out of 5!
I read the book before seeing the movie, and the film is one of the best
adaptations out there. Very true and faithful to the book. Sean Penn and Sarandon
are amazing. Robbins is a talented filmaker and I wish he would add more to his
repetoire. He made the film very haunting and intentionally slow-paced to add
depth. An especially brilliant bit of filmaking was the reflection of the victims
appearing in the glass of the execution room at the very end.
I really enjoyed this movie. It challenged my emotions and beliefs, making it a
true piece of artwork in my book. The acting was unsurpassed. I would never watch
this movie with anyone I could not cry around, I don't think I cry harder to any
movies, maybe because it makes me look at myself, I dunno. It is a must see.
Lovely Candace Bergen as the widow Perdicaris are kidnapped and held for ransom by
the Sheik Raisuli played by one dashing Sean Connery. The incident comes during
1904 as Theodore Roosevelt runs for election to the presidency in his own right.
Needing a good example to show off the muscular foreign policy of the United
States, Brian Keith as Roosevelt issues a stunning declaration to the Sultan of
Morocco, "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." But in this adaptation of
that incident the famous declaration is the only true thing about this story. The
Perdicaris in question was in reality one Ion Perdicaris who was a Greek immigrant
and dilettante playboy. In fact Perdicaris gave up his American citizenship years
ago and was back as a Greek national. Never mind that though, his predicament was
serviceable enough at the time. The damsel in distress makes better
screen material though so it's a widow woman and her two kids that are in harm's
way here. Of course as presented here the incident is also used by some of our
European powers to get their foothold into Morocco. The intrigues get far beyond
one brigand's demand for ransom. The Wind and the Lion is hardly
history. But it is an enjoyable film and Sean Connery is always fun to watch. Brian
Keith also fits my conception of Theodore Roosevelt and the scenes in the Roosevelt
White House do ring true to all the stories told. John Huston plays the ever
patient Secretary of State John Hay who Roosevelt had inherited from his
predecessor William McKinley. But kids don't use this film to skip
reading a history assignment on the Theodore Roosevelt era.
One of the best ever. Direction, fotography, a thrilling and dramatic history,
wonderful soundtrack and, most of all, the incredible credibility of Susan Sarandon
and Sean Penn, the best and most underestimated "under-40 generation" actor. After
seeing this movie i guess if there's anyone who couldn't have any doubt about
giving death to another man, in spite of the ugly things he could have done?
I must have seen this movie about four or five times already, and it gets better
with each viewing. Suffice it to say: This is the best film I've ever seen. And I
think I've seen a lot. But I've always wondered why this film got so
shunned in some reviews or ratings. For example, take the IMDb Top 250. Why does it
rank only at #216 (as of today)? Surely, the answer's not in the film itself
(because that is nothing but flawless), but in its reception. The film caused
controversy in its portrayal of compassion for a convicted murderer and its anti-
death penalty attitude. And so, obviously, the more conservative-minded user
probably didn't like the film (as you can see from some of the other comments). So
DEAD MAN WALKING gets a ranking that's nothing but ridiculous in relation to its
quality. Those people didn't understand what the film wanted to say, and maybe they
didn't WANT to understand, being pro death penalty. So now I get it: It's all
political. You're pro death penalty- you don't like (and therefore don't want to
hear) what the film has to say. I'm truly sorry there are still so many
people out there who simply tune out when a new perspective questions their
beliefs. Mr. Robbins, your movie's issue split people's opinions. Some
reconsidered their point-of-view, some simply didn't listen, but you made a very
important point. Your movie will probably never show up on any "TOP 100 MOVIES OF
ALL TIME"-list, but it'll be remembered, long after films like Braveheart or Babe
or Apollo 13 (all of which were unjustly preferred over your film at the Oscars
1996) are forgotten. Congratulations, Mr. Robbins, and thank you for this important
piece of filmmaking.
How do you know if a movie is good or not? It is the impact it has on you that
makes the difference. "Dead Man Walking" upset me a great deal. I watched it twice.
I don't know if I will be strong enough to watch it again. No, I did not feel good
at all after watching it, but the film was as successful as it can be. Robbins did a great job in incorporating all aspects of this controversial topic.
He avoided making an argument that could easily be seen as biased or subjective. I
hope that many people get to see "Dead Man Walking". I believe that anyone who
supports or opposes the death penalty so enthusiastically should see the
movie. I don't know what else it could take to finally convince everyone
that this relic from ancient times does not have a place in modern society
anymore. The movie itself does not make an argument for or against death
penalty. It describes reality. The reality is the best argument against the death
penalty. A 10/10 for great performances, good filmmaking, and for the
most important film made in years Thank you, Tim Robbins! 
it was very sensitive very deep. It's my favorite all the time you can't see movie
more deeper than this incredible movie. susan sarandon made her role as matured
mind actress, and she realized her role. She deserved the award. She convinced me
with for being a nun. The music was very impressive and sensitive. Really i liked
this deep masterpiece.
"Dead Man Walking" is one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. I find it
hard to believe that anyone, after having seen the movie, could feel indifferent
about the film or its message. Tim Robbins does not try to impose his ideas and
beliefs on the viewers, but manages to make a film that are in most ways
sympathetic to both views on the death penalty -- whether it is right to murder a
murderer or not. I have always known where I stand in this question, even as a
child, and this movie -- despite the fact that it does not really take any sides --
made me even surer in my conviction that it can never be right to murder
*anyone*. Sean Penn is absolutely brilliant in his portrayal of Matthew
Poncelet, his nomination for an Academy Award was very well-deserved. Even if
Nicolas Cage does a great job in "Leaving Las Vegas", I would have been happier if
Penn had won the award. Susan Sarandon is also brilliant and she deserved the
Academy Award she won. And Tim Robbins certainly deserves the vote I have given
this film: 9/10!
"Dead Man Walking" is a piece of incredible filmmaking. All the acting is top-notch
and realistic, and the script examines the issue of the death penalty from both
sides, paying equal homage to both. Above all, this is a deeply moving story of
redemption, of death with dignity and loss of ego. Any film that deals this
courageously and maturely with such incredibly difficult subject matter deserves a
rating of 10/10. Thank you, Tim Robbins!
In a world in which debatable and misunderstood subjects can be listed endlessly,
this powerful 1995 film takes on one at the top of that list; moreover, it does it
objectively and realistically, and with a sensibility and sensitivity that makes it
a truly great film by anyone's measuring stick. And to add some irony to it all,
even the subject matter of this film has been widely misunderstood, as it is
wrongly perceived that this is a film about the pros and cons of the death penalty;
it is not. At the heart of `Dead Man Walking,' directed by Tim Robbins, is a
subject that in reality is possibly the most misunderstood of all, and with good
reason, because it just may be the hardest thing there is for a human being to
really-- and truly-- understand. And it is what this film is actually all about:
Forgiveness. Real forgiveness; not excusing a heinous crime or the perpetrator
thereof-- not saying that what's happened is okay-- but finding the strength to go
on, and to do so by choosing life. Director/screenwriter Tim Robbins
has crafted and delivered a faithful adaptation of the novel by Sister Helen
Prejean, in which she discusses her involvement with the death-row inmates to whom
over the years she has ministered her faith in God. As chronicled in the film, what
for her was to become a lifelong pursuit of not only justice, but human dignity,
began with a simple letter from a death-row inmate at the Louisiana State Prison at
Angola. Sentenced to death for rape and murder, Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) was
reaching out to anyone who would listen, when his letter ended up in the hands of
Sister Prejean (Susan Sarandon), who soon found herself venturing into a territory
of which she had absolutely no knowledge or experience. And Robbins has
successfully captured Sister Prejean's emotional and turbulent journey succinctly,
while managing to keep it devoid of any maudlin sentimentality, which makes it not
only real, credible and believable, but makes it a poignant and thoroughly
emotionally involving experience for the audience. Through the medium of the
cinema, what was once a personal, significant emotional experience for Sister
Prejean, becomes one for everyone who sees this film, as well. For
her soul-stirring, impassioned portrayal of Sister Prejean, Susan Sarandon
deservedly won the Oscar for Best Actress. Sensitive and fraught with emotional
depth, her performance is incredibly touching and real, especially in the way in
which she conveys Sister Prejean's underlying natural fragility and vulnerability,
which she adamantly tempered with the toughness she needed to carry on with her
endeavors on behalf of Poncelet (and in reality, a total of five since she began).
Whatever your point of view regarding the matters examined in this film, Sister
Prejean is without question an individual of heroic proportions, which Sarandon
exquisitely personifies here; and she does it without resorting to any superfluous
melodramatics, but rather by keeping it real, by subtly and humbly exploring the
humanity of the person in a very believable expression of characterization. It's an
extraordinary performance, arguably the best of Sarandon's brilliant career. Turning in a career-best performance, as well, is Sean Penn, who was
nominated for Best Actor for his portrayal of Poncelet (he lost out to Nicolas
Cage, who won for his performance in `Leaving Las Vegas). Perfect for the part in
every way, Penn has quite simply never been better, before or since. He effectively
presents Poncelet as a real person, rather than as an overblown caricature of a
monster capable of perpetrating the crimes depicted here. Not that it makes
Poncelet any less despicable; just the opposite, in fact. It makes it genuinely
disconcerting to be faced with the fact that someone who looks like a guy who could
live next door to you could be capable of such things. And that's the strength of
Penn's performance-- it's so disturbingly real, presented with depth and nuance;
you have but to look into his eyes to find the imperfections of a troubled soul. A
terrific performance, and -- as good as Cage was in `Vegas'-- Penn should have
received the Oscar for it. In another stand-out performance, Raymond
J. Barry is memorable in a supporting role as Earl Delacroix, father of one of
Poncelet's victims. With limited screen time, he nevertheless develops his
character in such a way that enables you to empathize with him, as well as with
Sister Prejean, as it is through him that we are given some insight into just how
complex and seemingly tenuous her position is, at least on the surface. Barry
presents Delacroix in such a way that gives the necessary balance and perspective
to the story, which is ultimately extremely effective and helps to underscore the
message of the film. The supporting cast includes R. Lee Emery
(Clyde Percy), Celia Weston (Mary Beth Percy), Lois Smith (Helen's Mother), Scott
Wilson (Chaplin Farley), Roberta Maxwell (Lucille Poncelet), Margo Martindale
(Sister Colleen) and Jack Black (Craig Poncelet). It is doubtful that this film
will change anyone's mind one way or another about the death penalty, but that was
never the intention; what was intended, was to make a thought-provoking,
emotionally involving film, which is exactly what Robbins has accomplished with
`Dead Man Walking.' Regardless of your personal point of view, this film will have
an impact, and hopefully will open some minds to the true nature of forgiveness.
For, as we see through the character of Earl Delacroix, true forgiveness is not
something one merely decides to do, but is a task that can become a lifetime's
work. And it's possibly one of the hardest things in life to effectively
accomplish; and you come away from this film with an appreciation for individuals
like Sister Prejean, who has selflessly dedicated her life to helping those in
need, and to filmmakers like Robbins and Sarandon for bringing her to life for
millions of people who otherwise would never have known her. I rate this one 10/10.
 
'It's easy to kill a monster, but it's hard to kill a human being.' Set
in St. Thomas Housing Project and Angola Prison in New Orleans, "Dead Man Walking"
is the true story of Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon), a Louisiana nun Sister who
befriended Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn), a murderer and a rapist bound for a lethal
injection machine for killing a teenage couple Sister Helen agrees to help the
convict and to remain with him till the endan act never before attempted by a
woman At their first meeting, Poncelet swears to the nun that his
accomplice was the one who shot both of the kids and pleads her help for a new
trial in order to convince the pardon board hearing to spare his life The film challenges the audience to actually give some thought to the human
consequences of the death penalty, but gives voice to angry bereaved parents whose
kids were shot, stabbed, raped, and left in the woods to die alone As
Poncelet's execution looms closer and closer, his character is seen deceptively
complex, harboring doubts about the rightness of what they were doing to him In
one moment, we hear him sensitive asking for a lie detector test to let his mother
know that he is innocent, in another we see him furious playing the victim, blaming
the government, drugs, blacks, the kids for being there Poncelet never understood
that he has robbed the Percys and the Delacroixs so much, giving them nothing but
sorrow They are never going to see their children again, never going to hold them,
to love them, to laugh with them In the scenes leading up to his
execution, the death-row inmate drops his terrible facade and reveals his identity
Luckily both Sarandon and Penn are here exceptionalcarrying out successfully an
exquisite, tangible harmony of souls When Sarandon was looking at Penn, she was
projecting compassionate eyes brimming with tears She asks him to visualize her as
he dies ''I want the last thing you see in this world to be the face of love''in
that moment, we truly believed that she'll be the face of love for him
Tim Robbins did a masterful job directing this film. I say this because he avoided
convention and cliché. He also oversaw superb performances from Susan Sarandon (who
won an Oscar for her role) and Sean Penn. Even more amazing, Robbins doesn't
patronize. He just tells the story and lets the events play on the viewer's mind.
This is so effective because it allows the viewer to form his own opinions on the
death penalty, one of the most controversial subjects of our time, without being
unfairly manipulated in either direction. I can't recommend this film enough, 9/10.
I'm astonished how a filmmaker notorious for his political left-wing fervor could
make such a subtle, non-sanctimonious picture. If you're for capital punishment,
you'll still be for it after seeing this. If you're against capital punishment,
you'll still be against it. But whatever your stance is, this movie will, at the
very least, make you reflect on why you feel the way you do. There's not one false
note in the film.
One of the best 'guy' movies I've ever seen has to be the Wind and the Lion. Gad,
the scenes... Raisouli's bandits swarm over the wall... A staid British
gentleman calmly gets up from tea with Candice Bergen and drops three of them with
a Webley revolver in his coat. A whisper from the ghost of Empire... Lest we
forget! Lest we forget! U.S. Marines coming ashore from the long, long
gone _Brooklyn_. They were carrying Krags, it should have been Lees, but, oh wow.
And the Winchester 97 blowing large holes in obstreperous natives and even more
obstreperous and faithless Europeans... Raisouli --Sean Connery, o,
Wow!--wondering 'What kind of gun does Roosevelt use?" Teddy Roosevelt--
Brian Keith, o, Wow!--wondering "What kind of gun does Raisouli use?' and writing
yet another angry letter to Winchester about the stock on his Winchester 95. Raisouli, armed with but a sword... A Prussian cavalry officer, HOLSTERING
his pistol and drawing HIS sword... Honor. That's something long dead, from a world
long gone, but Raisouli would never have flown a plane full of children into a
building... Milious at Milious's magnificent best, and now out on DVD.
First off, let it be known that I came into this movie not for the music; actually
I find it repugnant. Really, I was interested in the psychology of the punk
subculture. On this point, the documentary did fairly well. One disagreeable aspect
was the numerous scenes in which songs are played and the hyped-up band and
belligerent crowd are shown running amok. If you've seen the first such scene,
you've seen them all. This superfluity is party made up for by printing lyrics for
some of the songs. With these, the audience is able to somewhat connect mentally
with the band. The lyrics are of far more interest than the jumble of sounds
projecting from the speakers. I don't know why all the lyrics were not printed.
Scenes without lyrics slow (ironic eh?, given the many references to the speed of
the music) the flow of the movie. Also insightful were the interviews with fans and
bands, though there is a letdown when the latter band's interviews prove to be not
nearly as enthralling or humorous as the first two. Overall, a good movie that I'm
glad I saw. I'll check out the follow-ups if I ever get a chance. Favorite quote: He tried to hide the fact that he couldn't play by rubbing peanut
butter over himself and breaking glass. Broad punk generalization:
Though their disgracefulness, lack of vocabulary and hygiene, and drug-induced
obliviousness is often hilarious, in the end it is understood that punks are just
pathetic juveniles who rebel just for the sake of rebellion as seen through
sophomoric lyrics and naive attempts to philosophize and politicize (disregarding
Black Flag, who are slightly less misguided than their peers).
The One and the Only! The only really good description of the punk
movement in the LA in the early 80's. Also, the definitive documentary about
legendary bands like the Black Flag and the X. Mainstream Americans' repugnant
views about this film are absolutely hilarious! How can music be SO diversive in a
country of supposed liberty...even 20 years after...find out! 
This is one of the best films made about the 80 punk scene. I saw this a few years
back on a "bootleg" copy and was amazed. Very few of todays kids know the true
roots of punk and this movie shows some of the 80s punk legends such as The Germs
and shows how it was back then. Nowadays so much punk has gone mainstream with MTV
and radio and its nice to see the true underground rebellious movement of the
original scene. Darby Crash (of The Germs) is one of my heros and this film shows
why. A must see for all "punks" and anyone curious about the 80s punk scene
Penelope Spheeris (of "Wayne's World" fame) made her mark with the documentary "The
Decline of Western Civilization", about the LA punk scene in the late '70s and
early '80s. Most of the documentary features interviews with the punks and footage
of concerts (which often turn violent). Overall, we get to see how the punk
movement was a reaction to the hippies: whereas the hippies were into being
natural, the punks wanted to have themselves as altered as possible, what with
spiked hair and all. But also, we see how they're really disaffected and sometimes
becoming skinheads. Anyway, this is a really great time capsule. We're
not really sure whether we want to long for that era or feel repulsed by it. But
this is definitely not a documentary that will leave you neutral. Truly worth
seeing.
Spheeris debut must be one of the best music documentaries of all time. And as far
as I know it's also the only one that focuses on the L.A. Punk Explosion of the
early eighties. It's all there: not just great, great bands like Black Flag, Fear,
X, the Germs, whose names may not mean much to you today, but whose influence on
today's alternative rock music can not be over-estimated, but also the promoters,
the media and first of all the audiences - the punks - all portrayed in a manner
that makes you laugh, shudder and gasp with astonishment about the energy, the
anger and the fury these youths put into their music. Where is that today? The
eighties may have sucked big time when it cames to mainstream music, but the
underground was rocking. If you need a proof for that, watch Fear's performance in
Decline. Unmatched. Great film! How come this is not available on vid, LD or DVD?
P.S. The follow-up Decline Pt. II is hilarious, too
 First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in
the subject it portrayed, the LA punks. I listened that music and I
loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early
80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland. So if you don't
like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it
speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you,
who find this music "repugnant" care to comment at all? 
 First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in
the subject it portrayed, the LA punks. I listened that music and I
loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early
80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland. So if you don't
like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it
speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you,
who find this music "repugnant" care to comment at all? 
I saw this movie in the theater when I was 14 and it changed my life. I immediately
cut off my hair and began buying all of the records of the bands in the movie.
These were some of the seminal bands of L.A. punk rock caught on film at the peak
of their powers. Bands like Black Flag (pre-Rollins), Circle Jerks, Fear, X, and
the Germs have few equals in the history of punk music. I can't believe this film
has never been put out on video or DVD. Great movie for fans of punk rock.
THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! The Decline of Western Civilization......what a
great title eh? And of coarse a great movie. This is the best concert film I have
ever seen. A close second being the Talking Heads movie "Stop Making Sense". I
first heard of this movie when Waynes World came out in 1992. I looked at the
director's name Penelope Spheeris and thought cool name, what else has he directed?
I thought the first name was pronounced like envelope. After some time looking in
movie guides I came across the critically acclaimed Decline and realized Penelope
was a woman.....my Mom corrected me. I spent 8 years of my life trying to track
this down. I finally saw it on VHS in Vancouver, where I currently reside. It was
worth the wait. This captures the LA punk movement very well. This is teen angst at
it's best folks. My favourite is the band the Germs who need subtitles for the
lyrics because Darby Crash sings so crazy, you cannot understand it. I laughed when
I saw this. The band Black Flag live in an abandoned church and the band X are a
very intelligent bunch. Also laughed at the letter some idiot writes in to Slash
Magazine about how we do not need to save the whales, there are countless miles of
ocean for us to pour toxins in! I became a huge Penelope Spheeris fan after this,
and saw all her punk movies-Dudes was OK, and Suburbia is a cult classic! I own
both of these on VHS. She is a true underground film maker and I love her stuff. I
would have loved to have seen this movie in 1994 when grunge was so popular. I was
a big Nirvana fan then, but alas I saw this in 2002 and by that point I had grown
out of grunge and now I listen to Crystal Method/Fatboy Slim. Quite a change of
pace, I know, but what can you do? But if you want a true depiction of the punk
movement this captures it better than anything. Much better than 1991: The Year
Punk Broke. This is a tough movie to track down, but if you get your hands on it,
rent it, even if you don't like the music it is an excellent piece of work. Now
days it might be easier to find with DVD's being so popular. By the way Penelope
produced a little known Albert Brooks movie called "Real Life" which I also own.
Very funny stuff in todays reality TV craptacular! Rent Decline......Highly
recommended! Thanks!
I LOVE this film. It was made JUST before the LA punk scene changed for the worse.
It perfectly preserves the mood and attitude of that time and place. I feel really
lucky to have been present at the filming of four of the bands at the Fleetwood
that night. The only part that doesn't fit in too well is the sections with
Catholic Disipline and their socio-political commentary. I didn't see too many
people who were into that at all. The rest of the film shows attitudes that I
witnessed a lot; people dealing with hard lives, or taking a swing at the music
industry and/or lousy hippies. I don't think I've seen a documentary that captures
so authentically and personally the subject matter being covered.
Sean Connery is very good as the Great Raisuli, Lord of the Rif and Defender of the
Faithful. This is an adventure movie with Arabs, Germans and the USMC all coming to
grips at one point or another. There is also a lot of humor in the interplay among
the main and supporting characters. The story is based on the true incident in
which a wealthy Greek-American businessman was kidnapped by the Raisuli in the
early 1900s. Milius has substituted Candace Bergen and her two children as the
victims of the kidnapping, and this opens the story to a lot of literary
license. On the other hand, the movie gives Milius the opportunity to
remind the viewer of two of the most famous (though mostly forgotten) political
quotations of the TR era. Brian Keith (very good as TR) says, "Pedecaris alive or
the Raisuli dead!"; and John Huston (also good as Sec of State John Hay)asks the
Japanese Ambassador at a White House dinner, "You likee knifee, you likee forkee?"
Absolutely one of the 10 best music films Ever! A totally essential educational
experience for any music fanatic--Especially young rock/punk fans
today...understanding the beginnings of any particular "artistic" movement
absolutely requires understanding the roots of the music,as well as the mindset and
musical environment of the times....not to mention the political and social factors
involved at the time. And,besides all that,this documentary is flat-out rock-n-roll
F U N !! Do Not Miss It!!! that said,can anyone tell me when,if ever, "the decline
of western civilization"...part 1,( Not part 2,the metal version) will be made
available again..hopefully on DVD?
The decline series is amazing and director PS can't get enough credit for making
these movies. I'm slightly surprised to see that not very many people have seen
this one, or the other two, but their worth unearthing if you want the picture of
punk in the trans-formative years between the late seventies and early eighties.
The film starts out with a blistering collection of clips played over music from
the band X. Many interviews with bands and punker's that offer an enlightening
perspective as to what surviving was like on the low rung of the mainstream rock
ladder. No internet, crappy jobs, and all out hostility collide in this genre. For
new kids who haven't heard of these bands or are just starting one themselves this
movie is a true lesson in how to rock. All the band performances (and there are
many) are awesome, especially FEAR who never cease to amaze me. This and the second
installment are amazing time capsules offering those who care a rare glimpse into
the lives of these crazy people. It's true punk, like in the interview with Darby
Crash's girlfriend when their recalling a painter who mysteriously/suddenly died
outside their house and it took a week or so for them to figure it out, they take
pictures next to the guy and everyone including the EMT's had a chuckle on this
one, and in true form the interviewer asks the girlfriend if she was sad or upset
that this guy had died while painting their house, the response "no i hate
painters". How about Black Flag renting their apartment/rehearsal space for 16
dollars a month! My jaw almost fell off at that moment seeing as i'm renting a ten
by ten closet to practice in for 400. Between watching this and Deadwood i feel
like i was born in the wrong time period, just missing those cowboy days and nights
of the old way. The people and bands associated with the movie paved the way for
what harder music today is, and they did it in their own unique way. Brilliant
film, ten stars, see part 2 as well its equally awesome, part 3 though, i don't
know what to say about.
Let start off by first saying that I have been a punk fan most of my life. I always
kind of had a lack of respect for the LA scene of the early 80's, which The Decline
of Western Civilization documents, with the exception of X and Black Flag, being
more of New York and English punk guy. After I saw this movie that completely
changed. The people shown may look like a bunch of idiotic, strung out kids who
think they might accomplish something beyond street-Cree through their lifestyles,
but it is a great display of hedonism at it's best, coupled with some fun, loud
rock n roll. One of the best scenes, and actually most insightful, is the interview
with Claude Bessy of Catholic Discipline, or 'Kick-Boy' as he was known to Slash
magazine readers. Originally from France, he rants about punk like a dirty old
Frenchman and clues in viewers to many aspects of the punk, or DIY, attitude to
music, politics, and life in general. Darby Crash of the Germs comes off as a
complete idiot most of the time, but the Germs' performance of Manimal is pretty
decent, complete with a young Pat Smear. Black Flag's performance with Chavo
Pederast on vocals (it was filmed a couple of years before Henry Rollins joined the
band) is decent, and X and FEAR give the best performances in the movie. Look out
for the interviews with the young punk kids. You'll hear some of the funniest
things you have ever heard in a documentary. Highly recommended.
If I assume that you know what this film is about, I am also forced to assume that
you've come to this review knowing that you will probably watch it regardless of
what I say. If all this rings true - read on - you are likely to find some
consonance with at least part of this review. If you're undecided, or not really
entirely certain what happened in the late '70s and early '80s in the urban and
suburban youth music culture, you should probably read one of the reviews which
pretends to be objective instead. Although I didn't grow up in
California, the American punk scene was the first music scene I ever truly lived
in. At the height of the hardcore I was immersed in from about 1979-1981 everybody
had a band and the only common denominators between bands and indeed members of
their audiences were: * the rejection of conformity *
tolerance and enjoyment of difference * a desire to have fun - hard and
fast Hairstyles, politics, dislike of authority figures, and violent
slam-dancing were not integral to what I experienced, though there were certainly
cliques or factions who tended to be intolerant of those who did not dress, speak
or act "punk" enough. And there was often a certain amount of unearned credit
extended from some of these cliques to those who tried really hard to live down to
the fascistic paradigm of anarchic, self mutilating, angry young cop-haters. Although the interviews with audience punks in Penelope Spheeris' excellent
Cal-Punk documentary "Decline of Western Civilization" present a very narrow view
of the subculture some of us enjoyed, the interviews with the bands, club owners,
promoters and even the security people are much more representative of at least my
own perspective and memories of 'the scene'. nevertheless, it is possible for those
who approach this with prejudices about what punk is to experience this film
without having their preconceptions challenged. Unfortunate as this is, the blame
for it rests solely with those who promote, believe in or feel comfortable with
stereotypes - Not the film-makers. Don't blame the messenger. The music
presented here is not going to be for everybody - nor even most. It's not the most
crude stuff out there, but it's loud, obnoxious, fast, and less concerned with
technique than with raw energy. For me, seeing early Black Flag with
Ron Reyes singing, X, Fear and the Circle Jerks was worth far more than the cost of
this hard to obtain film. As much as I like The Germs, seeing Darby Crash for the
mess - and the nice guy - that he was left me a bit cold. Nevertheless, the scenes
of Darby playing with his pet tarantula while "Shut Down" droned on and on in the
background were precious. The X interview is also great. Spheeris'
straightforward documentary style is supplemented by wild pans and zooms during the
musical segments. During the interviews, framing is used very nicely to provide
context for whatever is being said. Considering her experience and the budget,
Spheeris did as well as anybody could have with this film. Recommended
for those who appreciate what this film is actually about, and for those who have
forgotten those few years of fun, honest, direction-less rebellion before Amaerican
punk was co-opted into yet another flow within the musical mainstream and the
stereotypes became more important than the basic philosophy.
Spheeris debut must be one of the best music documentaries of all time. And as far
as I know it's also the only one that focuses on the L.A. Punk Explosion of the
early eighties. It's all there: not just great, great bands like Black Flag, Fear,
X, the Germs, whose names may not mean much to you today, but whose influence on
today's alternative rock music can not be over-estimated, but also the promoters,
the media and first of all the audiences - the punks - all portrayed in a manner
that makes you laugh, shudder and gasp with astonishment about the energy, the
anger and the fury these youths put into their music. Where is that today? The
eighties may have sucked big time when it cames to mainstream music, but the
underground was rocking. If you need a proof for that, watch Fear's performance in
Decline. Unmatched. Great film! How come this is not available on vid, LD or DVD?
P.S. The follow-up Decline Pt. II is hilarious, too
The rise of punk music was scarcely documented on film and most people tend to
focus on the happenings of other cities such as London or New York. Penelope
Spheeris managed to preserve a snapshot of Los Angeles circa '79-'81 which proves a
vibrant and diverse art/music community had spawned which rivalled any other. To
some, the bands read like a who's who of now legendary American punk; Black Flag,
X, Circle Jerks, Germs, Fear. Purists argue that vital bands were missed (Weirdos,
Zeros, Flesheaters) and that the movie was the cause of an onslaught of suburban
poseurs and macho violence. However, the issues touched upon in the film remain
relevant, the intensity of the music remains unmatched and the influence continues
to be seen and heard in the cliques/fashions of today.
Kind of a guilty indulgence nowadays, this used to be required watching when i was
in high school. It really is a great illumination of the burgeoning punk scene in
LA in 1980. As the bands play, Spheeris prints the lyrics in subtitles, which is of
course necessary if one really wants to know what the guy is screaming into the
microphone. But also it turns the camera's POV into that of tourist, passing
through this alien world. The band interviews reveal an honest approach to the
music that really doesn't exist anymore. Then again, it's not as easy to come by
$16/month former-church closets like Chavez of Black Flag does. How many unheard of
bands do you know that aren't trying like the dickens to get a record deal? These
guys just didn't care. And who can't love the commentary of the little French dude
who used to be the "singer" for Catholic Discipline (of which Phranc was a member).
His gritty voice delivers one of the best soliloquies ever captured on film: "I
have excellent news for the world ... there's no such thing as New Wave." Whew!
What a relief!
One of the major successes to The Decline of Western Civilization, filmmaker
Penelope Spheeris' indie breakthrough, is that it can perhaps appeal to non-punk
fans as to the hardcore ones. More importantly, it captures a moment in history
before the movement became completely "market-worthy", when bands would play (or,
at the least, try to play in some cases) in dank, dirty clubs to an audience that
had as much self-respect as they had respect for the bands. For the fan, such as
myself, there are precious interviews with some of the quasi-legends of LA's punk-
scum, some dead, some still living and still hard-working in the scene. Performances and interviews include the likes of The Circle Jerks, X, Black
Flag (in the pre-Henry Rollins days), Catholic Discipline, Fear, the Alice Bag
Band, and most memorable (in my opinion) being the Germs. While I knew of a few of
the bands and performers in the film (The Jerks and Black Flag mostly), I had only
heard rumors about lead singer (the late) Darby Crash, and from the footage in the
film he seems to be one of the, if not the, epitomes of the punk movement. He
doesn't take himself too seriously, he loves to drink, sometimes when he speaks
it's complete gibberish, and the attitude he brings on stage is both funny and in a
free-form way exhilarating. A performer like that would probably scare Steve Miller
and Jackson Browne out of their skins. Decline of Western Civilization
may not turn on every non-punk fan that seeks this film out (it's hard to find on
video), but it shouldn't necessarily turn them off either. Like a kind of
anthropologist that's sneaked into the party, Spheeris gets the behavior of these
people down pat, their motives, their likes and hatreds, and the power that was
their on and off-screen personas. A few of them almost come off as normal, some
don't, but they're only offensive to those who aren't too open to things. On top of
that, the film is a must-see to the kinds of kids that think they're punk fans just
because they listen to Good Charlotte and Blink-182: if you want to get the real
scoop on the movement and genre of rock you profess to love, give the pioneers a
chance. A
If you liked this movie, be sure to check out others directed by Hrebejk - you are
in for a treat. This is unfortunately not his best, but still million times better
than an average movie from the mainstream cinema. It explores relationships,
especially the abusive ones, has some powerful as well as sweet moments and great
acting. Some plot inconsistencies, clichés and hollow moments spoil the overall
effect. To the previous reviewer and his comments on the Czech psyche: an
interesting approach, but I do not see this movie becoming a Czech blockbuster.
Those folks are rather spoiled by their movie makers {check out also stuff by
Sverak, Gedeon} and this one lags a bit behind.
Wow. At first I thought who writes these things! How hard is that choice between a
man who offers you and your children wealth, respectability and security as opposed
to a husband who offers you only oppression, abuse, degradation and poverty.
However our choices are not always as clear cut cut as one would think. Indeed the
wealthy gentleman was all a woman could aspire to and yet... the pull of her
husband, her sexual desire for him was almost overwhelming. What to do, what to
do?? As a viewer you became as confused and misdirected as she was. Anyway what I
really came on this site to gush about was my admiration of the voice of the
Engish, I thought, although it is actually the voice of an Irish singer in the
film. Looking him up I find he is Glen Hansard, whom I had never heard of before
that day. What a find. I am so grateful. Wow, what a voice! What a day! Thank you
BIFF!
We usually think of the British as the experts at rendering great adventure from
the Imperial age, with the likes of The Four Feathers (1939) and Zulu, simply
because the Imperial age was, for the most part, British. Here, in The Wind and the
Lion, we see a wonderful rendering of America's own Imperial age. America's projection of power under Teddy Roosevelt is the backdrop for this
conventional tale of the kidnapped damsel who, despite her gentility, is smitten by
the rough, manly nobility of her captor, who in turn is disarmed by her beauty and
scorn. (Politically correct prigs eager to see some slight of "native" peoples or
cultures can rest assured, that the way Arabs and Muslims are depicted here is far
more flattering than the way their modern counterparts depict themselves on the
current world stage.) What makes this story different are the terrific production
values - faultless photography, composition and editing - the terrific casting -
the underappreciated Brian Keith playing a bully Teddy - and vivid history. Though The Wind and the Lion is told largely through the eyes of the son,
every member of the family can identify with one of the characters, whether it be
Sean Connery's noble brigand, Candace Bergen's feisty heroine, John Huston's wily
John Hay or Steve Kanaly's spiffy, radiant, ruthless can-do lieutenant, Roosevelt's
"Big Stick". There is a transcendent scene at the end, when the little boy is
symbolically swept away by the dashing Moor on his white steed. This is high
adventure at its best.
First I have to admit that I have had some doubts about the director. He has done
some movies (with Jarkovsky) about the recent "czech=east" history or more
precisely about families (individuals) how did they survive some historical
moments. But it was always like the chines food sour-sweet. This movie was totally
different. It was pure, it shows the bones of life, it shows the variations of
human natures. This film is an excellent piece of art (story, acting, picture,
music) but it shows you the life around you in much brighter light that we don't
want to see. By the way I have saw it on a DVD (with English subtitles) but I am
afraid that in the USA I wont be able to get it.
This film by the well-known Czech director and writer collaborator Petr Jarchovský
is remarkable for its particularity but annoying and distracting in its details.
Taking its theme and title from a Robert Graves poem, it deals with a woman with
several men and some obnoxious relatives in her life who's trying to survive and
protect her two children, 15-year-old Lucina (Michaela Mrvikova) and little blond
asthmatic Kuba (Adam Misik).The poem is much in evidence, but the theme--it gets a
little lost. Marcela (Anna Geislerová), the Beauty, and Jarda (Roman
Luknár) have lost everything in the Prague floods of 2002 and have nothing left, it
seems, but good sex, which they go at with such a vengeance in their tiny apartment
that Lucina and Kuba, in front of the telly, must hold their ears against the
noise. Hrebejek relishes such explicitness and skates on the edge of embarrassment
or shock. There's no good explanation precisely why, but financial desperation has
led Jarda to processing stolen cars in the big garage that adjoins his flatlet. His
car-thief cohort drives off a posh Volvo the easygoing Benes (Josef Abrham) has
left with the keys in the ignition while visiting a large property he owns. Benes
is a super-nice guy, but no fool. His Volvo is wired for tracking by satellite in
cases like this and that leads the cops straight to Jarda's garage and he and his
cohort are off to jail. "Beauty in trouble flees to the good angel,/On
whom she can rely," begins the Graves poem. But actually this fracas leads Benes to
Marcela, when he meets her at the police station. He introduces her to sushi and
how to drink wine and plies her with a picture book about Tuscany, where he, though
Prague-born, owns a lovely villa and has lived most of his life. He's here to
reclaim the house in Prague now occupied by a couple with an ancient and infirm
mother, whom he allows to remain. Benes' every gesture is benevolent, even though
he doesn't prevent Jarda from going off to jail. In the circumstances
Marcela must retreat with Lucina and Kuba to depend on the charity of her mother,
Zdena (Jana Brejchova) and the far less tender mercies of Zdena's present husband,
the scrawny diabetic Richard Hrstka (Jiri Schmitzer)--who, for the kids, starting
when they commit the cardinal sin of consuming his dietetic cookies, proves to be
the uncle from hell. Jiri Schmitzer hijacks the film at this point, and never quite
lets it go. Even in the final scene he is a figure of leering menace. It is
surprising that the obnoxious Richard doesn't sexually abuse one or both of the
children. He is insistent that Marcela needs to get out on her own, and when Benes
offers to take her under his wing he and Richard become improbable allies.
Improbable--perhaps implausible. Why should Benes like him? But then, what is
Benes's whole story? About some things the film gives too much information and
about others, not enough. Clearly the "good angel," Benes is infallibly
kind--and a polished, good-looking older man whose manners befit his Italian
upbringing. It's only at the end, when he's pushed to the limits over his Prague
property by the devious occupants, he proves that he is not one to won't lie down
and be walked over. Also to be dealt with is Jarda's religious fanatic
mother Sdena (Jana Brejchova), and her interactions with Zdena and Richard are
something to watch. But she is just another wild card that does not augment the
deck. The poem has been set to music in a Czech translation and is sung
on screen by the accordionist-vocalist Raduza, first in a tiny scene, then in a
more extended one staged at a prison performance witnessed by Jarda and the car
thief pal. If you revere Hrebejk as an auteur you may relish this sequence;
otherwise it tends to feel gratuitous. Also included are a number of songs by Glen
Hansard/Marketa Irglova of the Oscar-award-winning Irish musical film 'Once,'
including the latter's theme song, "Falling." They feel more out of place than they
would otherwise because of their familiarity from 'Once'--though this film came
first. Hrebejk's people are arresting; even little Koba has his
Shakespearean-child moments and a wealth of charm; but the director and his writer
seem unable to resist the temptation to digress and to over-expand. The property
hassle Benes endures may be useful for showing he has a tough side. But such an
elaborate demonstration wasn't necessary. The acting is fine, and there is a
wonderful with quirkiness and specificity, but the basic themes of love, sex, and
money get lost in the shuffle and Marcela's conflicts and how she resolves them
never become clear. It's fine that there is no resolution and true to the theme and
to Graves's poem that Marcela still has hot sex with Jarda during a revisit to
Prague after moving to Tuscany with Benes and her kids. But there are too many
questions remaining about what to make of the obnoxious Richard or of Jarda's
annoyingly pious mother (Emília Vásáryová). How come all of a sudden we learn Koba
is getting letters from "India" purported to be from his dad, who's in prison? When
did that come about? Interesting details, hastily pasted in. This seems a world in
which you can't see the forest for the trees.
Beauty in Trouble (Kráska v nesnázích) is not a great title. All the descriptions
of this film fail to capture what it really is an adult fairy tale. A poor girl
is wooed by a prince. The "girl", Marcela, played by the stunning Anna Geislerová,
has an Isabelle Huppert beauty, with a red hair, face and figure that are
beguiling, sexual, and endlessly fascinating. She has a louse of a husband, but
they have great sex. The kids listen to the lovemaking through walls. It's rough
and passionate, as the sex of the working class seems to often be portrayed in
film. But it's also for us to recognize that this is the thing that binds them
together in an otherwise incompatible marriage. The husband, a professional car
thief, is eventually caught and thrown in jail. How she got into this marriage we
don't know, but she is not exactly a high-class herself. But she's beautiful,
intelligent (we assume) and loves her gorgeous and resilient kids. She deserves
more. And she may get the life she deserves - eventually. (no spoiler!) She is
forced to move back with mom after her husband is sent to jail. Mom has a hideous
second husband (read ugly stepfather). He is a real horror show. He borders on
being a child abuser to the kids. He's obsessive about cleanliness, but
ungraciously farts at the table, all the while demanding manners and decorum from
the kids. He's real low class socially handicapped wretch. Mom puts up with him,
like Marcella's husband, at least he's lusty - hideous but horny. The ambivalent,
confusing, layered characterizations are what make the film so powerful and
interesting. These characters have flaws, some seemed driven by class, some by
innate character. These flaws and details of character are charming one minute and
contemptible the next. The audience really has to negotiate conflicting feeling of
class, sexuality, ambition, commitment, and the role of a woman as mother and wife
through the quickly changing terrain of the story. At the bottom line, as with many
films like the wonderful Icelandic movie "Thicker Than Water (Blóðbönd), the
children can be the victims. What's right in the end may be what's best for the
children who are our salvation and our future. It's a theme played out these days
in films ranging from Pan's Labyrinth to Children of Men. Foreign. Cinema is
recognizing in intricate morality tales that life is confusing, brutal, unfair and,
as adults, we must get our act together in order to pass something worthwhile to
the next generation. If we give in to our baser instincts, we may lose ourselves
and the world in the process. The extraordinary and complex and colorful characters
in Kráska v nesnázích speak to the qualities of what makes a man, what drives a
women, what embodies hope, what is class - is it economic status of the fabric of
one's character? The film is richly human as embodied by the very last 2 shots,
which moved me incredibly and unexpectedly. The director's choices are so subtle
and intelligent that to compare this to an American film seems unfair. Americans
sometimes seem to lack the desire to consider that paradoxes in human nature don't
offer set resolutions. But here, perilously couched in ostensible fairy tale for
adults, are interesting moral questions. Don't be fooled by the simple story; this
is a great movie.
This was an excellent movie! I saw this at the Karlovy Vary IFF in the Czech
Republic, and it won an award there. This is the first film I've ever seen from Jan
(the director), and I was impressed. It's a great story about love and family. The
movie has a great balance of comedy, romance, drama, and suspense all in one. I
will not give away any of the plot, but this is a well-made film, and I would watch
it again if I had the chance! The cinematography/editing is great, the film simply
flows, and the characters are warm, and they are the kind that one can relate to. I
hope you can enjoy this film as I did. If anyone knows where I can find this in the
United States, or if they plan on releasing it on DVD anytime soon, please let me
know!!
I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival. The
film's title and in fact much of the outline of the film is from the Robert Graves
poem Beauty in Trouble. Jan Hrebejk directs a screenplay by Petr Jrchovský from a
story by Hrebejk and Jrchovský. the story begins in 2002 when Prague is hit by one
of those devastating 100 year floods that destroys the household of Marcela (Ana
Ceislerová) and Jarda (Roman Luknár) and their two children Kuba (Adam Misik) and
Lucina (Michaela Mrvikova). Because of the moldy conditions where they now live
Kuba's asthma is life threatening. Marcela works and Jarda runs a chop shop out of
the garage they live next to. Jarda's shady occupation runs him afoul of the law
and one of his theft victims becomes infatuated with Marcela. Evzen Benes (Josef
Abrhám) is a wealthy businessman who divides his time between Italy and the Czech
Republic and offers to care Marcela and her two kids. Jana Brejchová is Marcella's
mother who lives with her common-law husband called Uncle Richie played by Jirí
Schmitzer in probably the film's best role. Rounding out this excellent cast is
Emília Vasaryova as Jarda's mentally fragile mother who gives any money she gets to
the local religious charlatan. There is a lot going on here for a small film and
it's good story with a great script and a lot of comic relief. Ales Brezina
provides the music score with additional music from Czech singer Raduza and Irish
singer Glen Hansard. There is a lot to like about this film and I would give it an
8.0 out of 10 and recommend it.
Crackerjack is a hit and miss film set in the Australian suburban lawn bowls club
of Cityside. Mick Molloy plays a scammer who has been scoring free parking spaces
at Cityside. When the club is put under pressure to install poker machines in it's
premises they need to raise $8000 to keep this from happening. The club needs new
members to help and this is where Mick molloys character comes in and has to bowl
to save the club. With many up and coming and aging Australian actors Crackerjack
is a hidden gem. Be warned though most of the jokes are for those with a knowledge
of lawn bowls but there are many amusing sight gags that provide comical relief.
Sam Johnson and Judith Lucy co-star. Overall the movie should be recommended for
people who play lawn bowls or have played but there is enough other material in
there for an amusing play if you have a slight understanding. If you enjoy
Australian humour I suggest you get you're bowling whites on and head on out to the
theatre because this is the premiere lawn bowls comedy of the year(also the only
one).
Crackerjack is a funny movie, everyone at the bowlo has seen it and all say the
same. The wheel of cheese was a great part of the movie, also the loud speaker
"dear Mr so and so you have left you right indicator on". Or when Jack goes home
and lays down on the couch and cracks a beer, "bowls is hard work" cracked me up.
And when his roommate shows interest by joining the club and calling bingo number.
Jack buying all the raffle tickets to win the meat tray. Bloody great movie if you
are into lawn bowls as you can relate to it, if your not a lawn bowler forget it i
think. The Evans Head Bowlo would rate as the best club in Aus, friendly people,
great company.Hi to Evans Head Bowlo Steve
Crackerjack is another classic Aussie film. As so many Australian films like The
Castle, The Dish and Sunday Too Far Away, it goes somewhere that hasn't been widely
explored in film before, this time it is the game of Lawn Bowls and bowling clubs.
Crackerjack is a much slower paced sports movie than many you will find such as
Remember the Titans or Million Dollar Babybut the characters involved are athletes
in their own right. This movie is a show case of a large area of Australian culture
and features a sport that is popular and on the rise of popularity in Australia.
Mick Molloy presents a classic, unforgettable character. It really is a must see.
Coming from Oz I probably shouldn't say it but I find a lot of the local movies
lacking that cohesive flow with a weak storyline. This comedy lacks in nothing.
Great story, no overacting, no melodrama, just brilliant comedy as we know Oz can
do it. Do yourself a favour and laugh till you drop.
Considering the appalling track record of Mick Molloy since going out on his own, I
had rather low expectations of Crackerjack. Even the promotional posters for the
movie had me nervous. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that I'd received free
tickets to the preview, I would have resisted the pressure from the missus (who
thinks Mick's a hunk - there's a worry) to pay money for it. The first
few minutes of the movie had me worried - it starts with one of Micks tired "get
angry at insignificant things" routines, but that was given a neat touch, which at
least made it a little refreshing. The rest of the script was pretty good, and very
light hearted - even the typical Mick Molloy (and Judith Lucy) humour was delivered
well and whilst I never had to pick myself up from the aisles, it generated a lot
more chuckles that I was expecting (and it was consistant). There's
nothing new in the plot - pretty predictable, but it moved along quickly between
one-liners and other jokes - I never felt it harboured on any element too long or
too short; Mick must have worked hard on polishing his script. There were a one or
two "Late Show" in-jokes, and one or two jokes that only Melbournians would get -
but certainly there's plenty of generic stuff in there for a wider audience. Something that I found disappointing was the relative unfunnyness of John
Clarke - he just didn't seem to work as the bad guy, but that doesn't detract from
the movie too much. Over all, I enjoyed this Australain comedy, and was
pleasantly entertained for the duration of the movie. I left the cinema with a
decent sized grin - a pretty hard thing for an Australian comedy to do in my books.
7.5/10 
A movie I've seen and enjoyed possibly more than any other movie. I first saw it as
a kid and loved the drama and the great climactic battle. As I got older, I enjoyed
it as much or more than before, but now due to all of the components that work
together to make a true classic. The acting is great (especially Keith as T.
Roosevelt), the cinematography spectacular, the script is full of gems, and the
directing pulls it all together wonderfully. It's loosely based on an actual event,
and it shows rush of Europe and a newly emergent America to carve up the 'Sick old
Man' (the Ottoman Empire) as it collapses in a fashion unlike any other
'historical' movie I've seen. Humor, drama, action, love...it's got it all and
deserves far more acclaim (much like 'The Great Waldo Pepper').
It is more a subtle story of the fact that in Indian household how most decisions
are taken by the man, how no attention is paid to the desires of the lady, for
example how even when the husband and wife sleep together it would be a test for
the husband whether he can control his desires, not to give the woman pleasure. And
in such a type of scenario, women invariably have two choices, either to accept all
this and take it into their own life, which is usually the case or not accept this
and try to mould things to satisfy themselves, which makes a movie! Fire
is a brilliantly directed story of the second option, which women choose for
themselves, no sacrifice, not to serve anybody else, rather a decision for their
own good. Somehow the whole idea of justifying lesbianism didn't find an acceptance
in the Indian audience but if one looks the whole movie from an angle of self-
expression, then the whole debate doesn't even arise.
While not for everyone, Crackerjack is a delight to watch, with tongue planted
firmly in cheek. The likeable character of Jack Simpson, played by Mick Molloy, is
scamming the local "bowlo" for free parking and making a couple of dollars on the
side, selling the parking space to work colleagues. When the Bowling Club members
need to raise some money to save their club, they call upon Jack to join their
bowling team and play competition bowls. Filled with Aussie Charm, the
laconic wit of Mick Molloy is showing through (he also co-wrote the script)
reminding this viewer of his earlier work in Radio. Perfect Aussie casting with
Bill Hunter as Jack's bowling mentor Stan Coombes, John Clarke (of The Games fame)
as the ruthless businessman and rival bowls club owner Bernie Fowler, with Samuel
Johnson as Jack's flatmate Dave, and Judith Lucy as the jaded Journalist, Nancy. Initially, I figured only fans of Molloy would like this flick but judging
by the number of the blue rinse set exiting the cinema chuckling, this is a film
for everyone.
A very comical but down to earth look into the behind the scene workings of an
Australian bowling club. The way they deal with various problems such as takeovers,
memberships and general running of the club, not to mention the car parking dilemma
was well scripted.
A fairly typical Australian movie where the underdog saves the day inspite of
himself. I guess there is no real reason to see this pic if you have seen "The
Castle" or "The Dish". It still leaves you with a positive feeling at the end and
it as good or better than most Hollywood stuff.
I was reticent to see this flick before reading the external reviews and user
comments posted here. Why? Firstly because Mick Malloy's humour can (in my humble
opinion) be pretty crass and over the top, evidenced by his ill fated shemozzle of
a television show some years back. And secondly because good Aussie comedy films
are sadly as rare as the Tassie Tiger. Sensibly Mick has restrained his
natural comedic exuberance in this surprisingly watchable movie. Who would have
thought that a bowls club would provide the setting for one of the funniest
Australian films in years. The cast is excellent with familiar local old timers all
putting in believable performances. Interesting to see John Clarke
playing the villain in this piece. It's a one dimensional part but JC still adds a
touch of class, as always. Good to see Judith Lucy also getting a Guernsey or
should I saw bowls uniform on the big screen. She's a real talent, pity a number of
her retorts were expletives. Her own material is a lot wittier. Interesting
character though. Bowls reporter on a local rag. How low on the journalist food
chain can one get!! Crackerjack may not be the funniest film I've seen
this year but it's certainly an enjoyable diversion, well worth a look. Lots of
other people obviously agree with me as it's headed to be the biggest grossing
Australian film this year. Good to see someone finally make a quirky, gentle comedy
without trying to sledgehammer the laughs like so many Australian 'comedies' before
it. Finally a bit of trivia. If you're wondering which Aussie Rules
team Mick supports check out the flag on his workstation. Also look out for his old
partner in crime, Tony Martin doing the announcing in the final bowls scene. 
 Crackerjack, starring Mick Malloy & Judith Lucy - both part of the cast
in the early 90's Saturday night comedy show "The Late Show", Bill Hunter, an
Australian movie icon and John Clarke, who we still see regularly on Australian TV
along side Brian Dawe. Crackerjack, losely is about a guy in his early
30's (Jack Simpson, played by Mick Malloy) who pays his yearly memebership at the
local bowls club in order to get a few car park spaces for which he uses himself
and rents out to others as cheap inner city parking. The club falls on
hard times, and pulls all the resources and memebers together it can, Jack gets a
phone call telling him to turn up to next Saturday's bowls match or lose his
membership (and conseqently his car park space) I wont spoil the rest,
but the film is funny, light hearted and contains everything a good aussie film
should. If your not Australian, then some of the jokes and humour will
no doubt baffle you, if you are an Aussie - do yourself a favor and sit yourself
down to Crackerjack.. Its now available on DVD, I already have my copy! 10/10.. Awesome flick! 
This is the first feature film from Australian comedian Mick Molloy. Mick wrote the
film with his brother Richard with help from John Clarke, another comedian and
actor. Mick & John also have starring roles along with several other iconic
Australian actors - Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson et al. The basic premise of the movie
is that slimy Jack Simpson (Mick Molloy) has become a member of a Lawn Bowls Club
for the sole purpose of getting a free car park near his work. The Club is in dire
financial straits and calls on Jack to help. John Clarke plays the clubs arch
nemesis - he is trying to take the club over and turn it into a "Poker Machine
Slum" Jack and the other club members band together to try and save the club with
many funny twists and turns and Jacks eventual redemption. This is quite a clever
little movie. It is well above Mick Molloys usual gutter humor. It is pretty well
written and well acted. The older Aussie actors are brilliant (Bill Hunter, Frank
Wilson Monica Maughan and ors) The film meanders along rather then going at break
neck pace, but that adds to the charm of the movie. There is low level coarse
language.
Crackerjack is a simple but feelgood movie where the good guys are very good and
the bad guys are very bad and the central character is tempted by both sides. The combination of the central character being played by Mick Malloy and
the central setting being the local lawn bowls clubs drew an unusually broad crowd
ranging from large numbers of teenagers to large numbers of senior citizens - and
all laughed at the comedy. As would be expected of a movie with Mick
Malloy and Judith Lucy there was quite a bit of swearing, but it was not overdone
and the audience I sat with certainly enjoyed it! Mick Malloy did a good
job as the lazy bloke who joined the bowls club (three times) simply to get parking
spaces (one for himself and two for leasing to others at a premium) but who has
everything fall down on him when he is required to play or lose his
membership. Judith Lucy does a fine job as his local journalist/love-
interest and there are fabulous performances from Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson, Monica
Maughan, Lois Ramsey and many others. John Clarke's dour role as the bad
guy is not one of his funniest but he gives a solid performance. The not
so subtle swipes at pokies provide a bit of a serious note to this otherwise light
comedy. I'm sure that those who enjoyed The Castle and The Dish would
also enjoy this movie.
WORTH IT FOR: If not for Mick Molloy's work, then for Judith Lucy. She brings her
usual classy style of unbridled foul-mouthery to the role, and steals the show in
parts. IMHO: I'm not much of an autograph hunter, but I have collected
3. The first is Samuel L. Jackson's, the other 2 are in this movie: Tony Martin and
Mick Molloy. Altho Martin only makes a cameo appearance, Molloy not only stars but
co-wrote and co-produced this flick. I've been a fan of their for years now
(apparently I was the only one laughing during the on-set urination in the first
episode of the short lived The Mick Molloy Show), so I went in to this with high
expectations. I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed. With Mick doing a lot of the
work on this thing there's plenty of his usual trademarks. Phrases like "blow it
out your arse" and "these bowls are s***house" are all over the place, aswell as
plenty of Winnie Blues being sucked down. It's also the sort of stupid, original
story you'd expect from someone like him. This is like one of those cliqued,
American, sporting comedies where they make a baseball team out of prisoners or
something. But rather than trying to make a dull American sport like baseball or
gridiron interesting, this movie focuses on a sport usually left to grey army: Lawn
Bowls. But the main difference between this and other sporting type comedies is
that this is actually very, very funny. What's even better is that even tho the
subject of this movie is a young lout joining an old folks game, it's never
insulting to the elderly, and it never gets sickeningly soppy or anything. It's
just good laughs at genuine 1972 prices. Mick is great in the first real acting
role I've ever seen him in, as is Judith Lucy and the rest of the cast, but then
most of them have had a lot of practice... This is the best Australian comedy I've
seen in a long time. Go see it and learn the joys of Lawn Bowls! IT'S A
BIT LIKE: Major League? SCORE: 8 / 10
I was very impressed with the latest production from Mick Molloy. As a fan of his,
I was used to a different kind of humour than displayed here. He wisely opted with
a more subtle, broad style of comedy in Crackerjack, rather than his usual low
brow, in-your-face ramblings. It is, at times, inconsistent and un-even, but a
decent script works past that, and makes for some entertaining viewing. Directed by
Paul Moloney (who has directed almost every Australian TV series imaginable),
Crackerjack tells the story of Jack Simpson, a bloke that belongs to his local
bowls club for the sole reason of parking. When the club hits financial trouble, he
is forced to bowl competitively in an attempt to raise the funds to save the club
from becoming a poker machine haven. A familiar, and successful formula, that is
handled well. There is no denying that the film owes it's success to the great
casting of Molloy. He seemed to have a great rapport with Samuel Johnson, and
excellent chemistry with Judith Lucy, and while the character is probably not a far
stretch from his own personality, you can't help but wonder why he hadn't tried his
arm at film earlier. To smooth out the in-experienced cast, the delightful Frank
Wilson and Bill Hunter support, and often steal their scenes. They are two fine
actors and the pair cruise through their roles with ease. Had it not been for the
huge success of 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding', Crackerjack would have made it to
number 1 at the Australian box office, but when you consider what he film is about
and who is involved, even making it to number 2 was an outstanding effort. All in
all, a witty, feel-good movie. Great cast, great crew, and a great soundtrack,
combine to make one of the better Australian films of 2002. 7/10.
Sharky's Machine is easily one of Burt Reynolds best efforts. It also stands as one
of the best contemporary crime dramas. Erotic and violent, the movie distinguishes
itself by setting the story in Atlanta, and delivering a chaotic detective case, to
you(the viewer), on a silver platter. Dedicated and determined, Sharky must stop
the murder of Dominoe, a lovely lady of the night, who's clientel is anything but
ordinary. Before long, Sharky's crimefighting Machine uncovers a conspiracy of the
highest order, which threatens to corrupt the inner body of Atlanta. As a resident
of Metro Atlanta, I recall the excitement in town during the movie's production.
Sharky's Machine goes to great lengths to give an accurate portrayal of Atlanta.
Twenty years removed and 2,000,000-more people later, the film stands the test of
time. Trust me, Atlanta has not changed. One of the highlights of the picture is
Dar Robinson's daring stunt(a classic, symbolic ending). It was even featured on
That's Incredible, ABC's reality show of the period. It's just too bad that
Hollywood does not make enough films like this one. Kick back, each your popcorn,
and watch sterling silver cinema action.
This film is well cast, often silly and always funny. Lemmon and Matthau work their
tag team magic to perfection. Brent Spiner is just a riot as the egotistical tyrant
of a cruise director. From the first "hare krishna" to the last "you ought pay him
fifty bucks for calling you two studs", I thought this was a totally entertaining
fun comedy
Sharky's Machine is a crime drama set in early 80's Atlanta. It stars Burt Reynolds
as a renegade cop who is hellbent on stopping crime and corruption in his city. The
story is about a dirty politician who is at the top of a crime ring that has been
brining the city to it's knees. Sharky's link to bringing down this syndicate is a
high-priced hooker that he falls for during the course of the movie. The action
sequences are well done for the early 80's and the soundtrack / score are pretty
good. The acting is B-level but this is a pretty decent film to have in your DVD
collection. Overall 7/10 Peace Buggieblade
In the tradition of "neo" film noir flicks like "Chinatown", this film focuses on a
crime mystery in a bleak realm with a bit of character insight blended in. The
typical noir characters thoughout, including the cop out to prove himself, a damsel
in distress and a bad, bad guy. Sharky's Machine gets a 9 out of 10 for its
cinematography first, plus its direction, story, strong character acting and superb
jazz score. Available on DVD, though the soundtrack itself is out of print (but
available "used" on some auction sites). Filmed on location in beautiful downtown
Atlanta (novelist Diehl's hometown) and the uncluttered, circa 1979 look of the
city would make an old-time Atlanta citizen or visitor long for the old days before
12-lane interstates crisscrossed the city, a cinematographer's dream at that time.
This was Rachel Ward's first USA feature film.
Burt Reynolds directed this action movie and (surprise!) he is actually a pretty
good director. This movie starts off well as Burt's attempted bust of a drug dealer
is botched, and he is demoted down to the vice squad. The ensemble cast has some
pretty funny scenes as Brian Kieth is always eating something, Bernie Casey has
more class than all of his co-workers combined, and Charles Durning loses control
of his squad. The vice cops stumble on a high-priced call-girl ring that
may have something to do with a series of murders. Sharkey spends days staking out
Dominoe's (Rachel Ward) apartment, and starts to really adore her from afar. Just when they are getting close to the crime leader, Dominoe is murdered.
I won't give away any of the surprises in the plot, but the first hour of this film
is great. Unfortunately, the screenplay gets very clichéd and
unbelievable after that. Why would Burt Reynolds confront the crime boss
with his big secret? Sure it makes the guy sweat, but it causes many more cops to
be killed. And it is not believable that Dominoe and Sharkey would make love after
they have know each other for one day, much less while their lives are in danger.
And at the end, what happened to all the police that run into the building with our
heroes? Isn't there a SWAT team? Also, the film never actually tells you how all of
the bad guys are connected, and why they have to kill so many people. There is a very effective torture scene on a boat near the end of the film, which
is probably the only really nail-biting scene of the film. It is a shame that the
climax is a typical shoot-em-up. Still, this film is certainly entertaining if you
like crime and action movies. Don't think about the plot holes, and you will have a
good time.
In short if you want to watch Burt Reynolds best films than this one must be
included. If you don't like Burt you may still like this. If you love Burt this may
become one of your favorite movies of all time! Being from Atlanta it does hit home
but it's also nice to see a cop/action/drama that takes place somewhere other than
NY City, Chicago, Miami, or LA. The film is funny at points with & good plot & good
performances from a great supporting cast (every character is real & the bad guys
are not so one sided they are really well thought out)A nice offbeat romance in the
2nd half & it has some good old fashion shootouts & fistfights (no CGI thank God
REAL ACTION!) If Clint Eastwood did his best impression of a Burt
Reynolds movie with "Every Which Way But Loose" & "Any Which Way You Can" then Burt
responded with his best Clint type flick with this, & it comes off great!
"Sharky's Machine" is clearly a Burt Reynolds vehicle designed to allow the star
room to strut his talents and he spray-paints the machine, the film plot, with
colors from other films and other styles, offering a variety of moods within a
nourish story. Made in 1981 at 119 minutes (lengthy for the time
period), the film did well, with box office grosses at $37,800,000. It had a lot
going for it: Burt Reynolds actor and director, a solid one-two punch; a William
Diel novel adaptation, and the south land of Atlanta Georgia, at this time, a land
of opportunity for film production out of Hollywood. Reynolds' Tom
Sharky falling in love with Rachel Ward's Dominoe the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold
is here echoed as it was in "Hustle" when he played opposite Catherine Deneuve, and
that film also had a corrupt politician at its core, but with downbeat ending not
the Hollywood happiness in "Sharky's Machine". The story is pure
Detective procedure/actioner. Sharky a narcotics detective mismanages up a bust of
a drug dealer, causing the killing of some innocent bystanders, and gets demoted,
literally transferred downstairs to vice, to deal with perverts, and other m
misdemeanors that 'upstanding' cops consider latrine duty. His new digs offers him
the chance to meet many equally upstanding officers who are doing the dirty jobs no
one else wants. When some attention is pointed toward a certain pimp Sharky looks
over some evidence and discovers that one particular prostitute Dominoe (Rachel
Ward) - Dominoe is being shielded by police forces and political forces and Sharky
sets himself up a 24-hour surveillance force to watch her. During the time he
watches he learns that the current Governor-elect Hotchkins (Earl Holliman) is
visiting Dominoe, as is a slick Italian gangster Victor (Vittorio Gassman). Before
the police can build a case with the evidence, Billy, Victor's brother, a coke-
snorting gunman (Henry Silva) shoots through the door of Dominoe's apartment
seemingly killing the beautiful Dominoe, but when Sharky discovers that the
murdered victim was actually a roommate Tiffany (Aarika Wells) Sharky confronts
Victor and tells him that he is going to have him arrested. Sharky is captured by
some Ninja killers lead by Smiley (Darryl Hickman) and is tortured for information
to lead to Dominoe, but Sharky overpowers them and arrests the Governor and in a
heated chase kills Billy after he has killed Victor. Reynolds wants to
exhibit the inner workings of a hardened policemen falling in love, but the police-
story plot, flavored with noir element, and Reynolds ability at cinematic
development tends to slick over the dynamics of the relationships. We
come to learn something about some of the men and this leads us to reason why they
are working towards their pensions in vice, instead of fighting real crime- this
element of the film seems sketchy under Reynolds' off-handed direction and
performance. There is always uniqueness to a Reynolds film. He likes to
hire stars, either character actors or others and then allow them to improvise,
sometimes with varying results. With his crew in "Sharky's Machine" he
gets some fine moments, and sometimes some overblown grandstanding but always a
sense of ensemble and good-natured-ness. With Reynolds as auteur it works. Reynolds, the actor/auteur always seems to be smirking at himself and the viewer
as if to say it's all fake, but good fun. Great line: In the scene with
Victor when Sharky throws down the gauntlet "You're walkin' all over people like
you own 'em ,and you wanna know the worst part? You're from out of state." This
seems to be the greatest insult the officer can throw at a criminal. Reynolds made the film in Atlanta at his career point have shot himself reading
the phone book and would have surely targeted and demographic. The film
did mark the appearance of Rachel Ward who was nominated as New Star of the Year in
1981 by the Golden Globe. Reynolds has always had presence and star
power and has chosen to make films close to home, Georgia. I got my DVD
from half.com for $7.99 and unfortunately it doesn't contain any commentary or
making-of features, which is a shame. Maybe the next generation will have
them. The movie is still a lot of fun and both Reynolds and Ward are
great-looking actors in their prime.
Burt Reynolds stars as an undercover cop who is after a crime boss.. Rachel Ward as
the high price call girl he falls for..Burt does well in this role and I think he
would've done well in more roles like this.. Rachel Ward is beautiful
and sexy in her part..good pacing and story but something is missing in the
equation.. on a scale of one to ten..7
Meester Sharky, you look so ... normal. You would never get a table in this fancy
cocktail restaurant/bistro. I, on the other 'and eat grapes and pate 'ere every
day. You like my fur coat with all the fine trimming? My enormous golden rings of
gold? Or maybe you like these blonde, 'ow you say?, bombshells, who are all
qualified in aerobics and naked petanques, who decorate my long, maroon velvety
sofa like so many soft boiled larks on a plate of pan fried foie gras and figs. You
like? You can't have! Zey are all mine. You will never possess 'er as I
possessed 'er. Domino was the best, apart from Maman. You do not understand the art
of lovemaking. Just look at your inferior moustache. It is almost funny to me, non,
to think of that ludicrous protuberance on your silly face, as you snuffle around
Domino's love hillock like the piggy seeking the truffle in the forest, the forest
heaving and swaying in the hot winds of desire! You lose again Sharky. When I make love to the women zey know, Sharky, zey know. Zey learn, zey learn
until zey become the teacher. Not nano-maths, the arts of love. Domino was the
seedling which I watered. I watered her so very often. Everywhere Sharky. Her
scented petals, her proud stalk, everywhere. She will wither under your ridiculous
hose, like the soufflé removed from the oven five minute too soon. I
must go now Sharky, you bore me so with your disgraceful behaviour. It is you who
will be flushed down le pissoir like the smelly thing. Bon chance!
Without a doubt, the best Burt Reynolds film ever! Even better than Smokey and the
Bandit. This was probably the first real bloody cop thriller of the 1980s and
delivered the perfect blend of humor, action, mystery and style that is missing in
today's films. This one has it all: A psychotic Henry Silva jacked up on
PCP, $1,000 a night call girls, ninja assassins and Burt Reynolds getting his
fingers sliced off, one by one, with a butterfly knife. The film is based on the
novel by William Diehl who also wrote PRIMAL FEAR, another one of my all-time
favorites. This movie is worth watching just to see Henry Silva get shot six times,
crash through a window, and fall thirty stories from the top of an Atlanta high-
rise. This is probably the coolest stunt in Hollywood history, performed by
legendary stuntman Dar Robinson. Robinson also played "Moke" in the
Elmore Leonard movie STICK, also starring Burt Reynolds. Stick features another
great Dar Robinson stunt. Robinson falls from a Miami apartment building and
unloads all six shots from a .44 magnum on his way down. Very cool stuff. SHARKY'S MACHINE is my favorite police drama. I never understood why this
film flopped the way it did. If Burt did more films like this, he would've built a
better reputation for himself. He proves to be a talented director with Sharky, as
well as a gifted actor. Burt is supported by Brian Kieth, Charles Durning, Bernie
Casey, Richard Libertini, Rachel Ward, and everyone's favorite bad guy Henry Silva.
PLEASE remake this classic film! Get Affleck and Samuel L. and some other hot
actors and you've got a great movie just waiting to be filmed. I give it
a 9 out of 10
I think this is one of Burts top five movies, along with Deliverance, Smokey and
the Bandit, Boogie Nights and City Heat. He also directed this one so he had a
talent for that too like his buddy Clint Eastwood. I wish he made more films like
this or even a sequel to Sharkys Machine than the likes of Stroker Ace or
Cannonball Run II. This is a tough, gritty cop thriller with Reynolds at the top of
his game. Having the beautiful Rachel Ward in it of Thorn Birds fame helped too.
Henry Silva is the bad guy and he always does a good job at that. The film also a
great soundtrack too. I highly recommend this, wish it was on DVD in the UK, an
audio commentary from Reynolds would be great as well. ***7/10***
An intense, dark action drama with unusually rich support from Casey, Keith, et.
al, many of whom get the best roles of their careers and run with it. The film is
oddly shaped -- often the action slows down just to let the characters get caught
up in odd but well-done seemingly improved dialogues -- during the stakeouts,
almost all of the "Machine" get caught up in perfectly delivered humorous
monologues -- and Reynolds the director deserves mucho credit for having Reynolds
the star step back and give them room. And unlike most action films, you really get
to like the characters, which makes the 2nd half, when their various destinies good
and bad unfold, unusually affecting. The combination of character development,
brutal violence, a jazzy soundtrack (Tarantino must be a fan -- watch this & then
"Jackie Brown" and you'll see what I'm talking about)make this occasionally flawed
film (The bad guys are a bit melodramatic) one of the better modern cop films, and
in my mind superior to many of the overrated modern noirs such as "Body Heat" &
such.
"Out to Sea" is a fun movie starring that wonderful duo of Jack Lemmon and Walter
Matthau. This film is not quite as funny as their "Grumpy Old Men" comedies (which
it strongly resembles), but there are many laughs throughout. Lemmon and Matthau
play a couple of in-laws who take a cruise together. Once they get on the boat, the
thing Lemmon doesn't know is that Matthau has signed them on as dance hosts so they
don't have to pay for the cruise. This infuriates Lemmon who's in no mood to dance.
What's worse, Matthau doesn't even know how to dance. Nevertheless, they go along
with it and it the process they meet some of their fellow passengers and crew
members. Here are the crew members: there's the cruise director Gil Godwyn, played
to the hilt by "Star Trek: The Next Generation" veteran Brent Spiner, who acts like
an evil dictator. There's two fellow dance hosts, played by "Barney Miller" star
Hal Linden and veteran movie musical star Donald O'Connor. There's the ship's owner
Mrs. Carruthers, played by "Golden Girl" Rue McClanahan. As for the passengers:
there's Vivian, a widow played by Gloria De Haven, who falls in love with Lemmon.
There's Liz, played by one of my all-time favorite actresses, Dyan Cannon, who
falls in love with Matthau. There's Mavis, Liz's mother, played by veteran stage
actress Elaine Stritch. And they meet others as well. All these actors are a
pleasure to watch as Lemmon and Matthau play off of them. It's great to see Cannon
here, see's beautiful as ever; Stritch is a hoot; Spiner is a funny comic villain
who's plays it deadly straight; De Haven is wonderful; Linden, O'Connor, and
McClanahan have a good moment or two; and finally, the two main stars, Lemmon and
Matthau, are fine as usual. A nice little gem of a comedy. *** (out of
four)
This is the best thing Burt Reynolds ever did . . . . nice combination of suspense
and humor, with an excellent supporting cast, this is a very well written and
credible urban drama with a great sound track as well . . . makes you wonder why
Reynolds doesn't direct more movies . . .
Great just great! The West Coast got "Dirty" Harry Callahan, the East Coast got
Sharky. Burt Reynolds plays Sharky in "Sharky's Machine" and I enjoyed every minute
of it. Playing a maverick narcotics cop in Atlanta, GA is just what everyone wants.
Instead of suspension, he's sent to vice squad. Like in the Dirty Harry movies or
any other cop movies, the captain is always going to be the jerk. When I was a kid,
I was curious what that movie meant "Sharky's Machine". Well I knew who played
Sharky, I wonder what his machine was. It was his GROUP of fellow cops. After
uncovering the murder, he goes all out to find the perp. When it turns out to be a
big time mob boss, Sharky doesn't play around. When he gets the other prostitute
into safety, Sharky fights back hard and good despite losing a finger to the thug.
And I also like the part where the bad gets blown out of the building through a
plate glass window. That was the BOMB! Randy Crawford's "Street Life" really put
the movie in the right mood, and the movie itself is really a great hit to me,
ALWAYS! Rating 4 out of 5 stars.
This is Burt Reynolds'"Citizen Kane".Tragically nothing else he was ever involved
in came close to approaching "Sharkey's Machine".It seemed to me that he put
everything he had into it.It is a movie that is in love with movies.The opening
sequence where Detective Sharkey single-handedly rescues a bus-load of hostages is
an immensely exciting piece of cinema. Everything moves so quickly once it has
started to go wrong that it appears to take on a life of its own,a brilliantly
achieved effect. It looks cold,tense and dangerous on Mr Reynolds' streets. The
precinct house looks dirty and tired,full of desperate people on both sides of the
law,shouting,cursing out,trying to do deals or just stay alive.Into this underworld
descends the recently demoted Sharkey - a reward for a bungled drugs bust(caused by
a corrupt cop) - he and his team are part of the vice squad.Information they pick
up concerning a crooked politician leads them into the world of high-class call
girls and ruthless drug barons. Watching the apartment of one such call-girl(Rachel
Ward)Sharkey falls in love with her portrait on the wall(I know,I know)and when a
woman's body is found with its face shot off in one of the rooms,he thinks its her.
(Well,I did say it was a movie that loved movies). The scene where she walks in on
him works beautifully,even if you have seen the original. The film is full of good
touches,I particularly like Charles Durning's war story,subtly acted and shot in
sharp contrast to Sharkey's abduction and torture which is suitably harsh and
brutal. I must mention Vittorio Gassman and Henry Silva as two disparate but
equally evil brothers with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever. They are
"full on" every time they're on screen and are no loss to society when their time
comes,Mr Silva's end being extra special indeed. As has been mention,this is a
Clint Eastwood movie that Clint never made.The biggest compliment I can pay
"Sharkey's Machine" is to point out that in my opinion Clint Eastwood couldn't have
made a better job of it. The soundtrack is of an equally high standard,featuring
Sarah Vaughan,Joe Williams,Julie London,Chet Baker and other top class artists.
Randy Crawford's "Street Life" plays behind the title sequence,and I can never hear
it without ,in my mind's eye,seeing Sharkey striding along the sidewalk. Like other
correspondents I have never understood why this film was a bit of a flop.I hope it
is due for a critical revision,particularly at a time when so many cop movies and
shows without a quarter of its energy , freshness and sheer joie de vivre are
lauded from the rooftops. If you're ever tempted to think of Burt Reynolds as a
burnt - out one - trick pony,put "Sharkey's Machine" in your video machine.I
promise you won't be disappointed.
While he was great in Boogie Nights, I think that this was Burt Reynolds' best
performance. He's also a great director and has made a tough, violent movie that
doesn't hold back (a hooker's death by 12 gauge) and is an excellent detective
story with some great actors (Brian Keith, Bernie Casey, etc.) and an outstanding
jazz soundtrack. 10 out of 10
Burt Reynolds' riposte to Clint Eastwood encroaching on his redneck comedy turf
with his orangutan comedies was to make his own Dirty Harry in Chicago-style
thriller, Sharky's Machine. Originally intended for John Boorman but in the end
directed by the star himself, it's an out-and-out commercial package with Reynolds
a narc who gets busted down to the Vice Squad (literally - they're in the basement)
who sets out to nail a mysterious crime lord who is backing Earl Holliman as the
next governor. You can guess the rest, but while Reynolds tends to lose sight of
the story at times he has a good eye for individual scenes and almost gets a
performance out of Rachel ward as the high-class hooker he falls for. The romantic
subplot is unusually well developed, there are a couple of good action scenes and
some nice touches, such as having Vittorio Gassman's lookalike villain a mirror
image of the hero or Reynolds and a killer both staking out a witness from adjacent
apartments in the same building. One of the star's better films from his glory
days, it's no classic but it makes for a more than efficient Saturday night
special.
I'm a fan of B grade 80s films in which the hero is a bit of a bad guy, a strong
male, who finds love - and this film delivers! Towards the finish you do
not know how Sharky will not be killed (and doesn't he take a beating!
Realistically portrayed I believe). However he does and it's not via some overdone
'Die Hard' stunt. The 'past it' team he works with comes together, hence the title.
His team are all characters - people on the sideline at work because they don't
quite conform. These portrayals are funny and sympathetic - they have a real
feeling to them. They're up against an iceman of an assassin, with a good team of
his own. The result is a great film noir.
Dirty Harry goes to Atlanta is what Burt called this fantastic, first-rate
detective thriller that borrows some of its plot from the venerable Dana Andrews
movie "Laura." Not only does Burt Reynolds star in this superb saga but he also
helmed it and he doesn't make a single mistake either staging the action or with
his casting of characters. Not a bad performance in the movie and Reynolds does an
outstanding job of directing it. Henry Silva is truly icy as a hit-man. Detective Tom Sharky (Burt Reynolds) is on a narcotics case in underground
Atlanta when everything goes wrong. He winds up chasing a suspect and shooting it
out with the gunman on a bus. During the melee, an innocent bystander dies. John
Woo's "The Killer" replicates this scene. Anyway, the Atlanta Police Department
busts Burt down to Vice and he takes orders from a new boss, Frisco (Charles
Durning of "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?") in the basement. Sharky winds up in a
real cesspool of crime. Sharky and his fellow detectives Arch (Bernie Casey) and
Papa (Brian Keith) set up surveillance on a high-priced call girl Dominoe (Rachel
Ward of "After Dark, My Sweet")who has a luxurious apartment that she shares with
another girl. Dominoe is seeing a local politician Hotchkins (Earl
Holliman of "Police Woman") on the side who is campaigning for governor but the
chief villain, Victor (Vittorio Gassman of "The Dirty Game") wants him to end the
affair. Hotchkins is reluctant to accommodate Victor, so Victor has cocaine
snorting Billy Score (Henry Silva of "Wipeout")terminate Dominoe. Billy blasts a
hole the size of a twelve inch pizza in the door of Dominoe's apartment and kills
her. Sharky has done the unthinkable. During the surveillance, he has
grown fond of Dominoe to the point that he becomes hopelessly infatuated with her.
Sharky's mission in life now is to bust Victor, but he learns that Victor has an
informant inside the Atlanta Police Department. The plot really heats up when
Sharky discovers later that Billy shot the wrong girl and that Dominoe is still
alive! Sharky takes her into protective custody and things grow even more
complicated. He assembles his "Machine" of the title to deal with Victor and his
hoods. William Fraker's widescreen lensing of the action is immaculate.
Unfortunately, this vastly underrated classic is available only as a full-frame
film. Fraker definitely contributes to the atmosphere of the picture, especially
during the mutilation scene on the boat when the villain's cut off one of Sharky's
fingers. This is a rather gruesome scene. Burt never made a movie that
surpassed "Sharky's Machine."
This was one of those films I would always come across (be it on TV or cheap DVD),
but never struck me to give it a shot as I thought I wasn't missing out on much. It
was on one night and I thought oh well why not. A good decision too, as I would
kick myself for taking so long to get around to it. For me it left me impressed, as
it's up there with Burt Reynold's best features ('Deliverance', 'White Lightning'
and 'Boogie Nights') and streams back to those 70s/80s gritty, hardboiled urban
crime thrillers that weren't afraid to be forebodingly obscure and go out of their
way to set-up characters, pack-it with realistically brutal force and effectively
incorporate the local locations (Atlanta being the case here) to the fold with
grounded photography. In certain shades it kind of reminded me of 'Dirty Harry',
but that's loosely. However it's saucily honed blues score with its simmering
kicks, funky shifts and unhinged sounds, very much had me thinking of Lalo
Schifrin's pulsating score he orchestrated for 'Dirty Harry'. The music soundtrack
on the other hand is hit or miss. Sgt. Tom Sharky was an Atlantic
narcotic agent before a slip-out during a bust saw him demoted to vice work. Along
with his new squad they come across a prostitution ring, which catches their
interest due to fact it's owned by one hard-to-track and to convict crime lord.
What they dig up involves a prominent government figure and a call-girl which can
give them some important names, but they must get to her before she's made a
target. Burt Reynold's acts, but also directs in an unyieldingly firm
and muscular fashion which would suit his laconically hard-nosed performance and
Gerald Di Pego's thematically hard-bitten and taut screenplay (that was adapted
from William Diehl's novel). Well he does show some sort of heart/insightful
thoughts amongst that armor within the scenes involving the fetchingly able British
actress Rachel Ward, be it the stake-out scenes when he's watching her from another
building (and slowly becoming infatuated by her) to when they finally come
together, but these latter interactions mid-way through do slow up the momentum but
give it noir like strokes. The performances are fairly spot on with Reynold's
formulating a great rapport with exceptional actors Charles Durning, Earl Holliman,
Brian Keith, Richard Libertini and Bernie Casey. The scathing profanity and witty
dialogues between these guys were a blast. As for the corrupt villains, Vittorio
Gassman builds imposing strength and power, but it's Henry Silva (who seems born
for these roles) icily cunning and unstoppable turn that makes the show. Where his
appearance seems to outline things to come and help them fall into place. Plus his
adrenaline-filled and violent cat and mouse climax with Sharky and his team is
brilliantly done. The exciting action passages might be quick and dry,
but remain lethally violent like an immensely teeth-grinding interrogation
sequence. Some handy, old fashion filming techniques add to the suspense. The
intriguing material keeps it quite tactical being character derived, but when we
think its smooth sailing it offers up a blunt surprise or two along with some
intensely brunt confrontations.
***SPOIERS*** Atlanta crime auctioneer with Burt Reynolds,Sgt. Sharky, and his
tough and well oiled "Sharky's Machine" Let. Frisco, Charles Durning, and officers
Papa & Arch, Brian Keith & Berney Casey, breaking up the Atlanta crime Syndicate
who's on the verge of putting "Their Man" in the Geroria Governor's State House.
 Busted after messing up a major drug police sting operation, with the
drug dealer and a number of innocent pedestrians shot and killed, Sgt. Sharky was
transfered into vice. Busting hookers johns and perverts Sgt. Sharky finds a list
of call girls in the wallet of a top Atlanta pimp and after bugging one of the call
girls apartment it turns out that she's having Don Hotchkins, Earl Holliman, a
candidate for governor as a regular costumer. As Sharky starts to
investigate this strange arraignment he finds out that the good family man, married
with five children, Hotchkins is also on the payroll of Vittorio "Victor" Gassman
the mob "Godfather" of Atlanta.The high-price call-girl Dominoe, Rachel Ward,who's
involved with Hotchkins is tired of being a hooker and want's to leave Victor's
stable of call-girls and live with Hotchkins as his live-in mistress after he gets
elected governor of Georgia, which is already a forgone conclusion, but their's
only one slight hitch; will Victor let go of her. Tangling with the
Gassman Syndicate the corrupt Atlanta police and city officials, as well as the
local Chinese mob, Sgt. Sharky ends up losing most of his men, including two of his
fingers, as he brings down the Gassman Mafia in a final shoot-out with the his
Mobsters at the famous Atlanta Peachtree Plaza Hotel's. Statueques and
beautiful Rachel Ward as Dominoe is thought to have been murdered by Gassman's
drugged-out hit-man Billy Score,Henry Silva,who blew her face off with a shot gun
but in reality it turned out that he really killed Dominoe's call-girl room-mate
Tiffany, Aarika Wells, with Dominoe away in the country. Sharky, who
was in love with Dominoe from afar, found out the truth about her being alive and
to the surprise and shock of mob kingpin Victor Gassman is going to use her, by
getting Dominoe to testify against him, to put Gassman and his mob away for good
but the cunning and vicious Victor wasn't going to go willingly and let Sharky know
it sooner then he thought. Blood spattering shootout at the Peachtree
Plaza Hotel in the films final sequence with Shark'y Machine having it out with the
almost indestructible junkie hit-man Billy Score. Shooting it out on the hotel
stairway both Billy Score and Sharky's machine member Arch come face to face with
Billy's drug induced invincibility clashing with Arch's Zen reality alerting
philosophy in what can best be said to be a battle of two cultures: West and East.
Burt Reynold's Direct's and star's in this great Cop film, Reynold's play's the
Sharkey of the title, who is a tough cop whilst working in undercover a drug bust
goes wrong, and is demoted to vice, The machine of the title refer's to
the motley crew Reynold's's assemble's to bring down a crooked governor who is
involved in high class prostitution Cocaine and contract murder, The
motley crew is played by Brian Keith, Blackploitaion favorite Bernie Casey, Richard
Libertini,(as alway's quirky as an ace sounds-man) Charle's Durning, as the chief,
The beautiful English rose Rachael Ward play's Dominoe a $1000 dollar's a night
hooker whom Reynold's's protect's and eventually fall's for, When staking out an
apartment used by the governor. Italian actor Vittorio Gassman, play's
the High stake's pimp, who has a deadly gang of triad's at his disposal, And Henry
DeSilva, play's His psychotic brother hit man who is highly strung On prescription
painkiller's and angel Dust, The action packed finale see's the
remaining member's of the 'Machine' Engaged in a deadly shootout with Desilva,
which culminate's in one the Most spectacular stunt's ever put to Celluloid, Alas Hollywood has ran out of idea's and is contemplating a remake of
Sharky's Machine! Why bother a 25th Anniversary Special Edition DVD would be ideal,
not a silly ass remake,
Out to Sea was a great movie. I expected comedy and from about 10 minutes into the
film to the end, there was comedy, and laughing points. Jack and Walter are great
together, and the addition of Rue McClanahan made it a wonderful movie, that should
be seen over and over again.
That's how Burt Reynolds describes this film, which happens to be his best ever. He
plays Tom Sharky, a vice detective who's on the trail of an international mobster
(Vittorio Gassman) and the man he's financing to be the next governor of Georgia
(Earl Holliman). In the novel by William Diehl, the story is more complex because
the guy's running for president. This is a very long movie that feels more like
three hours instead of two. The filming in downtown Atlanta and the Peachtree Plaza
hotel sets the mood just right for the story. Reynolds doesn't do much laughing in
this one compared to his comedy films. He's very serious here, especially in the
beginning of the movie because he gets demoted for a dope bust that goes wrong. At
times though, the movie plays more like a voyeuristic drama than a crime film with
Burt trying to get close to the mobster's woman. Only towards the end of the film
does the violence get cranked up that leads to the bang bang climax. Just like the
great jazz score in DIRTY HARRY by Lalo Schifrin, Sharky's Machine features an
excellent urban jazz soundtrack with many guest stars including Chet Baker, Julie
London, Flora Purim & Buddy De Franco, The Manhattan Transfer, Doc Severinson,
Sarah Vaughan and Joe Williams. Al Capps handles the score with magic. This movie
has become one of the best crime dramas ever. Check it out. Score, 8 out
of 10 Stars
Sharky's Machine finds Burt Reynolds as a narcotics cop who after a failed buy and
bust that wasn't his fault, but that got a few people killed in it, he finds
himself demoted to the vice squad in Atlanta. The prestige is hardly as
good as the narcotics beat, but it does have its fringe benefits. One night after a
roundup of working girls where one of their books falls into their hands, the guys
ask for surveillance on Rachel Ward's place. She's an expensive item, servicing
both notorious mobster Vittorio Gassman and law and order gubernatorial candidate
Earl Holliman. Their surveillance however records a murder and the rest
of the film is Sharky and his new colleagues from vice trying to solve this
prestige case. Though it's a Burt Reynolds film and those usually have
some humor to them, the comedy is kept in check as the film turns as deadly serious
as Dirty Harry. It was reported in fact that Clint Eastwood was offered this
film. Look for some good performances by fellow vice cops Bernie Casey
and Brian Keith and by Henry Silva the coked up brother of Gassman who does the
dirty work of the organization and loves his job. It's not a bad film, a
mixture of Dirty Harry and Laura. Why Laura? You'll have to see Sharky's Machine
for that answer.
I haven't seen every single movie that Burt Reynolds has ever made, but this one
(which I've just finished watching, for the third time) may very well be his best!
It suffers only from some slow stretches; Burt perhaps tried to make it more "arty"
than it should have been. On the other hand, he managed to avoid many of the usual
cliches in the presentation of the "tough cop" role he plays (notice, for example,
the scene in which he attempts to kiss Rachel Ward for the first time, or the fear
he expresses just before the final showdown with the indestructible Henry Silva).
In fact, Silva and those two ninja assassins are three of the most memorable
villains of cop thrillers of the 80s. The film also has some offbeat touches, a
surprising amount of humor, a brutal and gripping fistfight and many well-directed
shots. (***)
The jazz soundtrack makes this seem like a Clint Eastwood movie. In fact
the whole thing strikes me as Burt doing Clint. The story is good and the movie is
full of one liners that I carry with me to this day. (Reynolds to bad guy: I'm
gonna pull the chain on you pal, because you're f'n up my town. And you wanna know
the worst part? You're from outta state!) Highlights: The Technics 1500B
reel to reel is nice set dressing for audiophiles! Charles Durning
coming unglued while listening to wiretap tapes of prostitutes having (sort of)
phone sex. (You'd have to see it, trust me, it's hilarious.) Brian Keith
plays against type as a tough guy. (And does it well!) Bernie Casie's
preoccupation with Zen. Rachel Ward. WOW! (Where'd she go?) Doc Severinsen and the Tonight Show band play their rears off as usual. (Joe
William's guests on vocals. Manhattan Transfer re-recorded "Route 66".) The
soundtrack lends class to the whole affair. Need I say more? It might be
Reynold's best film ever. (Yeah, he plays himself, as usual, but it
works!) Enjoy!
The above profile was written by me when I used the nick of OldWereWolf56 which is
still my email address. I still believe Andy Devine's character of Frisky is the
best Twilight Zone's episodes ever and I watch this episode at least once a year as
I consider Frisby to be a fortunate man as he has many friends who love him dearly.
 In case many of you are too young to remember, I'm 61, Andy Devine
hosted a children's entertainment show in the 50's I believe called Andy's Gang. On
it he had three assistants: a cat named Midnight who played the violin, a mouse
named Squeaky who played an a hand organ and a devilish toad named Froggy who's
could appear and disappear at will embarrassing many of Andy's funny guest stars
like Billy Gilbert.
One of the few comedic Twilight Zones that's actually really good. We have Floyd
The Barber from Andy Griffith Show,The stock in trade Old Geezer dude from Many old
westerns,and lovable old Frisby. It also has that cool spacecraft interior that I
believe was used in the Sci Fi classic Forbidden Planet.Or else The Day The Earth
Stood Sill.Plus the new guys in town are driving an exotic Renault(I think) sports
car back in the days when European automobiles were known as "Foreign Jobs" in the
U.S.. The whole idea of harmonica as weapon is a hoot.And the fact that Frisby's
buddies love him despite being the fact he's a total BS artist is a heartwarming
moment.
I always loved that scratchy voiced guy in all those westerns. He was the sidekick
(Jingles) in the Wild Bill Hickock show back in the fifties. In this he has the
perfect vehicle for his wonderful bragging character. He is harmless and no one
believes him, but he is non-flustered and goes on anyway. When you have a guy like
this, there's no challenging because the details aren't there to quibble with. Of
course, in this episode, he is taken on board a space ship by a group of aliens who
have no sense of humor and believe everything they hear. They don't have the word
lie in their vocabularies. As it turns out, he is so insufferable that they can't
handle him; and then, of course, there is the secret weapon. See this just to watch
Andy.
Cliche romance drama movie with very simple plot but very good cinematography and
script.The screenplay,directing and acting was also good.The flow of the movie is
kind of manipulative in order to bring the audience to tears through the excellent
love music and circumstance which works but later on after the movie,makes one feel
raped in a way.Jones makes her character very memorable and lovable though.A deeper
story could have reaaly taken this movie to a higher level but still,the movie
delivers for it's genre.Only for hopeless romantics,big love story fans,big soap
drama fans,50's Cinemascope cinematography fans and fans of the lead actors.....
This movie is the best one forever upon the warm feelings of this real love story
during the Korean war by the story of Hy sun the Eurasian doctor and Mark Elliot an
American corespondent at the shadow of different habits between east and west upon
his quotation in the love scene between two lovers when he invited her to dance
(The relationship between east and west must be close) in spite of Chinese habits
and customs that destiny made their great role by appointing between them to
replace the pains for both (Elliot suffered from failure marriage ) and (Hy sun
suffered from the harmful shoot of her husband by Chinese communists at the time of
Mao Ze dung in 1949). She could not stop the decision of destiny in
spite of her practical profile because love has a magnetic spirit for everyone seek
for happiness , soul and brilliant memory as the final quotation by the voice of
Elliot after his death and the sadness receive for Hy Sun for this hard situations
when she went to the hill the source of this love under the tree to say goodbye for
his body and live with his soul among their souvenirs.
On a second viewing, this is still a wonderful romance that is, in my opinion, much
better than the film it came paired with on my 2-DVD set, the Leo McCarey weepie
classic "An Affair To Remember". Yet it seems to have fallen out of favour slightly
(Only a 6.6 rating here on IMDb, and dismissed by many critics as "gooey slush").
How sad, because this is an intelligent romantic drama with very good work by the
two leads, Jennifer Jones and William Holden. If anything the film should be well-
remembered for the gorgeous colour cinematography and the unforgettable musical
score. I don't much like Valentine's Day but it gave me an excuse to watch this
movie again, and I'm glad of it. While I still think Holden's character death is
too heavily foreshadowed, taking suspense out of the final scenes, this film is
very moving and I really enjoy it.
with two old friends. I've always enjoyed both Lemmon's and Mathaeu's
films, and of course their team efforts are always worth watching, and often
hilarious. Although I didn't personally regard this film as in the
hilarious category, it is certainly a competent and entertaining vehicle for fans
of the two principle actors and of 60s style romantic comedy plots. Brent Spiner may actually steal the show in terms of laughs as the arrogant and
tyrannical Cruise Director. Gloria DeHaven proves that senior ladies can
remain enormously attractive.
After many, many years I saw again this beautiful love story, thinking about how
would I, half a century after, react to a film which made so many girls cry and
sigh at that time, when I was just an male adolescent trying to understand women's
behaviors, in a small city in Brazil. This time, however, what caught my
attention in the film was something very different, namely the insistence with
which the physician Dr. Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones) makes clear to the journalist
Mark Elliott (William Holden) her special ethically condition as an Eurasian. In
fact, she is constantly putting emphasis on this point in their relationship,
repeating she is willing to assume her love for him and carry it on in a
"occidental way", provided that, by doing so, she is not betraying her Chinese
side. Its seems to the spectator that Suyin is eagerly making efforts to establish
a very subtle conciliation between those two unstable and opposite aspects of her
culture, for they will immediately engage in overt conflict in her mind at a
minimum failure in her attempts to control them. Therefore, Suyin's
attitudes always leave poor Elliott a determined, brave and extremely practical
man anxious and perplexed, without knowing how much importance to give to her
words. For him, whose love for her is plain and simple, the situation is totally
clear: if we love each other, let us make a couple and begin immediately a life
together. "Not so fast", is what she seems, verbally and non-verbally, to answer
him all the time. In fact, Suyin's Chinese portion would never allow her
such a level of pragmatism. And, as she goes on and on reinforcing this much aimed
equilibrium between those two worlds inside herself, she also frequently signals to
him that also a very peculiar trait of Chinese culture is deeply rooted in her
mind, namely the constant "raids" on the real world by invisible beings from an
spiritual or non-physical world. For Suyin is always alerting Elliott about how
dangerous is life, not because of any objective and concrete threat (as would be
the perpetuation of the English colonialism or the eminence of a Japanese
invasion), but due to the threats of plenty of cruel and harmful gods and other
mystical and mythical beings over the poor, fearful and vulnerable human beings. In fact, it looks like a whole bunch of Chinese deities are permanently on
the watch to make people's life totally miserable. Because of that, mothers must
dress their precious male babies in girls clothes, so that they are not taken away
by jealous gods; everyone should always be ready to make loud noises to send the
clouds away, in order to avoid their covering the sight of the moon; peasants are
advised that they should shout loudly "The rice is bad! The rice is bad!" to
protect their crops from being stolen by deities; and, in a funeral, it is
recommended that the dead's family be isolated from the other people by curtains,
so that the gods don't take advantage of their sorrow and fragility. In
other words, Suyin introduces us to a culture in which the supernatural has a real
existence, as if a rather disturbing pantheon of malign and sadistic gods are
always on the verge of negatively interfering with the most banal acts in anyone's
daily life. As the story takes place in Hong Kong in 1949, it should be
clear that China really was, at that time, almost a semi-feudal society, while the
country from which Elliott had come from was not yet dominated by the fierce
capitalism that, launched by the USA after the first oil shock in 1973, took charge
of the whole world. Therefore, at least in one aspect, both sides of Suyin's
Eurasian personality were still much more innocent than they would be today. A lot of History came into being since those old days. As to China, the
main fact is that, after several phases of a communist regime, the country finally
reached, in the last two decades, the condition of a very aggressive economy much
more properly described as State capitalism. And, what happened to that old
spirituality that so much enthralled Suyin in Hong Kong, in 1949, and with which
she used to impress so much an impassioned Elliott, under that tree on the hill
behind the hospital? It is gone, completely gone! In brief, if that story took
place today, Elliott would not find it necessary to go to China to propose to Suyin
in the presence of the Third Uncle and her entire family. In fact, both men would
now be incomparably closer to one another, in their huge pragmatism, talking
business as usual!
It stars war correspondent William Holden separated, who falls in love with a
stunning Eurasian doctor Jessica Jones set against the stunning backdrop of Hong
Kong. The cinematography is magnificent as they rendezvous on a hill overlooking
Hong Kong. The story deals with racial tensions, society frowning on mixed
relations and extra marital affairs. But what I love about it is the strong
character of the heroine portrayed by Jessica Jones, who is a Eurasian doctor, who
stays humble and steadfast in her altruistic mission and stays loyal to her love.
Despite that, she gets sacked at her hospital for cavorting with a married man by
gossipping high rankers. One day William Holden is called to the Korean war which
he covers and then that ill fated day, she gets the news of his demise. The end, of
course is tragic, I cried when she went to their hill. It was a very sweet ill
fated love affair. It defeats all the odds, the fact that she got fired from her
job, how his wife would not grant him a divorce yet their great love persevered--
they experienced a great love despite it all. I personally do not believe in
extramarital affairs, and think he should have not started something when he was
bound to someone else and she should not have allowed herself to let it happen, but
despite that a truly magnificent movie. I think the heroine overshadowed the hero.
Jessica Jones is sultry and gave a magnificent performance although I thought it
strange they didn't not hire a real Asian actress or someone with Asian blood. I
agree with one review, Jessica Jones oozes sexuality when she lays on the ground
and looks up at William Holden speaking calmly but her eyes say come take me
now. I find it a pity most great films were made before I was born, it
seems many Hollywood movies are lacking in depth, great acting and depend entirely
on stunts and heavy sex scenes. This is truly one of the greatest ill-fated love
stories in movies.
The beautifully engaging song with the same name as the film won the best song
Oscar in 1955. Love is a many splendored thing. It's the
April rose that only grows in the early spring. Love is nature's way of
giving a reason to be living. That golden crown that makes a man a
king. Once on a high and windy hill In the morning mist two
lovers kissed and the world stood still. Then your fingers touched my
silent heart and taught it how to sing. Yes, true love a many-splendored
thing. How can we forget such a beautiful song. Henry King, the
director, had the privilege to work with Jennifer Jones twice that year for this
film and the greatly under-rated film "Good Morning, Miss Dove." Jones was
nominated for "Splendored Thing" but she could have been easily nominated for Miss
Dove as well. William Holden is just great as the war correspondent sent
to report on the Communist revolution in 1949 China. His love for Jones, an
oriental doctor, was endearing and so memorable to watch. While the
ending is not pleasing, this is still one of the greatest romances ever put on the
screen.
This film always hits me hard emotionally at the end. Though the issues of the film
- interracial romance and adultery - were controversial at the time, this film goes
way beyond those narrow parameters of ground breaking novelty and trail blazing
uniqueness. Here we have a true love story, as written by the woman involved in
this love affair, told in a brilliant aggressive style that extols the virtues and
glory of mad passionate love. I "love" this endorsement of the only emotion that
makes life truly worth living. Jennifer Jones is full of grace and William Holden
is simply magnificent in his role as a reporter. A wonderful film that only people
who have been in this kind of love can really appreciate and understand. And for
those who haven't yet been in love, even just the hope that one day lightning can
strike for you makes life worth living - because love is worth having even if but
for a short time - even if you lose - because love is the "stuff" - the essence -
of life. This film works for me. A warmly felt experience!
Based on the 1952 autobiography "A Many-Splendoured Thing," "Love Is a Many-
Splendored Thing" (1955) tells the story of Han Suyin, focusing on the romance that
Han, a widowed Eurasian doctor in 1949 Hong Kong, had with a married American
correspondent named Mark Elliott. "I don't want to feel anything again, ever," Han
tells Mark soon after they meet, but the two soon develop the mutual irresistibles
for each other, and who can blame them? Mark is played by William Holden at the
near peak of his hunky-dude period (the following year's "Picnic" would be the
peak) in this, the first of three films over the next seven years that would find
Holden in China (1960's "The World of Suzie Wong" and 1962's "Satan Never Sleeps"
being the others). And Dr. Han is here played by Jennifer Jones, who, although not
a Eurasian (unlike yummy Nancy Kwan and pretty France Nuyen of those other exotic
Holden films), does a credible job of passing as one. Whether dressed in cheongsam,
European frock, surgical gown or (hubba-hubba!) bathing suit, Jones looks
ridiculously gorgeous here. No wonder East meets West in this film so dramatically!
With its two appealing lead stars, breathtaking Hong Kong scenery, beautiful
CinemaScope and color, Oscar-winning costumes and that classic, Oscar-winning title
song that wafts through the film like a lovely incense, "Love Is a Many-Splendored
Thing" turns out to be quite the winning and romantic concoction. Han herself
supposedly did not care for the picture, so I can only imagine that great liberties
were taken with her source material. Still, I enjoyed it. And if the film's ending
causes a tear to come to the eye, just remember Mark's words of wisdom: "Life's
greatest tragedy is not to be loved."
This movie is based on the book, "A Many Splendored Thing" by Han Suyin and tackles
issues of race relations between Asians and Whites, a topic that comes from Han's
personal experiences as an Eurasian growing up in China. That background, and the
beautiful Hong Kong settings, gives this love story a unique and rather daring
atmosphere for its time. Other than that, the story is a stereotypical
romance with a memorable song that is perhaps more remembered than the movie
itself. The beautiful Jennifer Jones looks the part and gives a wonderful, Oscar
nominated performance as a doctor of mixed breed during the advent of Communism in
mainland China. William Holden never looked better playing a romantic lead as a
journalist covering war torn regions in the world. The acting is top notch, and the
chemistry between the two lovers provides for some genuine moments of silver screen
affection sure to melt the hearts of those who are romantically inclined. The cinematography really brings out fifty's Hong Kong, especially the
hilltop overlooking the harbor where the two lovers spend their most intimate
moments. The ending is a real tear-jerker. Some may consider sentimental romances
passé, but, for those who enjoy classic Hollywood love stories, this is a shining
example.
This film immediately catches the eye, with the atmospheric aerial views of a very
pretty Hong Hong. Filmed in those rich colours of 1950 films which modern
blockbusters never seem to capture. Probably a sign of those times, because this is
not a high powered, seen it all before film, full of havoc and violence. The havoc
and violence are there though, in the backdrop, with thousands of refugees trying
to get out of China This is a very moving and compelling story, full of hope and
love in a tragic time, in recent history. The story of two people from different
cultures falling in love. And the build up to them trying to overcome this is the
heart of this very fine and moving film.
I regard this loving, and sensitively written story, to be one of the screen's true
masterpieces. After having seen this film, originally on the silver screen with my
mother, in Los Angeles, California when it first came out, many years passed before
I would have the opportunity to experience it again. The beauty, quiet simplistic
elegance and tranquility of the film to me, set it aside from many, many others of
its kind. Yes, tears still come to my eyes when I see it, and hear the refrain of
that once in a lifetime song. perhaps still, today my number one all-time most
beloved film. I would hope, this classic love story will be enjoyed, and
appreciated, by our future generations.
Age cannot tarnish the beauty of this East-west love story for me. Ignoring the
famous and lovely title song and its lyrics, what we have is a dramatized biography
of two remarkable people caught in a moment of counter-currents involving social
conformity, bigotry, war, doubt, and the need for immense courage. With Hong Kong
as the backdrop, this movie tells the story of a Eurasian doctor and a U.S.
journalist who meet and fall in love during the Korean War. As Mark Elliott,
William Holden is intelligent, breezy and a bit weak; Jennifer Jones is perhaps
well-nigh-perfect as Dr. Han Suyin, by turns doubt-torn and ecstatic, eager and
hesitant. Others in the large cast include Torin Thatcher, Isobel Elsom, Murray
Matheson, Virginia Gregg, Richard Loo, Soo Yong, Philip Ahn, Jorja Curtright and
Donna Martell; many of Hollywood's best oriental actors played smaller uncredited
parts also. The script by John Patrick followed Han's exquisite novel closely; the
direction by Henry King was solid as always. The thrust of the storyline is how
unwilling Han was to fall in love with Elliott, with her busy and demanding
schedule as a doctor and her doubts about their future; and how unafraid he was,
despite the intolerance and interference they faced as their affair became known.
The film is unarguably physically busy, interesting and often beautiful also. The
hill to which the lovers go to be apart, the lovely bay where they swim are set
against an already busy and crowded business city, large social events, and teeming
streets, hospital corridors, and traffic-filled arteries. With cinematography by
Leon Shamroy, Ben Nye's makeup and Helen Turpin's hairstyles, the great work by set
decorators, sound and lighting, art department and all concerned, this has to be
one of the most memorable productions set in a major non-U.S. city of all time, and
one of the most difficult to capture on film. Yet what one remembers most here is
the lovers, thankfully not extremely young, facing the odds against them and
assessing exactly what they are--then going ahead as if love mattered and those
conditions which are set up as barriers to love do not., The climax of the affair
is Mark's going back to war; thereafter Han receives his letters, even after she
knows he is has been killed; they seem messages from a better wold. A world where
hope is all that matters, courage is the price of admittance to that world, and it
is always summer on a high and windy hill set apart and above a zone where beauty
and individual desires can be victimized, made subject to ill-fortune or brushed
aside by militant forces of evil. Truly, love is a many-splendored thing, Dr. Han
says; and this movie stands as one of that doctrine's shining proofs, lucent as a
pearl, timeless as a Chinese proverb and lovely as polished jade set against a
rough background.
"Love is a Many-Splendored Thing" is set in Hong Kong in 1949-50, and tells the
story of the relationship between Mark Elliott, a white American journalist, and
Han Suyin, a half-Chinese half-European doctor. This story of a mixed-race love
affair was quite a daring theme for the fifties, and, as it often did, Hollywood
tried to soften the blow by casting a white actress as the supposedly non-Caucasian
woman who falls in love with a white man, something that would be regarded as
politically incorrect today but was quite acceptable then.. (Think, for example, of
the casting of Ava Gardner in "Show Boat" or Natalie Wood in "West Side Story") The
setting of the story in a British colony was also perhaps a way of exploring racial
issues in a way that would cause less controversy in America. Suyin loses her job
in a Hong Kong hospital because her British superiors take exception to the fact
that she is dating a white man, whom she is unable to marry because his estranged
wife will not grant him a divorce. As was sometimes the case, European colonialism
was made the whipping-boy for some of America's own failings. Imagine the furore
that would have been unleashed had a similar film been made about a black or mixed-
race woman doctor in a hospital in Alabama. Besides racial issues, the
film also raises questions of international politics, referring to both the
Communist seizure of power in China and the outbreak of the Korean War. Han Suyin
was a real person and a well-known author of the period; in reality she tended to
support Mao's Communist regime, but here she is shown as firmly anti-Communist.
This is not, however, primarily an "issue" movie about either racialism or
politics, but rather a romance, a good example of what would have been known at the
time as a "woman's picture". Such films, although mostly made by male directors,
were mostly aimed at female audiences. They dealt with love and romance- often
unhappy romance- from the woman's point of view, and had a strong female character
in the leading role. The genre often provided roles for actresses older than the
heroines of standard romances. Earlier examples were normally in monochrome, but by
the fifties they generally, as here, used lush, sumptuous colour. Although a Chinese or Eurasian actress would have been more convincing in the
role, Jennifer Jones, does a very good job as Suyin. I found William Holden, as
Mark, rather uncharismatic, but this does not matter much as Suyin is very much the
dominant figure. She is screen much more than Mark, and the film examines her
family and professional life much more than it does his. Although Jennifer was
still strikingly beautiful, she was in her mid-thirties, rather older than most
romantic heroines of films of this period. Holden was about the same age, unusually
for the fifties when "boy-meets-girl" often meant "older man meets girl". The film is not particularly profound, but is well-made with some
attractive photography, particularly of Hong Kong itself, reflecting the growing
trend in the fifties for shooting on location rather than on studio sets. Seldom
can Hong Kong have looked so beautiful; the view from a hill overlooking the city
takes on a special meaning, as this is where Suyin and Mark go for their romantic
assignments. The overall mood is one of poignant, doomed romance, a mood heightened
by the atmospheric photography and the musical score, including one of the most
memorable movie themes ever written. 7/10
This is the kind of movie that people of a certain age will say of "I didn't think
they made movies like that anymore". Walter Matthau gives his usual over-the-top
performance, but instead of leaving teeth marks all over the scenery, leaves
endearing grease stains. He is like that great uncle we all know that still wears
plaid polyester and embarrasses everyone, but we still love anyway. Jack
Lemmon's performance reminds us why he had more Golden Globe nominations than
anyone else (22). He gives a true-to-life performance of the basically 'good,
ordinary man', even in the milieu of a farce. This film will probably
not appeal to people who prefer blunt humor designed to confront or offend, but
will appeal to people who appreciate broad farce played with a straight face. The entire supporting cast is excellent in their ability to play such
absurd characters while maintaining the reality of each character. Brent
Spiner gives a marvelous performance as a professional version of a lounge lizard.
Anyone who has known professional hosts in real life will immediately recognize the
type he is playing. He nails the type perfectly. His rendition of 'slime' merits
study as a perfect example of the contrast between absurd and pathetic. The plot is rather a straight-forward 'let's marry rich' theme that has the usual
results. Just because a plot theme has been done a thousand times does not mean
that it is dated, but rather that it is a timeless theme. The rest of
the supporting cast shows what can happen when professionals exhibit their skills
in the roles that are written for them, instead of vying for the spotlight. In this
film even the second tier actors shine. It is also obvious that they enjoyed making
this film. The plot may be standard and thin, but it allows the
performers to shine. This film is a true treat for people who want to
see professional actors engaging in their craft. The plot falls away and the
performers shine.
I have just sat through this film again and can only wonder if we will see the
likes of films like this anymore? The timeless music, the tender voices of William
Holden and Jennifer Jones leave this grown man weeping through joyous, romantic
scenes and I'm not one who cries very often in life. Where have our William
Holden's gone and will they make these moving, wonderful, movies any more? It's sad
to have to realize that they probably won't but don't think about it, just try to
block that out of your mind. Even so, they won't have Holden in it and he won't
appear on that hill just once more either. You can only enjoy this film and watch
it again.
Directed by a veteran Hollywood director Henry King who began his career still in
1915, Love is a Many Splendored Thing was one of his last great films. It was based
on a bestseller by Han Suyin called simply A Many Splendored Thing the phrase that
was borrowed by the author from the poem The Kingdom of God by Francis Thompson
where that many splendored word `love' was used in quite a different and rather
transcendental context meaning the love of God. Made in the 50s, the film marked
along with works by such directors as Douglas Sirk and Vincente Minnelli a sort of
renascence of melodrama, its florescence and reaching yet again a peak of
popularity. The story begins when a handsome American reporter Mark
Elliott played by William Holden yet once again typecast in one of his irresistible
`playboy' roles comes to the Hong Kong and meets there a young and pretty Han Suyin
(Jennifer Jones) of half-Chinese half-English origin who is working as a doctor at
a hospital and whose husband was recently killed by the Chinese communists.
Instantly Mark feels a rather strong attraction towards her but at the beginning
his deep feelings are not quite reciprocated by Han's heart left cold after the
death of her husband (Ì believe in human heart now only as a doctor'). But very
soon she yields to the persistent courting of tempting as hell Mark and both of
them enter a passionate relationship apparently stoppable by nothing, even by the
fact that Mark is unhappily married and his wife doesn't want to give him a divorce
or social differences and prejudices caused by Han's Chinese origin. But still it's
the fate that has a final word to say in determining the fairness of the
eternalness of such a blissful loving relationship for no matter how enduring the
two assume it to be the merciless time is waiting in a rather alarming form of
death, prepared at any given moment to prove its impermanence. 
Undoubtedly one of the most romantic films ever made, Love is a Many Splendored
Thing features fine performances from William Holden and Jennifer Jones, wonderful
Academy Award winning musical score by Alfred Newman and extremely romantic,
touching, heart-warming but ultimately heart-breaking story. Don't miss that many
splendored film. 8/10 
I first saw this film in the mid 60's when I was a teenager, and it moved me so
much, in fact the end scene where Han Suyin hears of Mark's death, and then rushes
to the hill in disbelief, where you then hear Mark's voice saying "Give Me Your
Hand", and then the image of him disappears, the butterfly with it's superstitious
meaning, the music, the shattered emotions of Love of Han Suyin, just left me
sobbing my heart out. I was outwardly crying bitterly, my mother and sister looked
up and were shocked at my reaction. I just left the room to be on my own.
Fortunately I do not react like that any more BUT I always cry at the end. I love
everything about the film, the music mostly, the costumes of Han Suyin, and
location. The beauty of Jennifer Jones and the handsome William Holden, they were
both at their best. I have the VHS and DVD of this wonderful movie. I also have two
versions of the Music & Lyrics by Arthur Newman and Sammy Fain. I also have the
book A Many Splendored Thing by Han Suyin. I recommend this film 100%
Holden and Jones SIZZLE in this movie, but not in the way we think of sizzling
today -- it's very subtle and under the surface -- yet palpable. Jennifer Jones, in
particular, is SO SEXUALLY HOT in this film (much more than a caricature like
Monroe EVER was) because she creates a real woman -- with ALL facets of womanhood:
She's intelligent, intuitive, graceful. She's desiring AND desirable. There's a scene on that famous hill, where she's lying down in the grass, looking
up at Holden, and the expression in her eyes is X-rated, yet in the context of the
scene and character, in makes complete sense. You don't need to have it all said in
the dialogue -- spelled-out like the crude obviousness in most modern films. It's
all there in her eyes -- sexy yet elegant. What a stunning, under-rated actress she
was. (I saw her MADAME BOVARY for the first time recently and was equally blown
away.) I'll take her over Bergman, Davis, or the two Hepburns any day.
Two great stars and a legendary Director created a magnificent throbbing love story
that is memorable and moving on so many levels. Henry King directed
Jennifer Jones in her first hit Song of Bernadette and he again directs Jennifer
Jones in this film and Miss Jones is perfect in this role and gives a edgy,
beautiful performance that captures the conflict in the character and Bill Holden
who hit home run after home run in the l950's with a series of smash hit films
beginning with Sunset Blvd, Stalag 17, Born Yesterday,Country Girl, Picnic, and of
course River Kwai is superb in this role.Hard to imagine anyone but Holden in this
movie I loved the ending and cry every time I see it. For anyone who has ever loved
and lost, you will understand. For those who haven't, you won't.
This movie will likely be too sentimental for many viewers, especially contemporary
audiences. Nevertheless I enjoyed this film thanks mostly to the down-to-earth
charm of William Holden, one of my favorite stars, and the dazzling beauty of
Jennifer Jones. There are some truly heartwarming scenes between the pair and the
talent of these two actors rescues what in lesser hands could've been trite lines.
The cinematography of Hong Kong from the period of filming is another highlight of
this movie. All in all, a better than average romantic drama, 7/10.
Those prophetic words were spoken by William Holden (as a war reporter) to the
beauteous Jennifer Jones (as a Eurasian doctor), explaining his failing marriage on
the beach. They start an affair, despite huge odds of adultery and racial issues.
In Hollywood of the 1950s, interracial romance was allowed but only with dire
consequences at the end. Beautiful Hong Kong scenery (although some beach scenes
look studio-bound), a famous title tune, poetic script, lovely background music (by
Alfred Newman), great costumes, outstanding performances, especially Jones
(directed here by Henry King, who also did "The Song of Bernadette - 1943, an Oscar
for Jones) still make this a world-class romance weeper.
We all want to fall in love... The experience makes us feel completely alive, where
every sense is heightened, every emotion is magnified... It may only last a moment,
an hour, an afternoon, but that doesn't reduce its value, because we are left with
memories that we treasure for the rest of our lives... I love watching
people fall in love... It must have something to do with the excellent chemistry
between the main characters... Mark Elliott, a charming sensitive
American war correspondent, arrives in Hong Kong at the dawn of the Korean war...
He finds in Han Suyin an awesome beauty of true grace... Han Suyin, a
lovely Eurasian doctor is captivated by Mark's tenderness and insight... It was instant attraction when they first met... The two commence a
passionate affair, leading them to fall deeply in love... Their love is
so strong, so wonderfully expressed that highlights Elliot's married status, and
the difficulties of the troubled time of the Korean War, communism and race
relations... Holden is an inspired choice for the role... Not only does
he have an imposing screen presence, but he brings the perfect mix of
enlightenment, compassion and emotion to the part... Opposite him Oscar
Winner Jennifer Jones, perfect in her oriental look, radiantly beautiful in that
traditional and modern Asian-inspired Cheongsam... Jones floods her role with
personal emotion giving her character a charismatic life of its own... She delivers
a heartfelt performance turning her character into a woman who undergoes a
spiritual and emotional awakening... Her scene in that verdant hill
where she takes refuge is exquisitely touching specially when we heard Mark's voice
whispering: "We have not missed you and I... that many-splendored thing." Henry King - who has established himself as a masterful director of
romances - spreads the theme tune (by Alfred Newman) in the air above the
cosmopolitan harbor... His film is colorful, elegant, with excellent cinematography
and set design... Nominated for eight Academy Awards, this beautiful and
sensitive motion picture won three: Best Costume Design; Best Music and Best
Score...
This delightful movie tells the story of buds. And it's incredible. You'll laugh,
and you'll smile, and you'll laugh. It's really all about the laughs. When Jon Bon
Jovi is funny in a movie, it's a heck of a movie! 'nuff said. Now go watch it!
Homegrown is one of those movies which sort of fell through the cracks, but
deserves better. When I first saw it, I had a luke-warm reaction. But, over time,
it's really grown on me--no pun intended ;-). The more I see it, the more I
appreciate it. The writing is top-notch, as is the acting. Throw in a few
surprising cameos and good direction, and you end up with a great little
film. It's also good to finally see Hank Azaria get a chance to shine in
a starring role. And Thornton delivers his usual quality performance. Even relative
newcomer Ryan Phillippe delivers, playing a friendly innocent with wit and
subtlety. On a side note, Homegrown is simply a "must see" if you're a
Billy Bob Thornton fan. It appears Stephen Gyllenhaal was influenced by earlier
Thornton projects like One False Move and Sling Blade (though Homegrown is
certainly a lot more tongue-in-cheek than either). And Thornton's role as a
character who is both sophisticated and down-to-earth is a perfect match for the
actor.
8/2008. When I originally wrote my comments, shortly after first seeing this film,
I took a critical view, feeling that Lemmon and Matthau had basically "phoned-in"
their performances, which paired them in a manner they'd done several times
previously. But upon seeing it again, it seemed different, especially in
view that neither of the two main mega-stars lived a great deal longer after its
release. With the exception of Spiner, all of the eight principals are
performers with considerable experience, and likewise unavoidably a lot "longer in
tooth" than we've seen in many of their other film and t.v. work. But isn't almost
everyone? Seeing it again, while it certainly won't be regarded as a
"classis" in any of their careers, it is a fun film, with a lot of interesting
scenery as well. From my viewpoint, it reminds me that many films,
plays, etc., can often be looked at either from a very critical viewpoint, or
looking instead to the lighter side, without expecting a film to be another
"Citizen Kane," "Casablance," or (in terms of the two leads), another original "Odd
Couple." It also will provide a continuing piece of nostalgia for Lemmon and
Matthau, as well as the others in the cast.
B.B. Thornton proves to be a great actor in this little seen movie. Thornton really
gets into his characters--literally. I caught this on cable one night and enjoyed
it. Too bad it was released nationwide in theaters the same year as "Fear and
Loathing" and "Half-Baked."
This movie was good. I can't say it was one of the best, but it still was good. The
only reason that I watched it was because of Ryan Phillippe. He is soo hot! (Don't
get mad Reese). But I think that it was sort of funny- not a laugh your head out
kinda thing, but still O.K.
You looking for a comic drama with suspense and an ensemble cast? Well locate this
little sleeper. John Lithgow and Billy Bob Thorton are great in this little plot
twister. Don't forget the cameo by Jamie Lee Curtis. A touch of the 60's, a touch
of "the Prince and the Pauper", and dash of that homegrown gold makes for a greast
little story.
If it wasn't meant to be a comedy, the filmmakers sure goofed. If they intended for
it to be a comedy, they hit the mark. Our critic says Homegrown is a wonderful film
filled with family values and community spirit, recommends it for all audiences,
and says that he really liked Jamie Lee Curtis's performance. It deserves a
theatrical re-release.
After seeing the trailer it was an easy decision not to see this film. I mean, I
don't care for stupid "stoner comedies." I'm sure it was also an easy choice for a
lot of people to get together, smoke a bowl and go check out this flick with the
guy from The Simpsons and some guy named "Billy Bob." Should have been a good time,
but the film's just not that funny--too bad somebody had to go and bum their
high. Unfortunately, I found out that the trailer was misleading after
it had already left the theaters, so I had to wait for the video. I really enjoyed
it. Nice locations, quality production and excellent performances from the entire
cast. Looking back at it, the plot twists weren't totally unexpected, but I didn't
find it cumbersome because the premise was so engaging. So why was this
absorbing drama marketed as a comedy? Did something happen to the producer, leaving
the associate producers to do the marketing by themselves?
Anyone who gives this movie less than 8 needs to step outside & puff a couple.
Great story. Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.
Not your ordinary movie, but a good one. Billy Bob is very funny in this movie, the
way he talks, what he says etc. I was kind of surprised when i saw it, cause i just
thought it was a normal comedy, but it was more than that. It had a very good
story, great characters and a good balance. Favorite part: Probably when
Billy Bob is running around in his robe shooting at the rippers
A fun romp...a lot of good twists and turns! (and we were not even baked!) Didn't know this movie even existed until watching the extra trailers on a Monty
Python DVD...(oddly it was there along with The City of Lost Children, and The
Adventures of Baron Munchauhsen) The plot keeps you wondering
throughout. The acting was awesome...Hank Azaria shows his talent again,
Bill Bob is Billy Bob...(wecis?) Definitely worth watching.
A fun romp...a lot of good twists and turns! (and we were not even baked!) Didn't know this movie even existed until watching the extra trailers on a Monty
Python DVD...(oddly it was there along with The City of Lost Children, and The
Adventures of Baron Munchauhsen) The plot keeps you wondering
throughout. The acting was awesome...Hank Azaria shows his talent again,
Bill Bob is Billy Bob...(wecis?) Definitely worth watching.
what a great little film, lots of good roles from some random stars. Basically
there are these pot growers that get caught up in a comical adventure. At points
the film makes you believe everyone is going to end up dead! Which adds to the
comedy. When the character of John Lithgow (3rd Rock) re-appears - its impossible
not to imagine the trip, this may have caused, like a total paradox. The film is
full of twists and turns that keep you guessing all the way to the end. Billy Bob
Thornton Astronaut Farmer) is brilliant, in fact looking back, the character is
fairly similar in the fact he holds the family of pot growers together. Everyone
involved in this film should get a big thumbs up. As i say' the final
scene is a dream; however a nightmare at the same time. I love it when Hank Azaria
(carter) says at the end do you think we should do this every year? I felt my self
wishing they would. I'm not going to say this film is good for
everyone, but as a lover of stoner movies i give it 10/10. - My advice have a joint
ready; kick back and enjoy!
I was totally surprised just how good this movie actually is because when I first
saw it I was only mildly amused! I must say however, that I am still very
disappointed that Donald O'Connor wasn't given a bigger and better role! He was an
enormous talent. There is a great chemistry among all the main cast
members and Matthau has never been funnier. I am tremendously glad that
this picture got made because we get to see Lemmon and Matthau team up for the very
last time; in a vehicle that puts their talent to great use. Brent Spiner proves
that "Data" from Star Trek the Next Geeration is not the only good character he can
play. The storyline is really quite simple but the comedy and the
characters work really well and I laughed heartily throughout this movie and I
highly recommend it.
This is an awesome movie, and if you haven't seen it, you should go to the video
store right now and rent it. First off, the cast is superb. Not only does it have
current stars, like Ryan Philippe and Billy Bob Thornton, but it also has your
stars of yesteryear like Judge Reinhold. It also has numerous cameos by actors like
Jon Bon Jovi, Ted Danson, and Jamie Lee Curtis. Second off, the story was quite
good also. It was interesting how they took a plot for a stoner movie, and almost
made it dramatic. It takes the drug situation in the United States, and instead of
giving it a comedic face like in "Half Baked" it has a true, life lesson image like
"Traffic". So watch this movie, if you're a stoner it will give you insight into
something you love, if you don't do drugs it will give you a more realistic view of
drugs than either side wants you to see.
The first half hour of "Homegrown" was rather boring and not absorbing, but as the
film progressed, so did my interest in the characters and the plot. Several scenes
are really scary and you fear for the main characters who you actually grow
attached to. The story is about three hired hands on a hidden illegal marijuana
farm in southern California. They witness the murder of the farm's owner, Malcolm
(John Lithgow), and they take over the weed for their own. The three rather simple-
minded farm hands soon get swept up into a scary world of mafia and local interest,
while all of the time trying to convince everyone that Malcolm is still alive.
While the movie had several faults and a slow beginning, it turned out to be
worthwhile. 7/10 stars.
This is the kind of film that might give you a nightmare, besides that it's a lot
of fun. Hardware Wars is the only good spoof on Star Wars, other films
like Spaceballs have failed. This is the only good spoof film I have ever seen, it
doesn't rip-off Star Wars, it makes fun of it, and that's what spoofs are supposed
to be.
This ranks as my favorite movie of all time. It's the best spoof of a science
fiction movie ever; the fact that it was a sendup of Star Wars just made it all the
better. I love slapstick. Think of this as the Marx brothers or the
Three Stooges meet Star Wars. The writing is hilarious. The effects are a hoot. The
free association that goes on guarantees all sorts of things coming out of left
field. (I almost wet my pants when the Wookie Monster accosted the Princess.) Space Balls was a much longer movie, but only had about 15 minutes of good
material in it, and I felt sort of ripped off afterwards, like buying a burger that
turned out to be mostly filler. Hardware Wars, despite being only about 15 minutes
long, would be worth paying a feature price, IMO.
Hardware Wars is a hilarious, 12 minute short film parody of the original Star Wars
movie which was released just a few months after Star Wars in 1977. This film uses
household appliances as space ships and Star Wars look-a-like actors to send you
rolling around on the floor in uncontrollable fits of laughter. This film has won
many awards at film festivals and was the film which inspired Mel Brooks to write
his Star Wars parody movie called "Spaceballs". This is my favorite
parody film and I recommend it to anyone who is familiar with Star Wars and has a
good sense of humor. 
Talk about your classics! Ernie Fossilus (the Foss from here on out) came up with a
cute and creative trailer totally spoofing Star Wars. This gem is so jammed packed
with tributes and gags I laugh every time! Not only that, when Star Wars did a re-
issue with new special effects, Hardware Wars did the same! Talk about a spoof that
just won't die! There's a reason George Lucas calls this his favorite parody. He
was so impressed, he even hired the Foss to work on "Return of the Jedi" (Don't
believe me, check his entry in IMDb!) This has to be the first, and in
my opinion, the best parody ever done. I think the Special Edition was a bit
overdone, but on reflection, I think it's PERFECT for the modern day re-release of
Star Wars, and goes to prove that sometimes, it's wrong to mess with perfection. Yes, it's only 10 minutes, but it's well worth your time. You'll
laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss $3 goodbye! Well, maybe 15 for the DVD, but you'll
be real happy you did.
 Fourteen of the funniest minutes on celluloid. This short parody is at
least as much a part of the Star Wars saga as Phantom Menace, and far more
entertaining, if you ask me. Hardware Wars was the first in a long line of SW
spoofs which form their own subgenre these days. I hate to describe it too much-
it's so short that the premise is just about the whole thing. Suffice it to say
that many of the most popular and familiar aspects of Star Wars have fun poked at
them. Household appliances such as toasters and vacuum cleaners portray spaceships
and robots, the Princess Anne-Droid character wears actual bread rolls on her head
instead of the famous coils of braided hair, and Fluke Starbucker is even more of a
dork than his original, if that's possible. Ernie Fosselius is one crazy son-of-a-
buck-he's also the source of Porklips Now, the Apocalypse Now spoof.
I just got the DVD for Hardware Wars, in a shiny new package, looking irresistable.
Stuck it in my DVD player to find a slew of extra fun stuff. The extra content on
the DVD is even longer than the movie. For those of you that have (shame!) never
seen Hardware Wars, it one fantastically silly Star Wars spoof (of Episode IV, of
course). Household appliances (such as irons, toasters, vacuums, and a waffle
maker) stand in for Ty-fighters, X-wings, R2D2, and the death star. Instead of
Princess Leia, we have Princess Ann-Droid, complete with Cinnabon hairdo. You get
the point, I'm sure. Mad silliness, and a fun ride for any Star Wars geek (like
me!) Now, the DVD - wow! A director's commentary where he basically goes
off on the movie, making fun of himself and the project throughout. An interview
with Fosselius on Creature Features (remember that?!) and hilarious "director's
cut" and "foreign version" of the movie (all jokes of course). Anyway, this is
great. I loved Hardware Wars in the theater, and am so glad for having the DVD in
my collection - wedged in between MST3K: the movie and Thumb Wars!
Undoubtedly the funniest movie I have ever seen. It's definitely worth the fourteen
minutes it takes to watch. I will never look at my kitchen appliances the same way
again. Bob Knickerbocker deserves an Oscar. "Relax, kid. It's only a movie"
I caught this little gem totally by accident back in 1980 or '81. I was at a
revival theatre to see two old silly sci-fi movies. The theatre was packed full and
(with no warning) they showed a bunch of sci-fi short spoofs (to get us in the
mood). Most were somewhat amusing but THIS came on and, within seconds, the
audience was in hysterics! The biggest laugh came when they showed "Princess Laia"
having huge cinnamon buns instead of hair on her head. She looks at the camera,
gives a grim smile and nods. That made it even funnier! You gotta see "Chewabacca"
played by what looks like a Muppet! It was extremely silly and stupid...but I
couldn't stop laughing. Most of the dialogue was drowned out because of all the
laughter. Also if you know "Star Wars" pretty well it's even funnier--they
deliberately poke fun at some of the dialogue. This REALLY works with an audience!
A definite 10!
Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon, both of whom are sadly missed, proved once again
that they were a team dedicated to their craft of bringing hilarious moments to the
screen. This film is just another example of this. This time out they
play two brothers-in-law who land on a ship as dance instructors on board. Of course, their boss is a perfectionist and miserable person named Gil Godwin
who just enjoys harassing these boys. It's hilarious how Lemmon gives a quick
lesson in dancing to Matthau and how the latter dances a riotous rumba with the
boat's owner Rue McLanahan. Too bad that fellow dance instructors Hal
Linden and Donald O'Connor are given so little to do but their parts call for that.
Matthau falls for Dyan Cannon, on board with her fellow gold-digging mother, the
usual outrageous Elaine Stritch. Unknown to them, Matthau has no money either. The
widower Lemmon falls for Gloria De Haven, looking lovelier than ever. The film belongs to Matthau and Lemmon and will serve as a further tribute to
their illustrious careers.
Done on a spare change budget of twenty bucks tops, this cheapie thirteen minute
short cheerfully parodies George Lucas' legendary '77 sci-fi blockbuster "Star
Wars" in the most infectiously dumb way imaginable. Writer/director Ernie Fosselius
delivers a winning and often gut-busting blend of ludicrous sound effects, ineptly
staged action scenes, cruddy (far from) special effects (you just gotta love the
cheesy scratched-on-film lasers, tinfoil asteroids, and household appliances ...
eer, I mean spaceships being swung around on obvious wires), badly dubbed in
dialogue, shamelessly hammy acting, and Richard Wagner's rousing piece of classical
music "Ride of the Valkyries." The characters are presented in suitably broad
strokes; my favorites are whiny wimp Fluke Starbucker, venerable Jedi knight Auggie
"Ben" Doggie, and hateful arch villain Darph Nader (who spouts nothing but
incomprehensible gibberish). Moreover, 4-Q-3 is clearly based on the Tin Man from
"The Wizard of Oz" while Artie Deco is definitely a cheap vacuum cleaner. This
film's true masterstroke is casting legendary voice actor supreme Paul Frees as the
narrator; Frees' deliciously rich and plummy histrionic tones add immensely to the
considerable silly, yet sidesplitting tongue-in-cheek merriment (choice lines:
"You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll kiss three bucks goodbye!"). A total hoot.
The hysterical Hardware Wars is finally out on DVD. HW has earned its niche among
parody classics and is not only a riotous little 20 minute short but a staple in
low budget film production classes, which is where a lot of the film's cult status
is derived from and resides. With the DVD, not only do we get a chance to revisit
the original parody (4Q2, Cinnamon-Bun Head, Ballistic Toast, et al) that Ernie F.
did in 1978, but there is a lot of additional material showcasing the Fosselius
wit. Antique Sideshow is a dead-on parody that is very funny but makes a statement
about the confluence of ignorance and greed at the same time. The Director's
Commentary is also hysterical, as is the Creature Feature which parodies taking a
film out on the talk-show circuit and actually IS based on taking HW out on the
talk show circuit, albeit the public access circuit. I'd love to see Ernie, Michael
Wiese and crew take on some other, contemporary overblown and overbudgeted targets
to parody -- like just about any film that Hollywood churns out at $100 million a
pop these days -- not so much the crafty films like Spider Man or Men In Black
(actually parodies themselves!) but any number of overblown, overhyped, overwrought
and overpriced features. 
Out of all the parodies of Star Wars I've seen, this is probably the funniest. Not
because of the premise, Star Wars with simple electronics instead of spaceships,
but because of how poorly acted it is. This is purposely overacted, and it makes it
hilarious, and since everyone knows its purposely overacted, no one complains. The
special effects were also purposely as awful as can be, and include a toaster on a
visible string that shoots toast, and an egg beater on a string. This short is
funny for any fan of Star Wars (which I'm not), or anyone that has 15 minutes to
kill. Great short!! My rating: *** out of ****. 13 mins. Not rated.
I haven't seen "Hardware Wars" in years, but I remember it as one of the most
hilarious events of human experience, and it was over far too soon. Every aspect of
this movie was hilarious, and it was even better than "Star Wars." I laughed. I
cried. After watching it, I asked a family member for a moment with three dollars
just so I could kiss it goodbye (I'm kidding about the last one). I love it when
Ham Salad's sidekick/co-pilot tries to eat Princess Anne Droid's cinnamon hair
buns, and the Darph Nader character is just hilarious! This film would be great to
watch back-to-back with "Thumb Wars," and I sincerely wish there could have been a
"Hardware Wars, Episode II: The Umpire Strikes Out." (Was there?)
Nothing is sacred. Just ask Ernie Fosselius. These days, everybody has a video
camera, and a movie is hardly out before the spoofs start flying, quickly written
and shot, and often posted directly to the internet. Spoofs are hot these days, and
we go out of our way to make sure filmmakers don't get off on their own self-
importance. 25 years ago, when the first Star Wars was made, it was a different
world. Filmmaking was the playground of a select few and spoofs were very rare.
Then God gave us Hardware Wars. It was shot to look cheap (or was it just cheap?)
and the audio was obviously recorded after the fact. Does that take away from the
experience? HECK NO! That's what makes it so great! It was raw and unpolished, and
hit relentlessly on some of the more pretentious moments of the original movie.
From Fluke Starbucker waving around a flashlight instead of a lightsaber (I did
that when I was young!) to Chewchilla the Wookie Monster, to Auggie Ben Doggie's
"nah, just a little headache" remark, this film short is as much a part of the
phenomenon as any of the actual Star Wars films. Rent it. Buy it. Borrow it from a
friend. And may the Farce be with you. Always.
So funny is the perfect way to describe this 12 minutes spoof of the original Star
Wars. Hardware Wars is incredibly funny. It is presented as the trailer of the
space epic Hardware Wars. The joke is this: imagine Star Wars played by bad actors
and incredibly bad special effects. The characters include the "intergalactic boy-
wonder" Fluke Starbucker, the "ace mercenary and intergalactic wise guy" Ham Salad,
Darph Nader, "villain" and a host of other fantastic characters. It is impossible
not to laugh as you watch this 12 minutes treasure. It's stupid but it's fun. You
will laugh from the start to the end, and you will feel the need to watch it again,
and again, and again, and again... And you will laugh every time you see it!!!
 10 out of 10. The funniest 12 minutes ever made. You will believe it
lasted a minute!
I just want to say that I was thrilled to find these comments about the show. I
have tried online searches for info about the show in the past with no luck. I
LOVED the show. I have a hard time getting motivated to exercise but this show made
it fun. As another comment mentioned that it wasn't so complicated as the routines
nowadays. It was an ideal workout that got the job done! I would give anything to
be able to buy a copy of just one workout. I remember many of the moves but not
nearly all of it. Somebody please try to get it back on the air and also make it
available on DVD. It is so great to know I wasn't the only one that loved that
show! Thanks for making my day!
after my daughter was born in 1983, i needed to lose weight. i tried the 20 minute
workout and i was hooked. i lost about 50 lbs. it was the most weight i ever lost
in my life. i can't believe this show is forgotten. it would be a blessing if you
started a cable channel strictly for exercise and included the 20 minute workout. i
think this was the best workout video ever made. i wish i could purchase it somehow
and somewhere. the routine was easy to learn and you did work up quite a sweat. the
workouts they have today are too complicated and too hard to learn. please do your
best to get this video back in circulation. i pray it will be a blessing to all who
see and use it.
Aah yes the workout show was a great. Not only did many women get in shape, but
many teenage boys got a great workout as well. I am not saying that the show was in
any way not appropriate for family viewing, but if you check the other works from
the shows producer, you will find more adult themes in his works, which are also
excellent. Many of the viewers looked forward to the show, men and women alike all
gained good information and a wonderful release,from the workouts. The girls were
perfect, and Beautiful, the show is a classic and should do well in syndication.
The show should still be on, as there are never enough choices to view when it
comes to health and beauty.
ANOTHER great performance by Kiefer Sutherland. I love his movies, because he
always plays his role very well. For a low budget film, this was done very good,
and kept me on the edge the whole time. I love these type of movies, and I was glad
I caught it on. I'll be buying the dvd or tape for sure. 9/10.
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau have got to be one of the best buddies ever to work
together. They have made lots of movies together, i think they are both fantastic
when they do work together in a movie. Out to sea is a fantastic comedy movie i
think to watch. I give the movie 10 out of 10. Jack lemmon and Walter Matthau will
be remembered when the movies they did together will be on tv. They will be sadly
missed. God bless you both.
I thought this film was excellent, quirky and different to the usual run of the
mill 'disengaged cop catching serial killer' film. Kiefer Sutherland was brilliant
as usual - I really don't think I have seen anything that he has done where he has
not acted brilliantly. The dialogue was funny at times lightening the mood, and the
plot engaging. Thanks to other reviewers for showing the link with Alice in
Wonderland - I hadn't picked up on those. I would recommend this film to anyone who
is a fan of Kiefer Sutherlands (as I am) and to anyone who wants to watch an
entertaining film for a couple of hours. It was a shame that it wasn't released at
the cinemas for a wider audience.
I really liked this movie. If other people want to give it an average around 5.0/10
that's their choice. I would give it 10/10. Sutherland's performance as a private
eye is totally awesome. The story is amazing, human, exciting, intelligent. The
dialogue is good. The story might not be perfect but anyway - the mood of the movie
is good enough to compensate for that. Moreover, the ending is incredibly cool and
their the jig-saw puzzle really comes back to together. So anyway I liked it. I
also thought the female lead actress performed very well. I'm not a big fan of
detective movies but this one was really good, also because it doesn't give a damn
about conventions of the supernatural.
Another brilliant portrayal by Kiefer Sutherland who plays Mickey Hayden, a cop
dealing with psychic visions of murdered victims. I absolutely love movies dealing
with the psychic realm, and I wasn't disappointed with "Eye of the Killer" (AKA
After Alice). I only wish the movie had been released theatrical first.
ALICE is the kind of movie they made in the 30's and 40's. Never attempts to be an
"event". Just wants to entertain. And it does. I was surprised by Kiefer
Sutherland. In a role that could be a cliche, he made it real. The plot does make
allusions to ALICE IN WONDERLAND. A guy dressed in white does go through a hole and
Kiefer does fall down one. Like ALICE the plot does twist and turn, but with a
freshness you don't see in small movies. I loved the direction, Sutherland, just a
very fast paced and interesting movie.
People watch movies for a variety of different reasons. This movie didn't have the
big budget, there's no special effects, no car chases and there's no explosions.
Actually reality doesn't have much of these either. At least not in my life. This is a very real movie about very real people, none of them perfect in
any way but together they are put into a situation where they learn to explore and
accept what is different and that in turn makes order out of chaos. I am not
prepared to limit the possibility of parapsychology, since I'm neither an expert
nor use the full extent of my own brain. So watch this movie for the
characters. It is brim-full of a whole cast of wonderful quirky folk. Within the first three minutes Kiefer Sutherland enacts Detective Michael
Hayden's life superbly and he keeps developing the character throughout the movie.
Excellent acting, very believable. Henry Czerny could not have been
cast better and the rapport between his 'Harvey' and Kiefer's 'Mickey' enhances the
oppositeness of their characters. I thoroughly enjoyed the cranky
landlady, 'Mrs Ramsay', I'm sure she and my mother-in-law are good friends!!! There's a host more of these wonderful characters but space is limited here
so watch the movie and enjoy them.
Working the night shift in a seedy police station, stumbling through life in an
alcoholic haze, Detective Mickey Hayden can hardly be said to have a firm grasp on
reality to begin with, but when a bump on the head unleashes terrifying psychic
visions, things get truly weird. Soon he's on the trail of a serial killer and
unraveling the mystery of his beautiful first victim, the elusive Alice. The role of an embittered burn-out seems tailor-made for Keifer Sutherland
and he makes the most of it. The plot's typical serial killer stuff, but it has
enough quirks, twists, and genuine surprises to raise it above the usual genre fare
and even make up for a painfully low budget. (One wonders what this film could have
been if there'd been money for a few more rewrites and a few more takes.) All in all, 'After Alice' is a pleasant diversion for anyone, but for fans
of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books, it's a real treat. From the topsy-turvy reality
in which things are rarely what they've seem, to more obvious references -- a
killer called 'The Jabberwocky', who leaves playing cards on his victims' bodies --
there's an 'Alice' reference at every turn. Below is a list of the ones I
uncovered. Since finding them yourself is half the fun, I've marked them as
spoilers. SPOILERS Cast of Characters Mickey - In
a sense he's Alice himself wandering through strange landscapes, encountering odd
characters, but Harvey, recognizing his true nature, identifies him as the hapless,
bumbling White Knight. John Hatter (Mickey's boss) - Is he really
'mad'? You be the judge Claudette - An African-American transvestite.
Obviously, the Black Queen Margaret Ellison - Mickey calls her the Red
Queen, but her brutal nature suggests, more specifically, the Queen of
Hearts. Gideon Wood - Suspected of being the Jabberwocky killer, his
ambiguous role is more suggestive of a snark (or a boojum perhaps). Harvey - His role as unofficial guide to 'wonderland' and his name, evocative of
another famous cinematic rabbit, makes me think he must be the White Rabbit Dr. Vera Swann - Her last name and relationship with Mickey suggest the
White Queen. Other Connections Mickey's adventures begin when
he chases a man in white and falls down a (rabbit) hole. Mickey
drunkenly tells his cat to stop grinning at him (Cheshire Cat) The
killer is revealed 'through the looking glass'. The climatic showdown
ends in a swirl of playing cards, just as Alice's adventure did in the book. The statues in the garden look like giant chess pieces.
I would just like to say that The Cure was a fabulious movie to help inform how
people who are HIV positive have to function in life. Expecially a young boy who
cant go to school because he could contaminate someone. and the ignorance of the
boys who called them FAGGOTS. that just shows how much children are not educated
about aids.
On more than one level, I can relate to what happens in this movie in a very
personal way. And all I can say about it is, that it's true, what Dexter's mom
tells Eric at the end of the story: he actually did 'cure' her son, by taking away
his sad feelings and his loneliness. This movie emphasis a philosophy I
can very well agree with. We are all going to die one day sooner or later. In the
end, it is not the amount of time we live, but the fun/good times/happiness we have
during that time. It is not the quantity, but the quality that counts. I
guess all other words used here would only keep you any longer from getting to see
this movie, if you haven't already. I really would like to see it released on DVD.
Definitely it would be added to my 'all time classics' right away!
I had never heard about this movie when it was given to me to translate, so I
didn't know what to expect. I checked it out on IMDb and got curious. It didn't
take long to realize that this was a gem. Outstanding performances, great story,
and it's both well directed and well written. It's hard to compare it to other
movies, but "Stand by me" comes to mind, although it has as many differences from
"The cure" as similarities. The tale of an extraordinary friendship between young
boys, plus the dramatic and humorous elements are the most obvious similarities
between this movie and "Stand by me". Other than that, "The cure" is a fine movie
in its own right, well worth a wider recognition. It's dramatic, but also
adventurous, sad, but also humorous. I can't think of a single thing that bothers
me about it. Having said that, I don't want to give the impression that it is a
"perfect movie", whatever that means, but rather that I enjoyed it immensely, was
very moved by it and wouldn't change a thing in it. I won't go into a detailed
description of the story/plot, partly because it would be either too general or too
revealing, and partly because you can find that information elsewhere on the site.
In closing, I can only say: Wonderful movie, see it if you get the chance.
So glad I have HBO right now. I didn't plan on watching a movie today, but when I
got home and saw that the next movie on HBO was this one I decided (based on the
description) to at least give it a shot. I'm so glad I decided to watch this movie!
Maybe this movie just caught me at a vulnerable moment (I'm a little stressed out,
got a huge test to be studying for), but it definitely gave me quite the
perspective on friendship not to mention taught me a valuable lesson on empathy.
I'm currently one year away from graduating from pharmacy school and the whole
scene involving the doctor and the nurse was definitely a learning point for me! Anyhow, I just wanted to post up letting the world know this is an amazing
movie and not to be missed. There is definitely something for everyone in this
movie!
I got a few laughs out of this one, more than a lot of other so called comedies.
The big ship was a knockout and getting to see a lot of it's scenery was fun: as
was getting to see some of Dyan Cannon's curves. This wasn't the height of Lemmon's
and Mattheau's career, but it wasn't a total dog as some suggest.
While the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role
of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well
fleshed out, and had their own "inner life". I recommend this strongly
Such an awesome movie -- I was transfixed the entire time and so emotionally
overcome in the end! The two young male actors in the movie were more than
compelling in their performance as their friendship and support of one another was
quite believable and I thought the comparison/contrast between their respective
home lives vs. health situations were made so very real between them. The success
in bringing this movie to life was obviously a team effort so to actors, EP's,
producers, writers, directors, and all of production I say, "WELL PLAYED!" Having
missed the credits at the beginning of the movie (it was being shown on HBO), I was
so very surprised that I had to actually research (albeit briefly) the internet in
order to find the title of this movie -- something so great should have been known
by me -- a clear indication that this movie must be re-released!
Let me start out with saying I was VERY surprised with the production value of this
movie. I managed to catch an early showing and I have to Say this is the BEST (if
not only) Christian film to hit theaters since The Passion. Don't let
the PG-13 rating scare you off, the rating is appropriate because of the serious
issues that are dealt with in this film (divorce, teen pregnancy, drug use, and
suicide), but nothing in the film is gratuitous. This is definitely a movie that a
Junior High youth group could see without upsetting (most) parents, and the message
is wonderful. The best part is this is not a film FOR Christians, it is a Family
film without the cheesy 7th Heaven feel. The laughs are there, and
several times in the theater everyone was laughing, the bits of humor were natural
and didn't seem scripted or forced, and that made for good pacing in such a serious
film. Teens and young adult, both religious and otherwise, will be able to identify
with many if not all of the characters in the film, and I was surprised to see such
issues dealt with in this kind of film. The plot is not in any way predictable, and
by the end hits closer to home than many will admit. Christians, fortunately, are
not shown as all mighty know it all's of "The Word", but instead people just trying
to understand life. Humans make mistakes and no one is perfect, not even in this
film... not by a long shot. The acting is top notch, the writing spot
on, and you aren't hit over the head with all the preachy Christian rhetoric. This
is a great film that will make you and your teens think, talk, and perhaps question
their own morality (or lack thereof). If you want to see a quality family film in
January check your local listings for this film, and you might learn something
about yourself. And I am a 25 year old male that just wanted to see a
free movie.
The Cure is one of the few movies I rated 10 out of 10. I mean, everything is
flawless for me in this motion picture. I saw it almost a year ago, and yet I
remember many of the scenes, especially the final touching scene that comes with
the credits. The two boy actors clearly gave everything they could and
this greatly contributes the excellent storyline, making the film perfect. The message is clear - friendship, and it's displayed throughout the whole
thing. I have nothing more to say here. Simplicity is one of the things
I love so much about this film. And of course, it's fun and moving at the same
time, suiting people of any age. 10/10, nicely done!
"The Cure" is a very touching and poignant drama. The film focuses on two
neighborhood boys who become good friends. One of the boys has AIDS. The boys
become good friends despite Erik's apprehensiveness at first. The film shows the
boys journey to discover "the cure", which is in Ohio according to "The National
Examiner", and how it affects their relationship. The acting is wonderful (I have
never seen Annabella Sciorra do better), and the movie is just plain touching. I
couldn't stop crying with the shoe scene. This is a good tearjerker. Keep the
kleenex nearby. 8/10
This was truly a heart warming movie. It is filled with so many messages. Loyalty,
friendship, sickness, death, and the paranoia society has concerning anything they
don't understand. I have shed a few tears during certain movies, but this movie
kept the tears flowing.
A tale of a young boy, Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) with AIDS who befriends a rough and
tumble boy (played by Brad Renfro) his exact opposite, The Cure is sad, if a bit
too soapy, pull at your emotions "message" movie with it's heart in the right
place. For that fact alone, it's a recommended view. The highlight might be just
watching them finding friendship and hanging out with each other when no one else
accepts them. However since the real story centers on the boy's AIDS -
things take off when one day at the local supermarket, Dexter's eye catches a
checkout tabloid magazine that states a New Orleans doctor has discovered the cure.
Both of them, obviously a tad naive, make it a plan to set out for New Orleans in
whichever means possible. Which kinda pulled me two ways. It's a mite heart warming
and I hate to nit-pick, but I found the plot wanders in a melodramatic, predictable
sense and the proceedings have a coat of gloss over them like only movies can do. I
couldn't escape the tugging notion I was watching a road trip movie about self
discovery, sickness and growing up. For instance, I know they're young, but I found
it a real task to belief in the things these boys do. Like boiling tree leaves and
drinking the hot 'tea' or eating an experimental diet of chocolate bars because
they believe it will combat the ravaging disease. To say nothing of them making a
cross-country voyage as they do with no legal or downright scary repercussions.
Still misgivings aside, those movie conventions you come to expect, it's a story
worth seeing particularly with family.
Although flawed in it's view of homosexuals, this movie will shed light for the
viewer about the myths and inaccuracies concerning AIDS. Despite the depressing
subject matter, this film depicts a warm friendship between two boys, and will make
you laugh as well as cry. Very well-acted by all, especially Joseph Mazzello and
Brad Renfro. The language is a little strong, though appropriate, and it's an
entertaining and intelligent film for the whole family. But remember to have the
Kleenex ready!
There was nothing else on tv yesterday afternoon, so I thought "okay, let's watch
this." I didn't know the plot and I had no expectation whatsoever, I was thinking
in a few minutes or so I will channel surf again. But then story started to unfold,
and the characters played beautifully by the two boys. The story did have
unrealistic parts and scenes, but overall it was a real good movie. Very well worth
watching.
Junior high and high school teachers will find "The Cure" an excellent teaching
tool, both as a companion to "Huckleberry Finn" or as a stand-alone lesson.
Although AIDS is supposed to be the main theme, the strong sup-text of friendship
and love, as they evolve between Eric and Dexter, is a powerful message for
teenagers. Writing prompts centered around the symbolism of the tennis shoe are
particularly effective. I also suggest directed class discussion about how Eric
evolves from manipulative user to loving friend.
*** Contains spoilers *** A lovely film this, starring Brad Renfro and
the ever wonderful Joseph Mazzello. I like Joseph Mazzello, out of all his films
I've seen to date I've loved every single one of them for many different reasons
and The Cure is no different. Brad Renfro does very well in this movie as well. The
Cure is a drama/coming of age movie from the viewpoint of an ill child and his
friend. The basic idea is: Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) has AIDS. He ends up
befriending the kid next door (Brad Renfro) but Erik's mum is very narrow-minded,
ill-informed and somewhat "thick" when it comes to Dexter's illness. She thinks
AIDS is contagious like the Common Cold so doesn't want her son going anywhere near
Dexter. After many attempts at making their own cure with no success,
the boys go on their way to New Orleans to find the cure after reading a pamphlet
about it. After getting their kicks from Playboy magazine, Dexter's health goes
south shortly afterwards and as his health detoriates, there's still enough life in
the boy alongside Erik for two pranks of pretending to stop breathing.
Unfortunately, poor Dexter does indeed die from his illness, leaving poor Erik
behind to wonder why he couldn't find the cure. Throughout the movie he ends up
bonding more with Dexter's mother than his own. It is a very
heartwarming movie to watch and is not absolutely perfect (movies rarely are) but
you won't care less about that as you get involved in the film more. A must for
Joseph Mazzello fans, one of his best performances ever. Very well recommended
must-see movie - if you can find a copy :)
While this movie is not the most entertaining in the world, I think it is better
than most over all. I mean it had it's little laughs and just all around a good
feeling. It's not too often we get to see two old geezers just having fun with
their age and honestly having a good time with the jokes. Walter and Jack had such
a great chemistry together as friends/brother in-laws. Just watching them romancing
these women was fun and you rooted for them all the way because wither we have to
admit it or not, for their age, they still had game! :D I loved just the whole plot
of being able to move on and having fun no matter how old you are. I'd recommend
this movie for a nice laugh if you want one. 7/10
For all the viewers who have seen 'The Cure' would agree with me on this comment
that it is a superb movie and is very heartwarming. Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro
prove their star quality in this movie, along with Dexter's (Mazzello) mother
Annabella Sciorra. When i first watched The Cure on TV, i didn't know
what to expect, but as i watched this masterpiece it soon became clear what it was
about. Dexter an 11 year old boy who is plagued with AIDS, sits around his backyard
playing with his toys when one day he meets his next door neighbour Eric, which at
first is a little awkward for the 2 boys, but they soon became good friends. During the film, i kept wondering what would happen to the two boys, as
they kept me wondering. I wondered how the heck they would get to New Orleans
sitting a door with a sea biscuit under it pulling an inflatable crocodile behind
it. There were other great scenes throughout the movie. But the part
that reached out to me was the part when Dexter's health started to deteriorate.
You just couldn't help but wonder if he was going to make it but towards the end
you find out. I thought at the first prank they played, that Dexter was really dead
he obviously wasn't, silly me. But when they play the third, something is very
wrong. Dexter doesn't get up to laugh nor does he show any kind of laughter. At
that point the victim of their prank soon announces that poor Dexter had died. At
that part i lost it. I balled my eyes out, and from that scene onwards i was
crying. You just have to. As the end nears you start to understand Eric's loss and
then the movie ends on a nice note with Dexters shoe floating ever so slowly down
the river. Overall this movie was excellent. It has laughter, adventure,
emotion and sadness etc. When you put that in a blender you get an excellent, must
watch film. Peter Horton has done a great job directing this film and i believe its
certainly one of his best. But for now, i will try to search for this movie on DVD,
if it exists that is. Once again a superb movie that will take you on an emotional
rollercaoster.
This was such a beautiful film. Such an amazing performance from Joseph and Brad.
Very innocently written and performed. A must see !! I cried my eyes out almost
through the entire movie. This is a movie that every family should sit down with
their children to watch, it does teach us all a very important lesson in life and
how we should be approaching the harsh subject of AIDS, how we should be teaching
our children to cope with it and people around them. Not only with AIDS, but with
any terminal illness. I hadn't even heard of this movie until I scrolled through
t.v. one day and happen to run across it. I recommend everyone to watch this, just
don't forget your box of tissues. More movies should be made like this one.
Extremely heartwarming.
I really liked the movie, thought it was very entertaining as well as dramatic. But
I just had a question about the music is the movie. I haven't been able to find any
kind of soundtrack(if there even is one). And specifically ,I was wondering if
anyone could tell me the name of the song that is playing while the boys are going
down the river on their way to New Orleans? I thought it was something along the
lines of "My great escape", but I've searched on the internet, books, pretty much
everything I could think of to try to, and I just can't find it anywhere. If
someone could help out it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
The Cure is a fantastic film about a boy with AIDS. I've cried about 4 times
watching this film and it's just so sad. I can't promise everyone will cry watching
this but it will make you want to. Very emotional and very sad, The Cure is a must-
see movie. It shows you the meaning of friendship and love and is an extremely
great movie. At first I didn't think it would be as great and wondered
why my mum always cried watching it. But now I know it's a stunning film that is so
original and is so close to real life situations, unlike most of the other films
that doesn't make sense. Words cannot describe the greatness of The Cure, you just
have to see it.
When the movie "The Cure" starts, we find out about a young man named Erik (Brad
Renfro). Erik is a teenage boy living with his paranoid mother, and living next
door to him is a young boy named Dexter (Joseph Mazello). One day, Erik and Dexter
connect and head up to the supermarket, where Dexter gets his first taste of
Butterfinger. When Erik learns out that Dexter has AIDS, he tries leaves-and-water
tea to make it better. But when the front cover of The National Enquirer says a New
Orleans doctor has found the cure for AIDS, the two boys will stop at nothing to
get to New Orleans for the cure. In my opinion, "The Cure" is easily one
of the best friendship movies ever made. It shows unconditional love between a boy,
his (new) best friend, and his best friend's mom. Everything is so well done,
nothing needs to be changed. Not only do I give this a 10/10 for being a fantastic
friendship movie, but it also is a sad, but humorous, and fun AIDS movie. And the
tragic finale with Dexter's contraction of AIDS is enough to make me shed a tear.
Very well done.
I remember when this film came out, and watched it a few times on VHS. I was so
glad when it was FINALLY released on DVD. I was hoping for widescreen, but at the
point would take what was available. I love how they used color in the film, the
outdoor scenes are so alive with color. The trees are the greenest I've ever seen.
Most of the film was shot in Stillwater, Minnesota, a beautiful town located on the
St. Croix River. They must have really scouted locations for filming, because they
did a great job. The story is well written, and directed. I would rate this as one
of Peter Horton's best. I'm also surprised that Andrew Dintenfass (the director of
photography) hasn't done more. He did an incredible job. The acting also rates up
there. It's amazing to see two actors of such a young age pull off this type of
film. Annabella Sciorra did a great job as Dexter's mother. Who wouldn't want her
as a mother.
Even though this film is 11 years old, I just rented it yesterday, and I found it
to be a really touching film. The story of true friendship in the face of a very
real monster is an inspiration and quite touching. While I did not care
much for the amount of language used by some of the young actors--especially from
Renfro--I understand that art is imitating life. Renfro once again does a
magnificent job of the rough-and-tough, very (and I mean VERY) disturbed wannabe
bully (his role in The Client comes to mind), and Mazzello does a wonderful job of
the witty, somewhat quirky, Dexter--a child who realizes that his life must end too
soon. While there are so many touching and funny moments in the movie, I
have to say that my favorite was when the boys were cornered by Pony in the
abandoned church, and Dexter (Mazzello) cut himself, saying his blood was poison.
While very resourceful, and somewhat amusing seeing a grown man running away from
two little kids, it's one of the hardest scenes in the film. Definitely
check this one out, but prepared with your Kleenex--you'll need it!
The best movie about friendship! Especially between an AIDs infected person and a "
normal " person. This is a great movie for everyone to see even though there is
strong language used. I have seen it 25 times.
The subject of children being terminally ill is difficult and saddening but 'The
Cure' successfully portrays the idea that it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom
and, if anything, children need to have hope and delight in their lives if they are
to find peace before the end. It is also a film of remarkable bonds of friendship
and the innocence of childhood. The film sees Erik, a dysfunctional
adolescent boy with a distant mother, moving into a new area where their next-door
neighbour is eleven-year-old Dexter, who contracted AIDS through a blood
transfusion. After his initial fears and ignorance over AIDS are allayed, Erik
befriends Dexter and their almost fraternal friendship sees them embark on a
journey down the Mississippi to where they have heard about a New Orleans doctor
who claims to have found a cure for the disease. The talent from the two
young leads of Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello, who play Erik and Dexter
respectively, is exceptional. Brad was able to portray Erik's harder edge without
comprising the subtle childish innocence inherent to the character while Joseph
depicts the sense of vulnerability to Dexter's character but injects the right
amount of boyish enthusiasm and zeal to highlight that his illness doesn't mean he
still isn't a child who wants to run and play like any other eleven-year-old boy.
The pair's interactions create a feel in the audience that these are two boys who
are genuinely close and they carry the film well. Annabella Sciorra also delivers a
touching performance as Dexter's mother Linda, who adores her son and delights in
seeing him thrive with this new friendship to Erik and eventually becomes a
surrogate mother-figure to the other boy. Set against an excellent
soundtrack, 'The Cure' is a very bittersweet film that manages to flawlessly weave
the story of boyhood friendship that survives unflinchingly in the midst of
prejudice and terminal illness without resorting to sappiness or unnecessary
saccharine sweet scenes. A very interesting reflection in the film is that is it
the adults who have the problem with Dexter's AIDS status whereas the children,
even the 'bullies', come to accept him as they would any other. What is also very
touching is how, despite Erik's streetwise nature, he is the more naive one in his
determination to cure Dexter while the younger boy has this haunting sense that he
knows his fate but is swept away by his best friend's enthusiasm for a cure. I highly recommend 'The Cure' for it is rare to find a film that is
simultaneously sad and uplifting.
Way back in 1996, One of the airliner pilots where I used to work gave me a copy of
this film. He told me that It'll make me cry. I never believed him and we even made
bets. After seeing the film....I cried a bucket! Even after the seeing the film, I
found myself in the bathroom crying. It was actually the most touching film I have
ever seen. I like the part where Dexter's mom confronted Eric's mother the line
went something like... "your sons' best friend just died today..and it's not gonna
be easy...if you ever lay your hands on him again...I will kill you!" The last part
where Dexter took Eric's shoe was a scene that never left my mind until today.
Honestly, just thinking about it makes my eyes teary. A story of what true
friendship is all about. My girlfriend loved it too... She hated me for letting her
see the film. I cried a bucket, she cried a river.
Movies aren't always suppose to be about deep, provolking thoughts. Sometimes
they're simply meant to be escapes from reality. Out To Sea fits the bill
perfectly. A light hearted "golden years" romantic comedy, Out To Sea
may not be big budget, you might be able to easily tell when they were acting in
front of a green screen, but it's still very much a movie worth watching. A sweet
movie that needs to be given a break. This is just good, light hearted
fun. It's not meant to be a deep movie. It's something worth watching. If for
nothing else, you must see it for Brent Spiner's humorously stiff and uptight
rendition of Oye Como Va. Gil is a character you love to hate and Mr. Spiner pulls
off the perfect evil comic foil to two beloved comedy movie gods.
Very nice movie! I was browsing the channels on my TV and I usually ignore the
channels that air drama movies but then I saw this channel that airs old school
movies and it is where I saw this movie. At first, when I saw the title "The Cure"
I thought it's gonna be boring but then I got hooked when I saw Brad Renfro was in
this movie (because of one of my favorite movie of all time is "The Client" where
Brad also stars). Then the scenes was getting better and better. The story is so
beautiful and very touching! I cried hard in this movie which I don't usually do.
Great casting! and there are so many beautiful lines/quotes in this movie which is
very striking and made me cry hard! Now, I bought my own copy on DVD and I always
recommend it to everyone!
I had seen The Cure when I was a kid and I loved it then. Now, years later, I got a
hold of a copy almost by accident, and watched it again. Being a kid, you don't
really have the ability to procure things for yourself that you want, that is
usually a prerogative of your parents - but when I watched it again now I felt
sorry that I did not do more to get a copy of this movie back then, and
consequently almost forgot about it until today. This really is a
beautiful movie. It tells the story of the unlikely friendship between a hard-
edged, misfit kid - who takes his cues from his horrible, abusive mother - and his
neighbor, a slightly younger boy who has AIDS. Right, you say. Another
one of "those". A tear jerker. A bucket movie. A morality tail. Yeah, I know, I
hate those too. Only this one isn't. It is one of the very few movies among those
many I have seen that pulls off a very rare trick: it conveys a truly sad story
(and yes, a morality tale) but without a single moment where it feels cheesy,
forced or in any other way "hollywoody". It shows a REAL relationship between two
REAL boys, who interact as REAL kids do. And through that interaction the good-
natured, loving character of the older boy, Eric, starts to shine through his
"tough-guy" persona, as he takes on a kind of big-brotherly care for Dexter, his
HIV-positive younger neighbor. Together, they embark on an adventure to find a cure
- which to Erik seems to be just around the corner - so that all this silly AIDS
thing will go away and they can be friends forever. The production is
top notch. But, of course, what really carries this movie, is the performances of
the two leads - Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello. Especially Mazzello, who is simply
stunning - he does convey a sense of frailty needed for an ailing boy, but at the
same time he manages to make Dexter a truly energetic and determined character. He
shines at the scene where the boys confront Pony: his impulse to protect his older
friend lunges him forth, drives him to say what he says - and only afterwards, the
horror is depicted on his face, as he realizes that what he himself said is true:
his blood is poison... Renfro also has his moments, in particular the scenes with
his mother: he depicts perfectly how this macho, street-wise kid is left completely
frozen and numb when faced with his abusive, storming mother, and can't get a word
in to contradict her as she forbids his relationship with the ailing boy out of her
fear and ignorance. Annabella Sciorra also gives a memorable performance as
Dexter's mother, who ultimately becomes, in a sense, a mother figure to Erik as
well. I've first seen this film when I was at school back in America,
and loved it - not at all a given concerning movies of this sort. But the behavior
of the kids in this movie was so real, I could easily relate to them. Ironically
enough, the teacher who had shown us this movie (a wonderful woman, I'm still in
touch with her) got in trouble for it, as some uptight parent complained about it
having the scene when the two boys are looking at a Playboy... Pathetic. Seriously,
will Americans ever get over this ridiculous phobia, I do not know. There was a
hardly-distinguishable shot of a playboy cover in the movie and thus it is not
shown in schools... how sad. Kids need to see this movie. It is more inspiring and
educational than all the "official" after-school specials put together. Oh, and one more thing. I know I'm rambling, but nevertheless... The score. It's
great. I am a musician, and as such I know Dave Grusin from his records: he is a
well known Jazz pianist and record producer. Up until this movie I really did not
know that he did movie scores as well, even though when I later checked I found out
that I had unknowingly watched several movies he worked on. Really, a wonderful job
there. All in all, a solid Ten. I'd recommend this movie to anyone. And
I'm definitely going to see it with my younger siblings - they can use watching a
film like this among all the standard special-effect hysteria they usually see.
Unbelievably close to real life feelings and emotions captured by Joseph Mazzello
as a hemophiliac child affected by AIDS and his new young neighbor, a wanna-be
tough redneck played to perfection by Brad Renfro. Although the story may seem
slightly farfetched (the two boys attempt to river-raft several hundred miles to
find a doctor who claims to have the cure to AIDS), the emotion, actions and
interactions of all characters involved are tragically close to real life. Being a
"big brother" to a boy in a similar situation who died a few years after this film
was released, I strongly recommend this picture to anyone who has ever wondered
what really happens in the life of a child with AIDS. Superb direction by Peter
Horton creates the perfect mood and setting for each scene and draws the viewer
into the various emotions affected by friendship, illness, prejudice and the final
parting of two friends who fought hard to overcome adversity.
This is one of the most touching films I had ever watched. No movie has effected me
the way this one did. This is a great film and you have to see for yourself. I'm
normally impregnable with these sob story movies but this one did it for me. I was
in tears at the end. You'll yearn for the friendship that is portrayed in this
movie. If I can give this movie a billion stars I could.
For unknown reasons this beautiful masterpiece didn't get well-deserved recognition
and has been vastly under-appreciated by many American movie critics. So it's easy
to understand that I've met lots of troubles trying to find this movie. Finally I
watched it and it was so beautiful, sincere and poignant that for the first time in
my life I watched one movie five times in one week after getting the tape. The
story is focused on the friendship between two young boys Erik and Dexter, eleven
and twelve years old, who are very different from each other but they are becoming
the best (and only) friends. The beauty and sincerity of their friendship have been
shown in the Cure so sincere and naturally as it has never been before. There are
so many beautiful, heartfelt and poignant scenes (particularly on the river), which
strike the heart and can't leave any human indifferent to them. The movie also is
full of incredibly powerful and emotional symbolism, (particularly strong with
Erik's shoe) which also greatly increases visual impression from such beautiful
work. The story, written by Robert Kuhn, is well written and on the contrary to
overwhelming majority of modern Hollywood's products practically every scene, every
phrase and every sentence in the movie is meaningful and bring something important
about characters and relations between them. Peter Horton, who as I know had no
major experience in movie directing before, showed his great abilities and talents
in this sphere. The cinematography is also superb with perfectly selected locations
for the movie, but the most important is perfect acting, which with all above
mentioned makes The Cure one of the best movies ever. Both Brad Renfro as Erik and
Joseph Mazello as Dexter created wonderful atmosphere of sincere friendship and
magnificent chemistry between two main characters. Only one this movie (I haven't
seen most of their other works) is enough to name them as one of the best actors of
their generation. Annabelle Sciorra also give a terrific performance as Dexter's
mother. It's terribly sad that such talented actors didn't get wide recognition,
while numerous overrated stars enjoy enormous publicity and huge salaries. Finally
it would be unfair not to mention amazing soundtrack written by David Grusin, and
terrific Mark Cohn's song (one of the best songs that I've ever heard in the
movies) My Great Escape. So all that I can say about The Cure is one simple word
great. At any point of view this movie is a beautiful, heartfelt and inspiring work
of all people involved in making of this masterpiece. I have to credit all those
people who put their hearts and souls into the movie and Universal Pictures, which
among numerous formulaic commercial projects has found a way to make such a
beautiful movie. But such movie so rarely come to movie theaters that very often
studios themselves don't realize what gem they have made that they're unable to
provide respective marketing campaign. The only one minor drawback about The Cure
for me is its short length (only 97 minutes). I don't want to write
more about the movie because it's simply impossible to put its beauty and sincerity
into words, so if you have any opportunity for watching The Cure, rent it or buy it
and you wouldn't be disappointed. 10 out of 10. Sorry for my bad
English.
The Cure is an outstanding real-life drama that deals with a very sensitive
subject. It is the story of the profound and dear friendship between two boys, Eric
and Dexter. The latter has acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion. Thus he and his
mom (Annabella Sciorra) have become outcasts, shunned by the public and labeled as
dangerous company, basically due to a common lack of public knowledge of the
disease. When Eric (Brad Renfro, known from 'The Client' and 'Apt
Pupil') and his mom move into the house next to them, he has to deal with public
insults and the fear of catching AIDS himself. However, Eric overcomes his fear and
risks everything. At first he starts talking to Dexter, but eventually he climbs
over the fence and joins the witty boy (played by Jurassic Park's Joseph Mazzello)
and his games. Very quickly he develops a real friendship with Dexter, who is
delicately built and frail due to his condition. The central theme of
the movie the theme which makes it pervasively authentic and tragic at the same
time is how Eric and Dexter try to find the ultimate cure. At first they
experiment with all kinds of plants and leaves which is very naive, but also
genuine at the same time, as it shows how young kids deal with such heinous
diseases and how strongly they still believe in the magic of the world. When they
hear about an alleged cure which has been developed in the South, they do not
hesitate and take off for an adventure that will bring them even closer together
and symbolizes the ultimate quest for hope. So they board a raft and
head southwards on the Mississippi River. What starts as a real adventure becomes a
dangerous undertaking, which is emotionally intriguing and instructive at the same
time. The scene when Dexter reveals his fears and talks about the end of the
universe, where everything is dark and cold, Eric hands him his sneaker, a symbol
that wherever the boy may have to go, Eric is and will always be with him; he will
never have to be alone. This sequence, which is one of the most compelling ones of
the movie, features a very convincing interaction between the two actors, who
manage to avoid awkward and corny dialogs and deliver a very genuine performance
that is eventually smashing in its tenderness and honesty. I will not go
any further in outlining the plot, as I do not intend to give away too much
information. The ending however is emotionally tough and makes the audience so much
a part of the tragedy that everyone who watches the movie will feel personally
affected. This aspect makes this movie so strong, so outstanding and so convincing.
The emotional burden on every character is so real and so thrashing that even the
tougher members of the audience might need some hankies. A 10 is doing
justice to this movie and is not too high a rating. There is hardly any other movie
I have seen in my life so far that handles such an emotional issue with so much wit
and sensibility. It is the story of how two boys make each other's life richer and
how they teach each other lessons of life. Thus Dexter overcomes his isolation and
sadness, and Eric learns what really counts in life; and both of them realize how
much of a gift real friendship is when it comes to the hardest moments of
life. This movie is tragic but its message is sheer inspiration.
And I do not understand why the show gets so much beating. In my opinion this show
really is excellent. Well the first two episodes were not that great but it picks
up a load of momentum at the third episode. Which seems to be typical for a Steve
Moffat sitcom. I would rate it among the best sitcoms Britain has ever produced. The show itself is a farce at its best, it is not along the lines of Fawlty
Towers, but you definitely can rank it as high as a Black Adder, Coupling, or The
Young Ones! I am watching the first season, and all I can say is that I am happy I
bought the DVD! The problem probably with this show is and why it got
smacked so hard, according to the internet, that the original press release
compared it to Fawlty Towers, and everyone was disappointed it was not! Well even
Green Wing is closer to Fawlty Towers than this show, all I can say is clear your
mind from every prejudice, give the show at least a run until (including episode 3)
and then decide for yourself! All I can say is thanks Steve Moffat for
writing it and thanks for the entire staff pulling it off!
This one of the best and funniest comedy series i have ever seen! All characters
are brilliant. Mr. Slatt (David Bamber) is a very very irritated man,
irritated by everything and anyone. He wants to do things and handle
situations as best as he possibly can, but he never gets it right and only gets
himself deeper and deeper in trouble. Not supported by his wife Janet, who only
tries to get him deeper and deeper into the trouble he is getting himself into (and
really does not need the help at all!). All characters are
played/portrayed brilliantly. Just imagine sending your kid(s) to a school like
this. It is unbelievable that people do not like it (maybe some don not
get the many many plays on words, that are featured many times per episode). It is also unbelievable that there is still no DVD release of it. There are
only 2 series! So please, release it, let it go! So the fans can and
will enjoy it! Try it, you might just like it!!! Just some
names & words from the series: Pumpman, Man Helmet, Hot Bitch, Mount Suzy, Travis
Fellatio, Cockfoster, Arshead (and many many more).
I don't think this cartoon was as bad as some may think. Of course, I was only five
at the time it came out. But, I did find it very entertaining at the time and would
still give it a look today if given the opportunity. Batman and Robin being voiced
by Adam West and Burt Ward was a nice touch, and gave it a sense of familiarity for
me as I was also watching re-runs of the campy 1960's live action show "Batman" at
that age. This cartoon also introduced some new twists I had forgotten all about,
like "Bat-Mite" for instance. Looking back on it, I'm sure he was likely as
annoying as many think, but he didn't bother me much at the time. The best I can
recall, his voice sounded like a cross between Dumb Donald and Orko. Gee, I wonder
why? :) Anyway, give it a look if you can and make up your own mind. You might be
surprised.
Interesting story and sympathetic treatment of racial discrimination, Son of the
Gods is rather too long and contains some hammy acting, but on the whole remains a
fascinating film. Story about a Chinese passing as White (Rchard
Barthelmess) starts as Barthelmess leaves college after being insulted by a trio of
brainless co-eds. He embarks on a world tour to discover himself and ends up as
secretary to a British playwright (Claude King). In Monte Carlo he meets beautiful
Alanna Wagner (Constance Bennett) and they fall in love. But when she discovers he
is Chinese she goes berserk in a memorable scene. Plagued by guilt and
love, Alanna goes into a mental spiral and makes a few attempts to contact
Barthelmess. After his father dies he takes over the business (banking?) and dons
Chinese garb as a symbol of his hatred of the White race that has spurned him.
After a San Francisco detective tells him the truth about his birth, Barthelmess
makes the decision to honor his Chinese father and mother. And I agree
that one reviewer here never saw this film. Alanna declares her love for Sam BEFORE
he tells her of his recent discovery. And that makes all the difference in this
film. Barthelmess and Bennett each have a few scenes where they chew the
scenery, but on the whole this is a solid and interesting drama. Frank Albertson is
good as the nice college pal, Claude King is solid as the playwright Bathurst, Bess
Flowers has one scene as an Oklahoma Indian, and E. Alyn Warren is the Chinese
father, Dorothy Mathews is nasty Alice. Not so good are Anders Randolf as Bennett's
father and Mildred Van Dorn as Eileen. Also note the gorgeous blonde to the right
of Barthelmess at the roulette table. What a stunner whoever she was!
A competent comedy that delivers the laughs for fans of Jack Lemmon and Walter
Matthau. I suppose this film was made for those who enjoyed the two GRUMPY OLD MEN
films, as there seemed to be a bunch of these buddy team-ups spotlighting the
comical duo in their twilight years. The idea is a sure-fire one: Matthau, a
bumbling gambler who's thousands of dollars in debt, connives his unsuspecting
friend Lemmon into taking a free cruise with him where they can meet rich old
ladies; the catch is, they've been signed on as Dance Hosts and Matthau can't
dance. OUT TO SEA is a funny film, and not all of the chuckles are to be
found courtesy of Lemmon and Matthau. I found Brent Spiner (best known as Data from
STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION) to be very humorous as the snobby ball-busting
dance coordinator. As the prissy boss of the two aging actors, he manages to match
them in the laughs department. Though the film doesn't really need any, there's
also a a love story or two to be found here as well, involving Dyan Cannon (who
looks pretty fine for her years).
A wealthy young man, raised as a SON OF THE GODS, must confront his Chinese
heritage while living in a White world. Although the premise upon which
this film is based is almost certainly a biological impossibility and the secret of
the plot when revealed at the movie's conclusion makes all which has preceded it
faintly ludicrous, the story still serves up some decent entertainment and good
acting. Richard Barthelmess has the title role as the sweet-natured
Oriental whose life is terribly complicated because he looks Caucasian. Barthelmess
keeps the tone of his performance serious throughout, gazing intently into the
middle distance (a mannerism he developed during Silent Days) whenever his
character is indecently misused. He makes no attempt to replicate his classic
performance in D. W. Griffith's BROKEN BLOSSOMS (1919) and this is to his credit.
Beautiful Constance Bennett is the millionaire's daughter who makes Barthelmess
miserable. She is gorgeous as always, but her behavior does not endear her to the
viewer and her terrible illness in the final reel is kept mercifully off screen. Multi-talented Frank Albertson has a small role as Barthelmess' improvident
buddy. Serene E. Alyn Warren and blustery Anders Randolf play the leading stars'
very different fathers, while Claude King distinguishes his brief appearance as the
English author who befriends Barthelmess. Movie mavens will recognize
little Dickie Moore, uncredited, playing Barthelmess as a tiny child. The original Technicolor of the flashback sequence has faded with time to a ruddy
tint. The shot purporting to be the South of France instead looks suspiciously like
Avalon on Santa Catalina Island, off the coast of Southern California.
This early Warner Brothers talkie "Son of the Gods" (1930) deals with the racial
intolerance that Anglo-Saxon Americans show towards the Chinese. Chinese-Americans
are treated like second-class citizens, and whites hold them in nothing but
contempt. Prolific scenarist Bradley King based her screenplay on Rex
Beach's novel about a young, impressionable Chinaman, Sam Lee (Richard Barthelmess
of "Only Angels Have Wings"), who experiences racial prejudice first-hand when the
girls that his college chums bring along for a party reveal their racist sentiments
about Sam once they learn about his heritage. Sam goes to his father, Lee Ying (E.
Alyn Warren of "Gone With The Wind"), who is a wealthy Chinaman with offices not
only in New York City but also in San Francisco. Sam feels deeply wounded by the
racial slurs and he wants to leave New York and go where he cannot be hurt by
Americans. His patient father warns him that racism is a fact of everyday life and
the only solution to racism is tolerance. Sam has yet to learn this lesson. He
refuses to take any more money from his father and catches a ship to London,
England, peeling potatoes while he is on board. During the trip, he
encounters a British playwright, Bathurst (Claude King of "Arrowsmith"), who needs
some help writing a play about the Chinese. Sam and he strike up a friendship and
Sam furnishes him with cultural information about Asians. While they are relaxing
in France, Sam meets a beautiful young woman, Allana Wagner (Constance Bennett of
"Two-Faced Woman"), who falls madly in love with him. It seems that Allana and her
wealthy father are vacationing in the same motel. Everybody at the motel knows
about Sam being a Chinaman with the exception of Allana. Sensitive about his racial
heritage, Sam holds Allana at arm's length until she convinces him that nothing
could change her mind about him. They fall madly in love together. Allana's father
drops the bomb on her when he reveals that Sam is a Chinaman and all the memories
of living in San Francisco and dealing with coolies floods Allana's mind. She
storms into the dining room at the motel and publicly flogs Sam with a riding crop
in front of a room filled with on-lookers. Of course, Sam is terribly
devastated by this reversal of events. He thought that Allana loved him but she
didn't. About this time, Sam's father Lee Ying falls tragically ill and Ying's
secretary of sorts, Eileen (Mildred Van Dorn of "Iron Man") sends Sam a telegram
about Ying's illness. Predictably, Sam rushes home to New York to be at his
father's side. Since his public humiliation, Sam has vowed to show no kindness to
Anglo-Saxon Americans; Eileen is an Irish-Catholic and probably one of his few
white friends. Lee Ying dies and Sam assumes control of the business and he
practices his anti-White racism, until he learns that he was an Anglo-Saxon
foundling that a San Francisco cop on the beat gave to Lee Ying and his wife to
bring up. The cop forgot about it until two white busy-bodied social worker types
wanted to take Sam away from the Yings. Sam learns this revelation about the same
time that Allana comes to New York and falls ill. During her illness, she utters
his name repeatedly in her sleep and her devoted father goes to see Sam and
requests that Sam visit her in order to help her recover. Unbeknownst to Allana,
Sam does visit her and she improves, but she has no memory of his visit, merely a
hazy notion. Eventually, Allana learns the truth about Sam not being a Chinaman and
they marry and live happily ever after. This socially conscientious
Warner Brothers/First National Pictures Release contends frankly and unflinchingly
with the race issue for the first hour or thereabouts before the revelation that
Sam has no Chinese blood running in his veins catches both him as well as the
audience by surprise. The reconciliation between Allana and Sam stretches
credibility, despite their self-professed undying love for each other. However, in
the name of a happy ending that would erase all the negativity that came before it,
they wind up in each other's arms. The capitulation on the race issue
with the revelation that Sam isn't Chinese damages some of the film's moral power.
Incredibly, "Son of the Gods" is a Pre-Code film that almost seems prudish; for
example, Sam is an American, not Chinese! Constance Bennett gives a wonderful
performance as a petulant beautify and she holds your attention when she whips Sam
with her riding crop. Claude King is good as Bathurst, and E. Alyn Warren is
convincing as Lee Ying. Interestingly, Warren made a career out of portraying Asian
characters. Richard Barthelmess is flawless as Sam; he delivers a highly nuanced
performance. Despite its age, "Son of the Gods" is a son of a good movie!
I loved this movie - the actors were wonderful and suited their roles. The story
itself was great (and true, the setting was perfect and the message about human
response to the war, danger and risk was exceptional. The person who wrote the
music score also did the music for Life is Beautiful (another favourite of mine)-
his comment was apparently that "...this was not a like an English movie, it was
like an Italian movie." I think he's right! Callum Blue is perfect for the part of
Eric Newby. I recommend this movie to everyone who wants to watch a story that is
true and morally uplifting as well as a beautiful love story.
I have just watched this movie for the first time today, and just loved it... Yes it is simple in it's storyline, the sweetest love story,and how any
female could not fall in love with Callum Blue beats me... The scenery
in Italy was as you would expect, Beautiful, the baddies lost in the end,and for
the two lovebirds to be reunited at the end, was wonderful, but that scene where a
certain Italian was sweeping away the confetti after Eric and Wanda's Wedding,
perfection!. Have a cup of tea and watch a fantastic movie, yes, better
have a tissue ready and be enthralled, I know I was and hope to get it on DVD real
soon. All the actors played their parts perfectly, this was a WW2 film you could
believe in as it was so realistic, and without going over the top as in other
films...
"In Love and War" is a simple feel-good TV-film, and should be viewed as
such. (Possible spoiler) It is the story of a WWII British
soldier, Newby, captured with his commando by the Italians and imprisoned in a
former orphanage. As the Italians surrender to the Allies, the commando is freed,
and attempts to flee. However, the Germans arrive and the commando is captured
again. Only Newby, injured, remains at large. The rest of the film recounts how he
is hidden and protected by the Partisans, and his survival. (End of
spoiler) Based on a true story, "In Love and War" is a refreshingly
straightforward film. Half comedy, half romance, the story is simple and
unambiguous. The 'atmosfera' is warm and sunny, and the various stereotypes (the
desperately unorganized or romantic Italians, the serious stern-looking Germans and
the phlegmatic and pragmatic British), although unoriginal, are still humorous.
Nicola Piovani's musical score also adds to the Mediterranean flavour. Although it is far from being a "Tea With Mussolini" or a "La Vita E Bella", "In
Love and War" is a sweet simple film that will put a smile, and maybe even a little
tan, on your face.
This delightful, well written film is based on a New York stage play bearing the
same title where Sir Aubrey (knighted Sir Charles Aubrey Smith in 1944) originated
the role he plays in the film. Here, in 1931, we see him in the early part of his
acting renaissance in the very early era of "talkies" and in the character role
that he would make his own until his death in 1948 after finishing his last
performance in Little Women which released in 1949. This engaging play
is about an elderly British aristocrat who locates his illegitimate children and
introduces himself to them, having brought them to his manor in England. Marion Davies plays his daughter-by-error and it's a tour de force for her.
She is all at once endearing, impatient, shallow, enchanting, wise and
compassionate while creating an indelible and beguiling character that remains well
ensconced in the memory. The 26 year old Ray Milland appears here in a
small but prominent role having already appeared in seven other pictures then only
in films for a bit more than two years. The film should be enjoyed as a
representative of 1931 Hollywood factory production of course and as such is not
flawless. However, it's a charming pleasure from first scene to the last.
This is one of the better Marion Davies talkies - and one of the few to allow her
to exhibit her skill as a physical comedian which was so endearing in her silent
films. OK, so she does a clunky tap number, but even Ruby Keeler's dancing from the
era does not hold up for younger generations. The problem here is the script. The
story falls into unbelievable melodrama in the last reel. It's quite stagey, and is
obviously adapted from a play... but not well enough. Still, there is some snappy
dialogue and slapstick throughout. Worth a look.
toplines this ok comedy about an aging father (C. Aubrey Smith) who decides to
gather his grown children from around the world. Davies is working as a chorus girl
in New York when she gets the news that "daddy" wants her. Hmmmm, sounds familiar.
Davies' considerable talents as a comedienne save this otherwise so-so comedy as
she upsets the staid British countryside with her brazen American personality. Not
as sharp as some other Davies comedies, but still worth a look. Ray Milland plays
her long-lost "brother." Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, and Halliwell Hobbes are
all fun, too.
This 1931 comedy gets better with every viewing because of the comedic talents of
Marion Davies and a terrific performance by C. Aubrey Smith. Smith plays a gruff
old man who gathers his grown children (from his younger days as a rake) in his
declining years. One is American (Davies), one English (Ray Milland who looks about
18), and one Italian (Nina Quartero). There are some surprises as the plot moves
along with Ralph Forbes(was has no appeal at all) falling for Davies. Davies and Smith are just wonderful together and very touching. Davies also gets
to do a few dances and make a few "big" entrances. And of course Davies is just
gorgeous. Halliwell Hobbes, Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, Guinn
Williams, Edgar Norton, and David Torrence co-star. Had they given out supporting
Oscar awards in 1931, Smith might well have been nominated. He's just excellent in
this this gem.
A grumpy old baronet, happily unmarried, decides to send for his three grown-up
illegitimate children and provide them a home at his manor. To his surprise, he
finds himself bonding with his uninhibited American daughter. Can he find
satisfaction in his new role as THE BACHELOR FATHER? This 1931 film, in
which he gives a robust performance, marked the arrival at MGM of elderly Sir C.
Aubrey Smith, very soon to be one of Hollywood's most valuable character actors.
With his great hooked nose & beetling brows, Sir Aubrey looked every inch the part
of the duke or general or statesman he would play so often. The acknowledged leader
of the British community in Hollywood, Sir Aubrey would also champion the game of
criquet in Southern California. He would remain very much in demand in studios all
over town, right up to his death in 1948. The film's top-billed star is
Marion Davies. Best remembered today as the mistress of media mogul William
Randolph Hearst & the chatelaine of Hearst Castle, the most fabulous residence on
the West Coast, she was actually a very talented & pretty comedienne. For a few
years, Hearst attempted to make her the queen of MGM (with her own production
company & a huge bungalow-dressing room) but the studio already had several other
queens - Dressler, Garbo, Shearer, Crawford - and he eventually moved her to Warner
Bros. Here Miss Davies gets a chance to joke & clown and her scenes with Sir Aubrey
are entertaining. Her love interest is played by Ralph Forbes, a
handsome young British actor who was just starting to find good films (THE TRAIL OF
98) as the silent days ended. He had all the qualities for major stardom, but
sadly it was not to be. Celebrity would come to Ray Milland, here making one of his
first screen appearances. Halliwell Hobbes & Doris Lloyd also appear to advantage.
For people like me who were born long after the '60s ended, we can only learn about
the era through cultural artifacts, of which "Hair" is one. This is certainly a
well done tour de force. One can get a sense of how things were for the hippie
culture. Probably the most impressive scene - for me at least - is when the group
crashes the rich people's party. As for the movie's final scene, one might
interpret it as the symbolic end of everything that the '60s represented. But no matter how one interprets this movie, it's important to understand
that even though the '60s themselves may have ended, the movements that typified
them still exist in small enclaves. It's a time that people won't soon
forget. Anyway, this movie is one that I definitely recommend. Milos
Forman scored another great one here, right between his two masterpieces "One Flew
Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Ragtime" (so why did he later make a piece of crap
like "Man on the Moon"?!). Starring John Savage, Treat Williams and Beverly
D'Angelo.
i think this show is awesome!!! i love it, and i love Fabian (not in a romantic
kind of way) but if i was there i would totally support Fabian like Haley did, and
the other girls, yeah!! i mean if they're rood why don't you want to fight them
back!! Fabian is the only who have guts to confront people and say what he thinks,
not just stay and suck it!!! FABIAN 100%!!!!! i love Haley too, because shes like a
normal girl who doesn't want to be with cows and bugs and grass everywhere, and
sleep in a warm bed with servants, i mean, if you have the chance and the money why
wouldn't you do that!!! and Fabian too, Fabian brought pizza and just like 2 or 3
people said thanks, i mean he spend money!!
This film for me and my wife is more entertaining than all the bloc-buster violent
thriller/mystery/murder movies that abound. It is about real people making the best
of their lives. They just happen to be Indian and the main characters are in law
enforcement. The realistic acting and the great scenery more than make up for the
slightly implausible plot. The sound track is by BC Smith, who also did the
soundtrack for Coyote Waits, and is great. Adam Beach plays a tribal policeman who
is a little bit accident prone and Wes Studi is the stoic consummately professional
detective. There are many other fine either supporting or cameo roles by Graham
Greene, Tantoo Cardinal, etc. We have also seen Coyote Waits, another adaptation of
a Hillerman novel, and we greatly enjoyed it too.
I hope Robert Redford continues to make more films like this. Hillerman's books are
wonderful, and as a young child raised in the Southwest his stories hit home! Adam
Beach is a highly under rated and under used actor. Wake up Hollywood, not everyone
thinks that your Mel Gibson's are cool! Many movie goer's today want to see films
that make you think. I have seen all of the Redford/Hillerman series. They are
thoughtful, scenic and have great plots. I'm hoping that if enough people write to
Robert Redford he may decide to make a few more! Thank you Adam Beach and Tony
Hillerman for great entertainment! If anyone get's a chance to read Tony
Hillerman's latest book do so! It's great. I also recommend traveling through
Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. Stop at every view site and feel the
setting of Hillerman's books. Amazing experience.
Joe (Wes) & Jim (Adam) re-acquaint us with the beauty, isolation (psychological as
well as physical) and utter terror of "murder most fowl" in the Navaho Southwest.
Characterizations, settings and plot continually build .. . even if at times the
personal asides leave us wanting "more" .. . with some interesting alternative
choices as to "who done it?" Flashbacks (e.g. Peter Fonda . .. good to see him)
provide clues but they don't go where you might think. Comic asides (e.g. the
Preacher) are mild and appropriate. Where "Skinwalkers" and "Coyote Waits" start to
drag .. . "Thief" engages the clutch and four-wheels you around the next corner,
never quite sure what's there. Disagree with Joe Leaphorn's manic comment to Jim
Chee to "slow down" for the potholes. Wrong ... there are no potholes in the plot,
just tracks to follow. On to the next episode! Great photography (as always),
appealing characters and more to explore!
I caught this movie the other night on one of the movie channels and I haven't
laughed that hard in a long time. This movie was so funny I went out and bought the
very next day. I love this type of comedy. It just seemed so real in the way the
actors react to the different situations here. I was Rollin. I had never even heard
of it and just started watching because of the title "Seeing Other People". The
title caused me to give it a shot and I'm glad I did. I laughed so hard that it
hurt. Now it's part of my collection. I definitely recommend it to all those that
enjoy smart-ass type of comedy. I will be watching this one over and over.
"Seeing Other People" is a daring romantic comedy about a couple named Ed and Alice
(Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson) who are engaged and plan to be wed soon. They
live together but are both having doubts about their relationship. Alice realizes
she's had so few sexual relationships in the past, she might just be marrying Ed
because she's never felt anything else. So they agree to begin fooling around with
other people for a while to test their own relationship. The movie
balances a prescient question - by focusing too much on the "What if?" aspects of
life, can it in fact do the opposite and only make you feel more constrained? When
Ed begins having sex with a college girl he begins to become addicted and almost
forget about Alice - when he realizes this, it scares him. I hadn't
heard anything about this film in advance but I enjoyed it. It's not extremely
well-made and definitely has that purposefully low-budget indie feel to it - but
it's a lot better than most romantic comedies out there in the mainstream today. Check it out if you get a chance.
I loved this movie. It's a lot of laughs. The acting is good and the writing is
really sharp. I'd rather see a hundred movies like this than THREE LORD OF THE
RINGS repeating and repeating themselves. It's a low budget affair and
seems to be shot on DV but looks good and Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson are great
together. Why do you have a ten line minimum? I'm not a critic, just a
patron. I doubt very much that Quentin Tarantino could write a picture
this funny without filling it with masturbatory gratuitous violence. This movie
should be seen on more screens than just one. I laughed from beginning to end. >
I was hugely impressed with this movie, if for nothing else than for the comedy. It
might not be the edgiest, wittiest humor at all times, but I found it appropriate
to every scene. The flow of the film is certainly a bit jumbled, almost
confusing sometimes, but that is how the characters feel. Sometimes, we're watching
a bit of slapstick and other scenes revolve around a decisive discourse on
relationships. This might be a bit frustrating to certain viewers, but it brought
me closer to the characters' dilemmas of irregular chaos. The acting is
great from everyone. I'm a huge Andy Richter fan, but I wasn't head over heels for
his part like everyone else seems to be. He did very well, but Julianne Nicholson
and Lauren Graham stole the show for me, both in their respective ways. Jay Mohr
performs as expected, if you've seen him in other films. I've always liked
him. Overall, the movie is very funny and offers some nice foundations
for a few types of relationships. When it comes to relationship questions and
problems, some films try to surprise. There's nothing surprising about the
conclusions offered here, but it's entertaining to watch them be revealed
throughout the film.
I paid attention and enjoyed the very rich expressions capability of the main
actress, Julianne Nicholson. I don't have words to describe how much have I been
enchanted. All the actors and actresses played well. Especially I noticed the solid
good character who has been consistent in foreseeing the future - Andy Richter who
played Carl. I think that the idea to show a variety of friends and relatives with
different opinions, and the several consulting meetings, is like the real world.
Jay Mohr who played Ed, the future husband, also played very real behavior. But, I
want to emphasize again the point of very rich expressions repertoire which
Julianne Nicholson is capable of and does so naturally, was overwhelming for me.
Indeed, the subject which this movie handles seems to me as very important and
touches strongly meaningful thoughts of many people. I've seen this movie several
times and have not been bored. It raises again and again in my thoughts.
I happened into the den this morning during the scene where Ed was engaged in the
3-Way and thought my wife was catching up on some early morning porn! Much to my
surprise it grabbed my attention and I rewound it and we started watching it at
4:30 in the morning! What a very entertaining, rich, funny and well developed plot
line and script. We both thoroughly enjoyed it, my wife so much that she shared the
experience with her girlfriends at work! Going on to recommend it and say what a
"kick" she got out of it. I am in my late 40's and she in her early 50's. I think
this movie would have appeal to both young and old. An unexpected, very enjoyable
surprise. Nice work! Thanks! Two thumbs up!
Just watched Hair after a lapse of 20 years. It struck home. For those of us who
tried to stand on the shoulders of the civil rights movement and fight the rule of
privilege and power; who resisted the fascism of the Johnson/Nixon administrations;
who now as veterans of civil wars fought the war in Vietnam every single day until
finally the US beast died and fled; for all who said no in many different ways --
it's remarkable how unsuccessful we were. How large the real table was on which
Treat danced. How driven the wizard behind the curtain. We were 20, 22, 24. We
didn't know the nature of the enemy. The size of the monster who for the next
thirty years and counting would continue to eat the world. How could we? Even with
smoke and the bat (the bat!) in our hand, like Treat, we were too young, too middle
class, too invested, too much a part of the actions we hated. But there
was a moment. As Andre Gregory observes in My Dinner With. . . , there was a moment
or two somewhere back there in the late 60's and early 70's when perhaps we could
have found something besides the yellow brick road. Something not fueled by
Bechtel, prisons, Enron, and Dick. Something collaborative. Something innocent and
critical at once. Something with dance. But we missed it. Like Kong
bending a girder, the "revolution" was turned in on itself. Into sexism. Racism.
Homophobia. And class crushing politics. Until we got to "W". Treat would have
hated "W". And Iraq and the pathological lies. If they were in that film. Then. But
the moment passed and "W" was almost inevitable. Comprehensive incompetence riding
the drunken, raging bull into estuaries, children's lives, and China shops. We should have done something more. Something better. But we clearly didn't
know what. Now what?
Plot: Ed and Alice are engaged. They live together and are living the dull life. He
has slept around before meeting Alice. She has a lot less experience. She decides
she needs to sleep around before marrying. He very reluctantly agrees they should
both see other people for a while. At first he is not really into it.
His wild days are behind him and he is simply content. Until one day Alice comes
back and tells him she made out with some random guy; who of course starts to fall
for her. Of course this is a BAD idea which causes extreme strain on
the relationship. Good movie. You can see the train wreck coming but
still good. Worth a rental.
Well, the movie did turn out a lot better than i expected. It's not boring and it's
not unoriginal. It's really not a silly romantic comedy. The situations the
characters put themselves in are very unusual, of course, we're still talking about
a movie, but the main characters are indeed plausible. Donald is, of course, an
exaggeration, but he's just a pawn in the movie, a means to prove something. The
ending isn't one of those ridiculously happy, always the same, moral containing
pieces of crap you can usually see in movies of the genre. I genuinely liked it and
i'm hard to please when it comes to this particular genre of movies. It's worth a
watch. Besides, it's better directed than other movies, the story line always
stands up, the characters themselves stand up. And they do not experience this
miraculous change and love is not revealed to them like a holly god given artifact,
yada, yada. At the end of it all you actually see yourself going through it all,
the movie makes you feel something, you may even learn a thing or two. It's not the
usual hope-producing, tissue moistening idiocy. It's a good movie, not a
consolation prize for teary women around the world.
[WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS] Written by husband and wife Wally
Wolodarsky (who also directed) and Maya Forbes, this indie film is one of the
better romantic comedies in recent memory. Jay Mohr takes a break from
playing smarmy weasels to be the nice guy faced with the fact his fiancée wants to
bed other people and he's allowed to do so, too. Julianne Nicholson, who was so
good in "Tully," plays spunky and vulnerable with great gusto. Too bad she doesn't
get the recognition she deserves. Good supporting performances help
immensely, too. Lauren Graham, who made last year's "Bad Santa" memorable, plays
the jaded, cynical sister to perfection, Bryan Cranston (the dad on TV's "Malcolm
in the Middle") gets a few funny, raunchy moments, and Andy Richter plays a genial
guy who falls for a single mother - Helen Slater in a credible, albeit familiar,
role as a mousy woman. What surprised me most about "Seeing Other
People" was how funny it is. There are some genuine laughs here. Ed's first attempt
at meaningless sex gets some great lines, and there's a ménage a trois that elicits
one of the most truthful reactions from a man as the male fantasy gets
tweaked. The film's premise isn't unusual, but I liked that it was Alice
(Nicholson) who thought of it, much to the chagrin of Ed (Mohr). Given the genre,
you know that no matter how good her intentions are, Alice's plan is doomed. We see
how the couple works through this strange situation. Initially, Alice and Ed are
turned on by the idea, but then the human element sets it. I appreciated
Forbes and Wolodarsky not turning this into a cheap sex romp. Yes, there's sex and
nudity, but there also are real emotions at work here. The "other people" Alice and
Ed befriend don't want to be the objects of casual sex; they have feelings, too. In
one case, too many feelings. Granted, some scenes run one joke too many,
the Richter-Slater subplot isn't necessary and Alice does something truly
uncharacteristic. But that's forgivable because Mohr and Nicholson generate such
tremendous intimacy and honesty - check out the scenes where Ed rummages through
Alice's underwear drawer or his reaction to her announcement about ending the
experiment - that no matter how much we might enjoy their little game, we root for
this couple to succeed. Unfortunately, this film got little, if any,
publicity and a limited release. Hollywood studios, whose romantic comedies often
veer on the unfunny, turgid and unsurprising, would do well to learn from this
intelligent and funny film.
The best romantic comedy I've seen in years. Not the kind of slick over the top
Hollywood stuff by Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler and a lot less syrupy than a Hugh
Grant epic. Julianne Nicholson and Jay Mohr are perfectly cast and both deliver
smoothly professional performances as the engaged couple who decide to spend a
little time sowing their sexual oats before marriage. Instead of playing it
strictly for laughs the writers and director concocted a nice blend of human
feelings and comedic action. Nicholson is just great as the awkward seductress and
Mohr does a great job as the man who reluctantly enters into the game but soon
finds himself enjoying his flings a little too much. We see just enough of the
supporting characters to nicely round out the plot without distracting from the
main story. Andy Richter (earnest friend) and Helen Slater (distraught single-mom)
are particularly good. There is enough meaning and emotional complexity to make
this a lot more than a standard boy-girl farce. Indeed, with just a little better
pacing and a tiny bit more cutting this film would be a top ten comedy.
This indie film is worth a look because of the enormous talent of its creators,
Wallace Wolodarsky and Marsha Forbes. Mr. Wolodarsky has directed the young cast,
and he is to be praised for this effort. The premise of the film is a
cautionary tale of the danger for wanting something one can't have. Which is the
story of Alice and Ed. After living together for a while, Alice suddenly gets
restless because she imagines she's lacking experience in the sex area. Alice and
Ed's relationship, while not an example of ideal happiness, is a comfortable way to
share their lives with one another. That is, until the moment Alice and Claire, her
sister, happened to bump into a sexual encounter by another couple that has no clue
of being observed. This incident makes Alice reevaluate her own sexual
life with Ed; she finds it lacks substance. When she proposes 'seeing other
people', Ed is shocked, to put it mildly, but not wanting to contradict Alice, he
decides to go along. What happens next is that both Alice and Ed enter into a world
that's been unknown to them. The people they meet, in the end, are not worth the
trouble. They sadly realize at the end, they were made for each other. The film is worth watching in order to see the amazing Julianne Nicholson, who we
happen to have liked in another indie film, "Tully". Ms. Nicholson reminds us of a
young Shirley McLaine; she projects such a luminous quality about her, that is hard
to take one's eyes from her whenever she is in a scene. This young actress proves
she is an accomplished performer who gets better with each new appearance.
Basically, she carries the movie. Her Alice is a study in contrasts. Alice is a
decent woman who thinks she is inadequate in pleasing Ed because of her
inexperience. Jay Mohr, is an excellent match for Ms. Nicholson. Both do
wonders together. His Ed is perfectly credible. We have known people like him. Deep
down inside, he is a good person, who suddenly gets himself in a situation he
didn't call for, yet, he goes along only to discover he is too decent and not cut
out for a life of gratuitous sex with the willing women that have no problem with a
tumble in the hay, just for fun. The rest of the cast is wonderful.
Lauren Graham does some amazing work as Claire, Alice's yuppie sister. Andy Ritcher
is also wonderful as the grounded Carl, the nerdy friend who finally finds out
fulfillment when he meets Penelope, a single mother. As Penelope, Helen Slater,
makes a felicitous, albeit of a short, appearance in the film. The
director is enormously gifted, who will no doubt go places because he shows he is
well suited for the job.
Intense, funny, witty, and more than anything, social comedy on the ways of adult
dating and it's results-be it good or bad. Mohr and Nicholson are engaged couple
two months away from a wedding date, when a bizarre event at their engagement party
forces Nicholson to re-think the relationship and start to date other people so she
won't feel so pristine when it comes to sexual experience. This leads to a disaster
of events following Mohr, Nicholson, and their cohorts. Very intelligent and needed
in this time of clumsy, condescending comedy, while containing your usual variety
of comedic, sexual, and frustrated characters(especially Charles as a sexually
frustrated sex fiend...very annoying) who even they seem to get the right feel to
this heart felt commentary. The film goes the way films should go these
days, showing that guys are sensitive at heart and have morals. Most of the male
characters are the moralistic, straight forward eyes, while the woman are the fresh
faced street prowlers who will stop at nothing to get pleasure. Guys will be
appreciative of the message made for guys with self respect, however it is easy to
assume that most males who DO see this film will use it's message of male
sensitivity cover up any flaw or trait that a female might find offending. Still,
the writing formula uses this as a tool to pave the way for it's male leads,
particularly those of Mohr, Richter, and finding the director in a cameo as a sales
man! The females are by far the most promiscuous as they speak of
nothing but pleasure and what it would be like to... with someone else. They have
amicable traits though, even though they are covered by the image of sex driven
kittens. Very funny stuff. On another level, the film follows some of
it's ensemble into different relationship work. Richter meets up with a stressed
divorcée(a VERY remarkable and noteworthy performance by the always reliable Helen
Slater) named Penelope who is divorced with a son who hates her for splitting with
his father. As the two go deeper into a relationship, human interest is revealed
and both the comedy and tragedy of divorce and starting anew are studied. By the end of the film, Mohr and Nicholson have become way to deep over the heads
to see what's coming next, and it is up to what they have learned about each other
and themselves to decide what will come next. It becomes appropriate and dramatic
at just the right time. Wallodorski's direction is emulated very well
when the characters learn to face each other after all that has happened...with the
right ending. All in all, this film should have been released
nationwide, and I should hope that it is up for some Academy Awards...maybe Helen
Slater can finally get the recognition she deserves. Anywho, this film is a no hits
miss, give it all you got romantic sex farce, displayed very maturely and
aesthetically. Great film!
Sophisticated sex comedies are always difficult to pull off. Look at the films of
Blake Edwards, who is arguably the master of the genre, and you will find just as
many misses as hits. For, if a film of this nature ever fails to work, it can never
fall back on the tried and true toilet humor of a teen sex comedy [i.e. "American
Pie"], or warm the audience with the sentimentality of a romantic comedy [i.e.
Julia Roberts' entire career]. It can only maintain a push to the end, and hope
that the audience can appreciate the almost required irony of it's
resolution. Written by husband/wife team Wally Wolodarsky and Maya
Forbes, "Seeing Other People" opens with engaged couple Ed & Alice [Jay Mohr &
Julianne Nicholson] only seconds away from rear-ending the car in front of them. As
the frame freezes, we unexpectedly hear the thoughts and fears of both characters.
From here on out, we welcome that the story about to unfold will enjoy a point of
view from both sexes. Two months shy of their vows, Ed & Alice already
look and act like an old married couple. In an early bathroom scene, their actions
alone show us just how comfortable they are with each other and how long they have
been together. So when the line to propel the plot forward is uttered - expectedly
from the least likely of the two - it is as if the very relationship itself is
calling for a change, even if it means it's own destruction. Once all
the ground rules are set [Ed can not sleep with her mother or, for that matter,
Salma Hayek], the two head off in their separate directions in the hope of finding
some meaningless sex to strengthen their relationship. At first, everything seems
to go as planned as their daily trysts only help to fire up the passion between
them. But predictably, as the deeper emotions of regret and jealousy begin to
emerge, they soon find themselves growing apart and on the verge of breaking up.
All of these actions leading to a resolution you may or may not like - depending on
your own degree of cynicism. For a comedy like this, you need a solid
cast with supporting characters just as strong as the leads. And director
Wolodarsky does not disappoint. Here he has cast two of my favorite actresses as
sisters - Julianne Nicholson & Lauren Graham - and allows them to play to their
strengths. For Nicholson, who has always reminded me of a young Shirley MacLaine,
she brings an air of naivete and vulnerability to Alice even when her actions seems
less than so. And as for Graham, an actress who has proven she could outperform an
entire Howard Hawks ensemble, she steals every scene she is in with an edgy "no BS"
persona. As for the guys, Jay Mohr is serviceable here as is Josh
Charles. "Malcolm in the Middle"'s Byron Cranston has to be applauded for taking on
a British accent and letting it all hang out. But the real treat here is Andy
Richter and his sub-plot involving single mother, Helen Slater. While his scenes
almost seem to belong in another movie, they are by far the funniest and his dead
panned delivery steals the show. For an independent production, "Seeing
Other People" has a more personal and introspective feeling - something that would
be noticeable absent from a big Hollywood film of this kind. Not to mention that
this film also has some genuinely funny moments - unlike, say, most Hollywood
comedies in general. Rating [on a 5 star system] : 3 1/2 stars
Why this film was only released in 4 states is beyond me. I thought this film was a
divine story. The name says it all: Seeing Other People. This movie has more logic
than laughs, which I suppose is why it works so well. Common sense also makes an
appearance in what would seem to be another puerile sex comedy. Alice is getting
her feet frozen in the cold, when she feels irrationally about the way she might
perform for her fiancé, not just sexually, but as a partner, and friend etc. This
starts what seems to be an almost archetypal journey for the both of them. One
fling after another leads to trouble, as if it wasn't a bad idea from the start.
Witty dialogue and comic set-ups make this one funny as hell! Nicholson and Mohr
set the tone of the film early on, and keep the promise they anticipate. Other
highlights are Lauren Graham, Andy Richter, and Helen Slater(in her first
theatrical film in 10 years!). Climax begins to take an insane turn, but a simple
ending makes this one far more enjoyable than most movies today. Mohr fans will see
something different in his Ed character, and fans of Helen Slater will enjoy her
shiny moments of a quick, but excellent come-back. Any Richter takes home the award
for most moralistic character. Romantic and funny, or just plain fun. Seeing Other
People is a gem, which needs to be noticed.
I channel surfed past this many times, mainly because the synopsis sounded so
cheesy, so "Love American Style". However, it turned out to be quite good, very
well done. The two stand-out features are the dialog and acting. Great cast. The
premise is actually well executed and there aren't too many weak moments. I guess
what I was most amazed by was how often you thought the wheels are going to come
off the cart, and instead, the cart just banks the turns, so to speak, and the
movie keeps flying. There are some nice little sub-plots, particularly the
relationship that develops between the character played by former Conan sidekick
Andy Richter. Also, want to mention that the music accompanying it was good.
I rented this movie without having heard (or read) anything about it. What a shame!
This movie is intelligent, witty, hilarious, fast-paced, and realistically
ridiculous. The characters manage to get developed without relying too heavily on
clichéd, tired stereotypes. It was refreshing to watch. I couldn't help thinking
that marketing would have helped lob this not-so-mainstream movie into the starved-
for-intelligent-comedy mainstream. The quality of the dialogue and the ease with
which the actors execute a huge range of awkwardness, heartbreak and comedy is so
rare these days--I felt that the actors must have really enjoyed participating in
something this rich. How is it that National Treasure was number one at the box
office for three weeks in a row--it is so weak in too many ways to mention. I guess
I'm just happy that movies like "Seeing.." are still being made somewhere out
there.
This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The
sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for
ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection!
I first saw this movie at a premiere-party in Mr. Zwarts hometown Fredrikstad.
There, between directors, musicians and other Norwegian celebrities I laughed and
laughed... I just couldn't stop. If you like a comedy with black humor, sharp lines
and excellent acting - this is one flick you HAVE to see! It's like mixing "True
Romance" with "The Wedding Singer" and add a dash of "Mad about you" Hilarios!
 10 Points!
Okay, maybe this movie not a revolution. But it a very good piece of entertainment,
and it's Liv Tyler's variation of Alicia Silverstone's "Clueless" or Cameron Diaz'
"There's something about Mary". Liv plays a femme fatale, which just
wants to have an own house and all kinds of material comfort in it. And well she
does everything to get just that... even crimes. Many crimes. And she drops every
boyfriend which doesn't cooperate to get these things. Additionally, she actually
doesn't mind to have some additional lovers beside her current boyfriend. This movie is even funnier to watch if one knows that Liv is actually of
zodiac sign cancer - and cancer are reported to be very domestic. So the character
Liv played here is actually a parody of a cancer ! I was alone in cinema
when I watched this one. That was quite comfortable because I could laugh as loud
as I wished all the time - but it also felt strange, as if nobody was actually
interested in this movie ? I myself liked it very much. The acting was
between very good to excellent, especially the main actors where brilliant. There
where enough jokes, many of the black kind, and good dialogues. This is
a trash movie, and it is full of black humor. If you like this kind of movies, try
this one !
One Night at McCool's is one of those films that starts with an awful amount of
promise but as the film goes on it becomes silly and loses it's way big time. Liv
Tyler plays a manipulative woman who tries to get her own way by flaunting her body
to every man she meets ,all of which fall under her spell.There are a few funny
moments in this but they get fewer and fewer as the film deteriorates into a comedy
farce. Michael Douglas who plays the assassin is good as is Liv Tyler, although she
does look like she had put on a bit of weight since armaggedon. This is ok but is
only memorable for the scene in which Liv Tyler washes her car, you will know what
i mean when you see it fella's! Shwing!!!!! 7 out of 10 (just).
Each guy Liv Tyler meets loses their head over her, not, of course, without some
small encouragement from Liv. Liv is at her beautiful best, with Matt Dillon tops
among the paramours. Interesting initial premise, to tell story from perspective of
each dupe, degenerates into sitcom-style finale (not unlike Blame It On Rio, with
which it has more than a few similarities). Worth watching nonetheless.
Okay. Here's the thing. I've read through the comments of other viewers --- some
trashing the film and some saying it's the funniest, darkest, blackest comedy ever
made. Whiffs of Tarantino, etc. Well, not exactly. But, guess what? It's still an
enjoyable and, ultimately, funny film. Not brilliant, not trash. Liv Tyler gives a
great performance and you absolutely cannot take your eyes off her. She's a woman
with very strong decorating ideas...Matt Dillon, a greatly underrated and under-
used actor, is wonderful, as ever. He always manages to stride that delicate line
between scruff and soul, and he pulls off the comedy beautifully. Ditto John
Goodman (though the religious overtones, probably funny in the script, really don't
work). Paul Reiser is very good --- definitely better than he was on TV. The usually unbearable Michael Douglas is actually great in this role. As
for his coif, well, see the film. Between this and "Wonder Boys," you're actually
reminded of the fact that Douglas can act. The movie will make you laugh in parts.
Okay, not exactly belly-laughing, but definitely in the I'm-amused-I'm-very-amused
category. If you're renting this expecting to see another "Pulp Fiction," forget
it. But if want something kinda hip and kinda fun, this is a damned good choice.
If you don't have anything better to do, then go ahead and rent this movie, it's
intelligent, funny it will sure have your attention busy for a while. I
discover it by surfing channels in a boring Sunday, it was on cable, and for the
faces I saw, I thought it may worth the try, it made me laugh and for a movie in a
Sunday with nothing else on TV, it was OK. Liv Tyler looks amazing in
the movie, even though her acting is not what I expected, it's kind of poor acting
and for the rest of the crew, I liked Reba in her role as a Dr. also I found
interesting seeing the guy from the sitcom "What I like about you" playing an
almost gay lawyer. As for J. Goodman I found it, as always a very good
performance, Michael Douglas plays a small role but His characterization was hard
for me to identify him.. It's also a good movie to watch with company.
A very funny movie. Michael Douglas' "do" is worth watching this flick for if for
no other reason. I'd like to see him do more of these low life roles. He was
terrific, as were all the performers. The film struck me right off as an
American Roshomon, only funnier and easier to watch because it was in American and
didn't need no stinkin subtitles! In a funny movie with a laugh every
minute or so, two of the best were with John Goodman (not someone I am crazy about)
- 1. He is telling the priest about Jewel doing something he liked and says "I had
to wipe the smile off my face." The visual shows he is not smiling and clearly is a
guy who never smiles, but probably doesn't know it. 2. The scene at the end between
Goodman, all suited up for Jewel in his cop uniform, and grappling with the be-
leathered Reiser hunched over a table... and the two of them then protesting that
they are not gay to another character who happens on the scene - this alone
deserved a special Comedy Academy Award.
Liv Tayler in her sexiest movie! She incorporates the "Femme Fatale"
role in an astonishing way, while in the same time she manages to appear a super
sexy woman while keeping the "sweet girl" stand and not being over-wicked like
other similar movies (e.g. "Femme Fatale" with Rebecca Romijn) Until
this movie, Lord of the Rings was the only movie i ever saw her (Im hooked on with
LotR) Point: By LoTR I had shaped an opinion that the role of the pure-
sweet woman was the only role that Liv Tayler could interpret, but when i saw "One
night at Mc Cool" I absolutely changed my mind. She is the sexiest woman ever!
 Therefore as a film is a mediocre common comedy with a "confusing" plot
One night, barkeeper Randy (Matt Dillon) rescues Jewel (Liv Tyler) from her jealous
boyfriend Utah (Andrew Dice Clay). He takes Jewel to his home. But Utah comes back
and wants Randy to open the safe at Mc Cool´s. Suddenly a shot - Utah´s dead.
Then... ...I´ll better stop here to tell the plot. That´s like to explain the story
of "Wild things". What I found so interesting, was the fact that the plot (written
by Stan Seidel, his first and his last work - he died in July last year...) was
told from 3 perspectives - the 3 men that fall for Jewel. Everybody of them sees
her from different eyes - like John Goodman as the detective, who tenderly falls in
love with her because of being remembered of his dead wife... No wonder
that the guys fall for her! Liv Tyler - she´s a real jewel. She made the big screen
shining! She played her role as if she was in a 40´s noir- thriller. Sweet - but in
the same time she was the cool vamp who walks over dead body´s and uses the men for
her needs. And, of course, Michael Douglas. How could I forget him? Mr. Burmeister,
the Bingo-playing killer - he was quite cool! But in the last 10 minutes
there was a little bit too much slapstick for my taste - it weakened the
atmosphere. That part began when Paul Reiser (as Randys cousin Carl) putted on his
leather dress for Jewel. The "YMCA"-song didn´t fit so much here... ... but
altogether, "One night at Mc Cool´s" is a pretty COOL film-noir parody! 
this movie makes me laugh by even just thinking about it. such a smart comedy! very
precise yet easy. the casting can not be any better. all actors are the best choice
of their roles and they all play precisely the best, and there is no stupid laughs
or shouting through out the whole movie. layers and the progress of story work
perfectly together and the rhythm flow smoothly. the greatest of all is when the
Village People's YMCA is cued in, it brings out the importance of the Indian's
statute which was only briefly brought up previously in the movie, which makes the
smartest and funniest climax among many comedies. I give it a ten especially a lot
of times comedies are so underrated.
It couldn't have come out at a worse time--just as the nation was entering the
Reagan years, the boom-boom 80s, the time of no regrets, no concerns. It got no
word of mouth, and opened poorly. The studio ditched it. But Hair is possibly the
best musical ever made--with Forman directing and Tharpe choreographing, it's a
startlingly beautiful, well-acted, well-written triumph that few people remember.
The casting is perfect, the musical numbers unforgettable, and even the downer of
an ending doesn't diminish the film's indomitable spirit. If you haven't
see this movie, you haven't seen the best musical of all time. Seriously.
Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Yeah it's hard to keep your mind off this fetching
beauty (giving an radiantly picture-perfect performance), as she simply has tongues
wagging. 'One Night at McCool's' is a dementedly quirky and raunchy black comedy
with old-fashion shades tied in to its familiar, but smartly crafted and chaotic
narrative which has three men lusting after the one women and she's milking it to
her advantage. When you see Tyler, no wonder why they are infatuated and would do
anything that's anything to see 'her' happy and living 'her' dreams. Just like
Tyler, there's something rather intoxicating about this feature in that we see the
likes of Matt Dillon, John Goodman, Paul Reiser (who's great) and especially
Michael Douglas (who plays the hired assassin with cool-ease, but a questionable
hairdo) really having a good time with their roles. The consuming plot opens up
with the main three characters (Dillon, Goodman and Reiser) telling their story of
how they came to encounter this divine presence and the eventual affects that she's
having on them to lead to an insane climax. There's an unpredictable chain of
events (ranging from fruity to sensual), where everything would virtually tie in
together with a certain ironic (snowball) twist of fate for the characters (that
see them leaving their reserved comfort zone to fulfill this girl). Howard Zwart's
direction is colorfully zippy balancing the script's quick-fire gags and
frenetically fun, if complicated situations. One of the best under-the-radar
comedies in the last decade, which will have you under Tyler's thumb.
This movie is never going to be on a list of the top 50 films of all time, but if
you're compiling a list of "fun films", this isn't a bad place to start. Liv Tyler
is amazing, captivating and luscious, and everyone else is dead-on right for their
parts. It's a 21st century counterpart to "Tom Jones" -- in other words; just good,
bawdy fun. I think that this may be Tyler's breakthrough film on her way to major
stardom. With no nudity she oozes sex in this film. It's no wonder all the boys
give her toys. How could they help but do that for a helpless, innocent such as
Liv's Jewel?
This is a very good black comedy, with a great view on how different people have a
different perception of the same situations. The three main characters each met a
girl named Jewel, played by Liv Tyler, who is a different male fantasy for each of
the three men. Each of the three men go through the same situations, but when they
tell of them to other people, their perception of the situation is very different
from what the other two say. That is a very good concept, probably not entirely
original but it works very well in the movie. The plot is very good, very bizarre
and extreme, which makes it a good black comedy. The acting is equally good, not
one of the actors seemed out of place or out of their league. The comedy is very
black, pitch black in some scenes, and a lot of people will definitely be offended
by it, but fans of black comedy will probably enjoy it. Overall, this movie is not
for everyone's taste, but most people who like black comedy will probably love it,
as it is definitely one of the better black comedies. 7/10
I must admit, I liked this movie, and didnt find it all misogynist. It could be
subtitled, three ways of looking at LiV Tyler. Three different men become obsessed
with the same woman,and tell their stories to very different characters;One
man(John Goodman) tells his story to a priest(the very funny Richard Jenkins).For
Goodmans charcter, the Liv Tyler character is an idealized saint, the second coming
of his sainted wife,Theresa.For Paul Riesers character(who tellls story to a
shrink(a fine, understated performance by the great Reba Mcintire),the Liv Tyler
character is simplyan object of (kinky)sexual fantasy.Finally Matt Dillons rather
dimwitted charcter tells HIS side of the story to a sleazy hit man, played by
Micheal Douglas.All three of these narratives of obsession are told
simultaneously,and all are amusing. Finaly the film ends in a bizarrely funny
climax, that I wont give away.
One Night at McCool's is a very funny movie that is more intelligent than what it
should be. Its form is more sophisticated than what I expected, and its randomness
was superb. The thoughts behind the movie (mysogeny, sadism, stupid men) are are
infantile. That's what I have to say about this movie is that not only does it hate
women, but it loathes men. It doesn't have any sympathy for any of the men, really.
It seems that way because of the form, but the ending says it all. Nobody cares. The form has the first 2/3 of the movie told in flashback by three
characters: Dillon, the stupid bartender; Reiser, the mysogenistic stupid lawyer;
and Goodman, the stupid, holier-than-thou cop. The story is therefore always
perverted by their own self images and altered realities. Reiser's BBQ fantasy is a
great touch. In the end, we never really know the truth, and nothing is what it
seems. Dillon was never that innocent, etc. Actually, the rest of the
movie is funny too. From the randomness of the last 5 seconds of the movie to the
overly-obviousness of Tyler's manipulations, the movie seems to have an energy all
its own. Everything is just out of the blue, and nothing seems to make sense. Do we
really care if it does? No. It is also a very dark comedy, but has a
shallow presentation. Think Nurse Betty, or Jawbreaker. Very candy coated outside,
dark chewy inside. If you like your movies random, dark, or just purely mean, see
this movie. This one will satisfy your urges for the strangeness that is One Night
at McCool's. 8/10
ONE NIGHT AT McCOOL'S / (2001) *** (out of four) By Blake French: According to Harald Zwart, the director of "One Night at McCool's,"
this film is "a dark comedy about the power of women over men, and how a group of
people can all perceive different realities. It's the same story told from three
different points of view, and each time we tell the story, we try to reveal a
little bit more about what actually happened, which nobody really knows." "One Night at McCool's" marks the feature film directorial debut of Zwart, an
award winning commercial and music video director who began making short films when
he was eight years old. I always get nervous when a director of commercials and
music videos turns to filmmaking. We have seen so many examples of how these guys
think they are making another advertisement or music video for TV with their
productions. Zwart resists that tendency. He captures a specific humorous truth in
"One Night at McCool's," from an inventive, complex screenplay by the late Stan
Seidel, even if it is often somewhat perplexing. "One Night At
McCool's" features three men who share their separate experiences about a
particularly beautiful young woman. In some ways, this movie is the comedy version
of "American Beauty," but in others, it is a world apart. "It all
started one night at McCool's" explains each of the three men to their various
listeners. There is Randy (Matt Dillon), a tender at the local bar, and his cousin,
a lawyer named Carl (Paul Reiser), who stays until the place closes. Detective
Dehling (John Goodman), arrives when the saloon becomes the crime scene of the dead
boyfriend of a female fatal appropriately named Jewel (Liv Tyler). Randy is the
first to see her, as an individual treats her unkindly. He stands up for her, and
before you can say SEXY, they are having vigorous sex and she moves in with him. At
first, Randy is reluctant: "The sex and the violence, all in one night it's a
little much." But who could turn a jewel like Jewel away. Jewel
changes the lives of each of the three men. For Detective Dehling, she pulls him
out of a hole of grief since his wife died. For Carl, she makes him forget his
loving family and nice little suburban household. For Randy, she lights a few
fires, both positive and negative, the later persuading him to contact a bingo
playing hit man named Burmeister (Michael Douglas) to put an end to her deceptive
ways. It is interesting how the movie perceives the three different
chronicles-even the costuming of Jewel is relative to the man telling the story.
Dehling sees Jewel as a beautiful, mesmerizing gift from God. Carl sees Jewel as
two sexy legs and lots of cleavage. Randy is unsure what to make of her, an
awakening to his otherwise boring, road to nowhere life. The most intriguing
element of this movie is Jewel herself, however, deliciously played by the always
delightful Liv Tyler ("Armageddon"). She is not really interested in the men, but
what they can offer her. Her motives are all too simple, not truthfully diabolical
or evil; she is simply a young lady who has learned at an early age that she can
get what she wants out of life through her beauty. The film has a lot
of fun with its material. From the enthusiastically entertaining cast, to its
violently hilarious showdown, "One Night at McCool's" takes advantage of most of
its humorous ideas. What makes the movie even funnier is how the three men's points
of view differ. The actors have a lot of fun with their characters, too. Goodman is
curiously whimsical; Reiser fits his kinky, squirmy part quite well; Douglas is sly
and mysterious in one of the movie's funniest performances; Dillon gives his
character arrogant personality, even though Randy is a lackluster nobody; Liv Tyler
is dazzling. She injects Jewel with the perfect amount of boastful charisma and
tantalizing wit. She reminds us of Mena Suvari's intimate performance in "American
Beauty." "One Night at McCool's" is the first film to come from
Michael Douglas' new production company, Furthur Films. It is a creative, genuine,
and sexy production. Along the way we often become caught up in the twisty
structure, but that is a natural response to a movie that intentionally interweaves
several angles to a single story. The movie ends on a note that is both black and
comedic. This is another one of those comedies in which serious events take place
in a humorous way; i.e., the black comedy. Many films of this genre come across as
either too black or too lackadaisical. "One Night at McCool's" is one of the few
that actually work. 
Brought Philip Larkin to life in a way that is worthy of the greatest performances
of all time, and not just the ones that are measured by popularity. It shows a
stark portrayal of Larkins life as the greatest unrecognized poet of his era -
which is exactly how he would have wanted it, such was his disdain for cankers and
medallions. It dramatically exposes the raw beauty in the intense sadness of
Philips observations of our relationship with our own mortality, and lays it our in
a way that seems to have missed even the great philosophers. for anyone interested
in profound observations of our relationship with life, love and death this is a
must.
I am a big fan of Larkin's works, I believe that he was amid the greatest 20th
century poets. The film itself does a great justice to the bard of Hull.
Wonderfully portrayed by all the players in their roles. Bonneville does do a
service to the sexually repressed Larkin, he avoids an impression and strays from
becoming a caricature. The use of his poetry was the highlight of the piece itself.
Rather than acting out the massive intensity with which Larkin felt, the use of his
words themselves give a better insight into plot and add a much more sombre but
altogether more fascinating atmosphere. Most enjoyable.
What's there not to like? I caught this again tonight and marvelled as
to Hugh Bonneville's capturing of the essence of Philip Larkin without resorting to
tics and caricature. There are many layers to the depiction of the
complexity of the main character and Hugh brings them to life. His prudish mother,
his unresolved issues with his father and his inability to commit to one woman. His poetry is interlaced throughout and some scenes are caught in his
recounting of them to the wife of a friend whom he later propositions but quite
casually, almost innocently. It is not difficult to see where his attraction lay
for the many women who fell in love with him (and knew about each other, to boot,
and continued to see him!) Cerebral, fun-loving, jazz aficionado, loyal
friend. It is always more than looks, women moved beyond his baldness, deafness and
short sightedness. And a beautifully nuanced performance by Eileen Atkins as his
mum is an added bonus. 9 out of 10.
I just do not see what is so bad about this movie. I loved this movie! I thought
this movie was the best film in the series. Though part 3 is the best in the
series,I still gave this film 10 out of 10 because it is great. I don't see what
everyone hates this movie. Who would not want to see just a little bit of critter
action. I wished that Brad Brown would of appeared in this one because it might of
made it a little better. Those who like a little bit of drama because...wait I
won't tell you,you will just have to watch it. This film also contains a few
popular actors who are...(I won't tell you because I hate it when people give
spoilers so I do not want to be one of those people). Well I guess that is all I
have to say about this movie.
conventional and superficial ,Claude´s portrayal was incomplete it is supposed that
just a few moments with Sheila , makes him win her love , but the story itself and
the songs make it and enjoyable experience essentially the final sequence .Altough
i don´t know why it was given a PG rating . 
Critters 4 is a good movie. A bit of a twist to the series, as it takes place in
space, not in an earthly community. Good Effects and Acting make this movie a must
see. I would recommend this to Horror/Science Fiction fans everywhere. 10 out of 10 Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet
Master, Skinned Alive, Sleep Away Camp, Slumber Party Massacre, and other Full Moon
Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have
sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section.
Critters 4: This movie was continued after the 3rd critters movies. This one was
released in the same years as critters 3 was released in 1991. Critters 4 takes you
in space as they hunt for the humans in a space ship. I doubt if there will be a
Critters 5 because the ending for the 4th was quite a good ending, which brought
the end to the critters as there was no more left. I give this movie 10 out of 10.
This movie would had worked much better if this was the first Critters movie, this
is a low-budget movie with only two (2) Critters shown on-screen. Why this looks
like a fail is because this is the last Critters movie and it's so low-budget that
it seems the director made the whole movie with his own pocket money. However, I
did like this movie, I compare it mostly with the third movie (which were bad).
Critters 4 have a more serious tone in it, the first half of the movie (even
without seeing one Critter yet) you have a scary feeling watching it, too bad they
didn't "milk" out the Critters, I mean even if they only had two (2) puppets they
could still have used them on-screen a lot more. The Critters also have different
deaths in this movie which made this a little special, especially at the end with
the frozen Critter. Ug has a promotion in this part and is different in this movie
which took me by surprise. Lastly I liked this one because it also has some kind of
conclusion to the series, so at least we won't see a Critters 5 anymore. Oh, one
last thing, I missed one scene in this movie, we never see a Critter shoot a spike
from its back, maybe these puppets didn't have that feature, but I was very
disappointed not seeing that (in Critters 3 we see a lot of spike shooting, which
was the only good thing I liked about that movie).
Critters 4 ranks as one of the greatest films of the twentieth century. The word
classic has never been so aptly used as in describing this mind-blowing epic. I
agree that the original Critters is the best of the series, but the claustrophobic
tension of the space station in which Critters 4 is set really must be seen to be
believed. I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in seeing one of twentieth
century's major film landmarks.
This film is a fine example of why the Shaw Brothers are among the finest directors
(probably the best in the Kung Fu category). The movie is well paced, the story is
excellent and intriguing, and while the humor may not be in your face, it is nested
within the character interactions. Once the story builds up, and the characters
begin to assess the situation does the whole tower come crashing down in one of the
best fight scenes (tiger, crane and crab Hung Gar are very present). There is even
a scene that mocks 18th century Western social events, and ends with clever and
entertaining fighting. The movie ends with a sudden, cheesy moment, but if you are
a fan of the Shaw Brothers, you'll understand that the cheese is just a topping,
and not the main course of the movie.
My Young Auntie is unique in a lot of ways. First this is Hui Ya-Hung's (Kara Hui)
first action film. Second She was actually doing the fight scenes after having a
surgery done to her a few days before filming. Third this movie is off the
chain. The movie starts out with Wang Lung Wei trying to take the
inheritance from his brother. His brother then has Kara to marry him so Wang can't
take the treasure. The story is pretty good leading everything to it's rightful
place. In comes the action, what can I say that hasn't already been said
for movies like this, or Disciples of the 36th Chambers, The Victim, or even the
Magnificent Butcher. The fight scenes are what sales movie, and this one won't have
any problem doing so. Liu Chia Liang and Wang Lung Wei engaged in a fight that you
have to see to believe. Why have these two men not fought each other more is beyond
me. I don't want to spoil anything really, but you have to see My Young
Auntie to get the full blast of excitement. My only gripe is that Yuen Tak was not
used as broad as he was used in 3 Evil Masters, or even Invincible Pole Fighter (8
Diagram Pole Fighter) to excellent must see movies. 9.2/10
If you're looking for a kung-fu action movie, look elsewhere. While there are
fighting scenes, the film revolves around its provincial protagonist, who struggles
to find her way in Americanized Canton. Unlike most "kung-fu comedies," the action
scenes are used to reinforce the comedy, instead of the other way around. Cheung Booi is a statement about the farcical nature of kung-fu movies,
where the stars always seem to find some reason to fight. Instead of some grand
drama about honor and respect, minor misunderstandings cause the characters to yell
at each other and start beating each other up. My Young Auntie, as it's
known in the West, is the story of Cheng Tai-nun, played by Kara Hui, who is a
young woman who marries an elderly landowner to keep his holdings from falling into
the hands of his greedy and corrupt brother. After he dies, she moves to Canton to
live with her nephew, played by director Lau Kar Leung, and his son Ah Tao, played
by Hsiao Ho. The basis of the irony is that although Cheng is the same
age as Ah Tao, her manner is more akin to her status as his step-great-aunt. While
Ah Tao speaks English (extremely poorly), plays the guitar and goes to costume
parties, Cheng utterly fails when she tries to adapt to her lifestyle in Canton,
complete with makeup, revealing gowns, high heels and dance scenes. What
makes this movie great is its realization. Lau Kar Leung is perhaps one of the
greatest, if not the greatest director of his generation in Hong Kong, and Kara Hui
won "Best Actress" at the first Hong Kong Film Awards in 1982. Also, this is
arguably Hsiao Ho's finest performance. His chemistry with Hui is remarkable, and
although he went on to have a storied career in kung-fu comedies, often working
alongside Sammo Hung, he has the perfect combination of athleticism and comedy. As
the romantic tension and intrigue build in the second half of the movie, his entire
countenance changes. No longer does he easily jaunt through life without a care in
the world. He becomes the straight man and his cohorts the Kramer, Elaine and
George. My one complaint is how suddenly the comedic aspects of the film
die off during the conclusion. The film transitions from outright farce to dramatic
intrigue with little but a change in incidental music. But there is a certain
symmetry in it. The film begins focused on the intrigue, focused more on Lau Kar
Leung's character, and it ends that way, too. But the final scene returns to the
movie's comedic roots, giving conclusion to both aspects of the film.
This is one of the great modern kung fu films. A lot of the reviews seem to miss
the point that the comedy is based on a quite subtle at times (at other times right
in your face) contrast between old and new China. Kara Hui for instance is called a
country bumpkin and gets into trouble whenever she tries to adapt to the new but in
the end to save her families honour dresses as an old fashioned heroine in contrast
to the modern military style of Hsiao Ho. Gordon Liu seems to have played his part
for laughs playing off his serious, monk persona with silly wigs and a guitar. The
end fight is simply fantastic and ends in a defeat for Johnny Wang rather than
death. Kwan Yung Moon should be mentioned for his great playing of a thug with
'invincible armour' - simply terrific. And Kara Hui does some magnificent acting
and fighting. A great film.
Some martial-arts purists think that comedy was the worst thing that could have
happened to the old-school kung-fu flick; and it is true that the introduction of
comedy into the genre signaled the end of the "chop-socky" period in Hong Kong
film. But the fact is, one can only carry-on a primarily physical exhibition of
prowess for just so long, then everyone gets bored with it. And that's really why
the chop-socky died and how the Hong Kong "New Wave" action film was born: the
producers, the actors, the directors all just got bored with hitting people for
ninety-minutes straight. Given that, and given the fact that Liu Chia
Liang is a professional director with a considerable list of films in his resume,
this film has to be seen as something other than just another kung-fu comedy.
Rather, it is a comic film within the martial-arts genre, and in fact one of the
best ever made. What Liu has done with this film is really a pleasant
surprise: he has taken a martial-arts plot and re-constructed it along the lines of
a Hollywood-style musical! Complete with episodes of singing and dancing! It was
around the time of the making of this film that some film-makers and film fans
began to recognize that the cinematic performance of martial-arts (really derived
from the acrobatics of the Chinese opera) has more in common with dance than with
fighting. (I will continue to point out this connection until most Americans
realize what they are actually supposed to look for when watching a martial arts
film - well-choreographed body movements, using the plot of an action film as an
excuse for their performance.) At any rate, quite clearly Liu Chia Liang made this
connection and decided he would explore it close to its limits. The
result is an incredibly charming entertainment, filled with marvelously human
characters attempting miraculous kung-fu (and tripping over their own shoelaces as
often as not when they do so). and the film being set at the turn of the 19th and
20th centuries, allows Liu the opportunity to explore the nature of the
Westernization and Modernization of China that contributed so greatly to the making
of the China we know today. So the film has considerable historical import as
well. Also, fans of Stephen Chow's recent Kung Fu Hustle should really
watch this movie carefully, as Chow clearly learned from it before the making of
his own film. A very amusing, well-made film. Oh, yes, and the kung fu
in it is really, really good. Purists won't admit it, but this is
probably director Liu's best film.
El Padrino has just been released in Europe and is really kicking ass. This film
with its great cast - Damian Chapa ( Blood in Blood Out ), Robert Wager, Jennifer
Tilly, Robert Wagner and many more ) - is the best gangster movie since SCARFACE. A
Film that everyone MUST SEE. 2 hours full of action with fantastic unbelievable
stunt !!!! GRACIAS JENNIFER !!!! We are eagerly waiting for part 2 !!!!
Does anyone know if there will be one ? Keep up the good work !!! I loved it !!
I first saw this movie in the theater. I was 10. I just watched it a second time
and I must say it was amazing. The music, the dancing, the acting. It is a great
story and told extremely well. I fell absolutely in love with Treat Williams when I
was a kid after seeing him in this movie. One of my favorite parts was when his mom
kept yelling at him to give her his pants, and then finally said "how much do you
need"? (money). That was classic. ; ). Moms are the best. If you
haven't seen this movie since it came out I say see it again. It's timeless. It
will do what all great movies do; make you laugh, cry, and think.
I have seen this film more then once. Actually El Padrino was one of the best
feature films that I have seen in a great deal of time. There was a big
cast Jennifer Tilly, Faye Duanway, Brad Dourif, and Damian Chapa who really shined
like a real star in this part of Kilo. I heard this film was shot for
under two million dollars. I have seen films shot for 33 million that cant compare
to the quality and production value. Damian Chapa why are you not
getting offers and more film work!!! EXCELLENT JOB!!!!!!!!!! I cant wait to see the
sequel, and I hope it has the same action. Jennifer Tilly has made a
cult classic character with Sabeva. Damian Chapa moves coolly in every
scene much like the movie stars of the 40's and 50's So sick of seeing these non
charismatic actors like Ben Stiller getting all of these films when there is talent
like this that have something to show. a great film. GO GO GO KICK SOME
BUT IN SALES EL PADRINO!!!
I just finished screening El Padrino in Germany. A great film. We look forward to
seeing more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It was wonderful to see such a well
put together film with such suspense and a story that shall remain an instant
classic. The ending with little ambiguity leaves the story open for a sequel.
Seeing a film with great quality truly outlines Chapa's serious potential and his
adept skill as a writer, actor, director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many
with his triumphant performance in "blood in and blood out" and now he has proved
to all who have see his works his potential to become a critically acclaimed film
maker with genuine artistic control. Something that few film makers can afford.
We just finished screening El Padrino in Australia. A phenomenal piece of film
work. We look forward to seeing many more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It
was wonderful to see such a well put together film with such suspense and a story
that shall remain an instant classic. Seeing a film with great quality truly
outlines Chapa's serious potential and his adept skill as a writer, actor,
director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many with his triumphant performance
in "blood in and blood out" and now he has proved to all who have see his works his
potential to become a critically acclaimed film maker with genuine artistic
control. With his lead role Kilo Vasquez being a perfect combination between Milo
Velka from "Blood in Blood Out" and Al Pacino from "Scarface" the film will do
wonders for us here in Australia.
I absolutely recommend this movie to anyone who wants to be entertained.The
directing,acting,and the story is brilliant.Definitely up there with films like
scarface and the godfather.This movie makes your heart race.Damian Chapa as well as
all of the cast was amazing.I would definitely rent this movie.Damian Chapa
deserves an academy award for his acting,and for the way he portrayed the life of a
gangster.This movie is a soon to be classic,and an all around brilliant piece of
film-making.I loved it and I give it 10 stars.In a sentence the only way to
describe it is a film without any flaws.Watch this movie and you'll see what i
mean. 2 thumbs up!!!!!!!
I saw the film and am very pleased to see a film so different in character and
story to the stupid,mainstream American major productions. Its a film with a
background interesting for young as much as all age- groups. Contrary to certain
reviews the audience seems to split my evaluation as the film is very successful
wherever yet exploited worldwide. For example in Netherlands is was ranked number 3
. Negative statements must be respected but one should expect such to be guided on
a fact basis. If you have the chance view the film and enjoy it.
This movie is a picture perfect action/drama/and thriller, every scene has you
sucked in.I watched this movie and was amazed by how many talented actors were in
the movie.Damian Chapa especially was great,he played his role perfectly.The story
was made for these actors.The characters make the movie so realistic. This movie
very simply gets an A plus from me.Definitely watch this film,it compares with
scarface ,but has a more in depth story.This movie not only gives you a good
picture of the gangster life,but it also gives you the characters emotions,and at
the end you really feel for the main character.Watch this film!!!!!!
I love Movies that take you into them. A movie that actually leaves you feeling
weak when its over and this kind of movie is rare. Damian is so talented
and versatile in so many ways of writing and portraying different Characters on
screen. This movie has a cutting edge to it. A main stream cast for such a low
budget. Why is it that a Man with this much talent and Charisma , ( not to Mention
sex appeal in ways beyond most other actors ) can do this with so little money to
work with????? These Actors really believe in his script and Raw talent as a
Director, writer and Actor. I am so pleased to know such a modern day genius is out
there , letting is passion for Art drive him and taking us as an audience with him.
Damian I have heard of you through so many different circles and do not let the
Jealous people of this world get to you. Martin gets this , Fellini got it and you
will always get it. The fire and passion in you is what we love to watch on Screen.
Thankyou for being different and having the guts to write like you do. You are a
one of a kind Director, do not listen to the empty vessels.
This movie was a modern day scarface.It had me on my toes.This movie is one of
those rare epic films that makes you want a sequel.I especially liked Damian Chapa
his performance deserved an academy award,which he deserved for his performance in
blood in blood out.The only thing I didn't like was the behind the scenes because
it didn't show the intensity that the movie had,and i would have like to have seen
less narrated scenes.But the movie was great and it is in my top ten movies of all
time.Plus the acting was great there wasn't a bad scene in the movie,I loved it
,Jennifer Tilly was perfect as well as all of the cast.I can't see how anyone
wouldn't like this movie it was a great.Definitely a must see.
I just want To say that this movie was excellent . I loved it from the
beginning until the end. The acting was great .The director did an
amazing job and I would like to see it again. Jennifer Tilly did a very
good performance , The guy that interpreted his father (Manny) was another great
actor BUT I CAN NOT RECALL HIS NAME . I can't wait for El Padrino II. Damian Chapa looks so good and I think he is one of the most talented
actors out there. There is pleanty of Latin actors that do a great job like it is
shown in this film! Rent It!!! Rent it !!! Rent it !!!
i am finally seeing the El Padrino movie, from what I can see it is an incredible
film, and lots of action Damian Chapa is good director, But I must admit I love his
acting the Best. Also I saw the behind the scenes it was edited by some
lady named kinga, she needs to go back to school and learn how to edit. However the film El Padrino is a pure 10 action epic. Why cant most people who
direct put together films that keep you wondering what the plot is? I am so happy
to see someone I know to be a real great actor become a great director also. I am one of those people who love to see artists make it. B.S.
Thank god for this movie. It's a document of talent that, three decades later,
seems even more unique and rare in retrospect. The music is just
extraordinary, packed with so much talent in writing, performance, arrangement and
production that it's absolutely infectious. The lyrics and vocal arrangements are
incredible. The performances by under-appreciated talents like Nell Carter and Ren
Woods uplift my spirit every time I hear them. While the film may be different from
the stage version, I prefer the soundtrack to the cast album, which I find truly
grating and under-developed. Here the arrangements are filled out and expanded into
dynamic pieces that couldn't have been produced in a stage setting. But
the music isn't the only thing extraordinary about this movie. The juxtaposition of
almost hyper-realist dialog scenes (reminds me of Altman films) intercut with
exuberant musical and dance numbers, really works. All the talent in this movie--
directing, writing, photography, editing, music, choreography, casting, acting,
costuming, art direction--merge perfectly into one of the best musical films I've
seen. I think it's amazing how much we know about the characters in
"Hair," based on very little information or plot. They're not drawn as caricatures,
but as realistic and very human people. We see little glimpses of where they come
from, but the portrait is completed by vignettes that draw the characters to the
surface through accomplished acting, directing and editing. There's an undercurrent
theme of the misogyny of Berger and Hud which colors their characters by exposing
their reckless macho-hippie ideology. The scene of Berger's home life reveals
important details about his psychology, and the brief glimpse of Claude's home
tells us volumes about his background through the simple, realistic and genuine
interaction between Claude and (presumably) his father. I love the
fashion in this movie. It defiantly mixes sixties ideas with VERY seventies looks
(one does have to overlook Treat Williams' hair extensions...). It's a document of
how chic much of the late-seventies was, contrary to the conventional wisdom that
the era was all about bad taste. Claude's beige knitted tie was a hot trend of
1979, and the hair and clothing of the singers and dancers (particularly those in
white during the Central Park scene) mixes up the decades in a way that suggests
the timelessness of the musical's themes. These elements merge with Twyla Tharpe's
extraordinary state-of-the-art choreography in a way that enhances the artistry of
both. "Hair"isn't a film that rewards cynicism. If you come to it with
expectations, then you're most likely going to be held captive by artists who
aren't bound by your rules. For me, it opened my eyes and ears and spirit to an
insightful and passionate musical dialog about war, friendship and family that
transcends its time and is still meaningful and relevant to me to this day.
one of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of
India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never
becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both
leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty
obvious...her performance is a superb "cammeo"...but the use of the light...I have
look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after
ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather "pure" way of facing the subject...in a
way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually
known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or
Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name
"some". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame.
This Film was one that I have waited to see for some time. I was glad to find it
has been everything anticipated. The writing of this film has been so finely
crafted and researched far beyond what is seen by the audience. I found it amusing
that so many people watching will not read between some very important lines but
indeed if not the movie will make sense in a different way and is very brilliant.
The film has many stories and characters woven together around this one Character
Kilo , a Man whom has rose from the streets amidst many woes and become a very
powerful criminal. After spending some time in Prison Kilo finds a loophole in the
justice system and through a disturbing turn of events is released only to find
everything is not at all what it seems. Kilo Finds himself going up against the
higher realm of society and Political royalty in order to make clear how important
a Man's Word is and stands for. A war begins as the street is in arms against Lords
of wealth and corrupt Power. A build up to explosive and powerful non
stop twists and turns. This film will leave you riveted. I found the cast of this
movie to be outstanding and is not a Movie to be ignored. Excellent. Go Rent It
Today!!
This movie was simply amazing.The writing was incredible as well as the directing
and acting.The story instantly gets you interested.This movie is one of those
movies that has your heart pounding the whole time.As always Damian Chapa is
brilliant,his on screen acting is as powerful as any Hollywood actor.The cast in
this film is perfect.Each character made the story more complete.The cinematography
was captivating and it uplifted the movie.I was totally stuck to the screen and
couldn't stop watching it,there was no getting up for popcorn or anything.This
movie is one of the best all year,maybe even the best.Definitely rent this movie,I
recommend it this movie if u want to see great filmaking or just for pure
entertainment.
I was lucky enough to see a test screening of 'El Padrino' a couple months ago in
Santa Monica. I was blown away. You don't see films like this anymore. In the vein
of Scosese, Chapa deftly tells the tragic story of Kilo as he maneuvers the tough
streets of LA to rise above the ranks to become a drug lord of Escobarian
proportions. The characters are complex and conflicted. The emotions are real. The
action is fast and furious. The stunts are expansive. And Tilly is HOT. She hasn't
looked this good since her 'Bound' days. I'd recommend this to anyone. It's a
fantastic homage to the epic action films of the late 80s and early 90s. And to all
the naysayers out there watch it again; you obviously had your eyes closed the
first time. Congrats to all involved in the film. I'm counting the days until the
sequel is released. Anyone have a date on that?
Finally a gangster Movie worth watching! Jennifer Tily should get
nominated for her role as tough murdering femme fatal! This Movie flies
like a bird , just a fast paced non stop Gangster Mayhem! Jennifer Tily
is just so beautiful and bad in this Movie. I was shocked to find Faye
Dunaway still lives! The cast in this movie are so fitted to their roles. A real cool soundtrack rides along side and you get swept into the Spanish soul
of this film. The story is original deep and poetic. This
Flick has a lot of Substance and never rests. The gang of Spanish Fire
just set everything on screen alight. Damian Chapa Is a Joy to watch and
a Movie Star. Sit back and enjoy the ride.
This movie is the Latino Godfather. An unlikely mobster bridges the gap to some
unlikely alliances and forms an empire. I enjoyed the action and gunfights along
with the brash acting and colorful characters. This movie is no Oscar winner, but
definitely entertaining. Hey, who needs an Oscar anyway? Chapa has got
some balls to direct& act ( I think he produced it too?) this movie. Reminds me of
another filmmaker who likes to do it all, Robert Rodrigez. Keep it up, is there a
sequel in the works? There are a bunch of strings that need to be tied. Son comes
back and avenges dads death?
I love this movie and I recommend it to anybody.Damian Chapa and Jennifer Tilly
played their roles perfectly.Just the characters alone pull you in to the movie.The
directing was also magnificent.The most creative shots I've ever seen.I was stuck
to the screen throughout the whole movie,not one scene was slow.The movie also has
a lot of action packed scenes,cars blowing up,etc.The movie is just an all around
masterpiece. If you like real entertaining movies then watch this because you'll be
on the edge of your seat the whole time.I put this movie on my top ten all time
list,because there is never a dull moment in the movie,and that is my type of
movie.2 thumbs up,all the way up!!!!!!!!!
The movie was better than what i expected. I was working on the movie set for a
short period of time when Damien was making this film.The gun fire, stunt and
acting came out pretty good on the editing tip.All thou the the music wasn't all
that great. Better music would have top this film.Some of the music sound like the
hippie days. Damien remember you have gang violence gangster's some oldies or hip
hop would have did it. It was more realistic than blood in blood out.The casting
was picked real well.Suspectentertaint did a good job in this film.The movie
brought back a fill of a life style i use to live. But than at the end you do not
always win. And in my history thats how it was.I adapted to the movie the first
time i watched it.Damien Congratulatoins on this film.
I think it was a pretty good film. It shows how someone grew up in an environment
that created a rich and powerful man but unfortunately because of his ambition and
the people around him it led to his destruction. It shows that you can't trust
anyone especially in a world that deals with a lot of money and envy.The character
that I mostly liked was Sebeva. She was another ambitious, powerful and ruthless
woman in a man's world who loved and respected Kilo. She also knew that business
was business and a dangerous one. Everything she did was risky but got the job
done. She helped Kilo become rich with her connections. Overall, I really liked
this film and have it in my collection and waiting for El Padrino 2.
This film is just really Great. I don't know why. I alway have a weakness for
Damian Chapa. It's not Scarface, but still I really enjoyed my self. This is a film
I can see more than ten times. He really try's to make a good movie, but he just
can't do it. I feel pity for him, so maybe it's a bit of a sympathy vote. I can't
help it, but I just can't give it less than 9 stars. Everyone should have seen this
once in his life. To see how to make a cheap film work. I live in Holland and
bought this film for only one euro! That's 1,50 dollar. I would have also bought it
for ten euro. Great Great Great. On a little dutch film site this film gets a 101
votes. Here only a 260. That's not so much more. So people all over the world. Buy
this movie!
I liked this movie. That's pretty much all I can say about it. Lou Gossett did a
good job, even though I'm still very disappointed in him after all the Iron Eagle
movies. And even if I was smiling on the inside when the first main teenager dies
(I won't give it away) it was done in a nice, fitting fashion. Pretty much everyone
in this movie does a good job, so check it out! It's another one of those movies I
found real cheap, so I bought it, and I recommend the same.
Treat Williams reached a degree of stardom with this movie, and really squandered
it. Don't be led astray by his poor movie choices since. This movie really stands
out. "Hair" is a musical that really deals with the attitude, and probably more so
with the persona, of the famed peace movement of the 60's. There is a lot of
spectacular music done in spectacular fashion. Unlike the music videos of the late
70's, 80's, and 90's, the video flashes coincide with the subject matter of the
music. In other words, the video makes sense when matched with the songs, so you
know it never could've made it on MTV. The subject matter dwells on drugs and being
hippies, but it mostly an anti war movie dealing with the senseless tragedies of
Viet Nam. One of the protagonists is an Oklahoma boy intent on making a difference,
believing all the patriotic dribble he is spoon fed, and he happens upon a gang in
New York, who are more or less glorified hoodlums; their characters are very
unique, and probably wouldn't make sense today, but this bunch bands together by
burning their draft cards. What ensues in some spectacular scenery and mesmerizing
scenes involving not only the three leads, but the other 3 gang members, as well as
a newcomer with a small child, whose entrance is easily one of the ten grandest
entrances of all time in cinema, partly because she sings one of the greatest songs
of that generation. Despite their faults, you come to love these people, a
cinematic triumph with a heart felt and grand finale.
I don't understand how people could not like this movie. You have Gossit Jr., the
kid who played the main character in Stand By Me, Sean Astin, and many other great
actors. Lots of action and fun that you don't see in today's movies anymore. It's
really a shame. This is an underrated movie that is among other great
movies like Let's Get Harry. The 80's and early 90's created such great movies that
will never again be topped by today's standards. They tried to somehow
recreate this movie in Masterminds, but came up short with some really bad acting.
The only thing that movie had going was Patrick Stewart, but obviously that wasn't
enough.
Being raised at the time this movie was released has probably influenced my shallow
mind, but still, this isn't a bad movie by any means. It's a movie about a hostage
situation involving a prep school populated to some extent by endearing teenage
boys who can't seem to get out of trouble. What's wrong with that? It doesn't have
any big special effects, but so what? Who needs special effects? Cinema's decline
began around the same time that special effects were popularized. A coincidence? I
think not. It turned movies with potentially good plot and feelings and turned them
into a big, substance-less light show for innocent kids and the self-medicated.
Well, you know, not all movies need special effects. About three fourths of the
movies on the IMDb top 250 are without special effects, but almost all of the Top
Grossing movies of all time have some special effects. Think about it: Star Wars,
E.T., Ghostbusters, etc. All good movies, but the rest of the top-grossing movies
are usually cliched tripe with non-sensical plots and lots of eye candy. Well some
movies don't need ny of that junk. Excuse me for going off on a tangent,
which I normally do, but I'm just so fed up with that special effects junk. Back to
the point: Toy Soldiers is simply a great movie. I admit, some of the content is a
little corny and ripped off, but so what, every movie rips off another to some
extent. Think of Resovoir Dogs. Countless "appreciation" sites dictate the fact
that beloved Quentin Tarentino, who I admit I like, has copied many, many, many
movies in the making of his first major film Reservoir Dogs. Many say that the
entire plot is ripped off almost scene for scene from japanese and chinese gangster
movies which Mr. Tarentino loved so much, and probably still does. Sorry once again
for the tangent. Toy Soldiers is fun. It has the whole insubordination
from teenagers to unwanted members of authority, i.e. hostage takers. It's fun to
see kids take over when they're being held to something they don't want to do.
Hell, teenage angst-inspired rebelion was the key topic to a great majority to 80's
comedies. Plus there's the tension and thrill of having the characters use fire-
arms and knock out the bad guys, etc. Plus there's some emotional points to the
film. When one of the characters dies the others have to cope and adjust. It's not
perfect acting but it beats most of the other tripe out there. In short,
Toy Soldiers is exciting, interesting, and fun. How dare you jaded blowhards rate
this movie poorly! Shame on you all! Personal rating: 8/10
I'm sure the film contains certain gaps in logic, but I was so enthralled by it
that I really didn't care. The movie plays out like a fun, lighthearted teen romp
combined with a Schwarzenegger-type action flick. It's packed with action, packed
with excitement and has some humorous moments as well. Sean Astin is fun to watch,
and I haven't seen Louis Gossett, Jr. since I saw "Diggstown" in theaters. He is a
fine, underrated actor and I love watching him on screen. I just wonder what he's
doing now. Unfortunately, he might be starring in a lot of those direct-to-video
flicks. Hopefully, my assumption is wrong. Anyway, this is a fun, edge-of-your-seat
thriller and I definitely suggest you check it out. My score: 7 (out of
10)
'Toy Soldiers' is the story of five misfits boys (most noteably being Sean Astin,
Wil Wheaton, and Kieth Coogan) attempt to save their school from a terrorist
invasion after the American government imprisons the leader's father. Lou Gosset
Jr. plays the headmaster of the school, a headstrong guy who tries to instill in
his students a sense of discipline. 'Toy Soldiers' is a funny and pretty
cool action, and certainly the better of hostage-crisis-at-school movies. I think
most of the appeal comes from the teen cast, but also, the terrorists don't come
off as completely useless whereas in some movies, they never seem to be quite the
intimidating group that they should. Trapped inside the boarding school, and
threatened to be killed if the military or police interferes, this is a very
formidable challenge for these group of guys who plan to save the school. They're
actually pretty clever about it, too. I was surprised that it was a
pretty good movie. It keeps a steady pace and doesn't get ridiculously sentimental
or anything like that. Astin and Gosset Jr. give good performances. I,
too, agree that this is an underrated action movie.
Toy Soldiers is an okay action movie but what really stands out is the amount of
effort that the scriptwriters and director put into portraying American counter-
terrorist forces accurately. Just check out the end credits--there are more than a
dozen US military officers and officials listed. The movie accurately portrays the
FBI as having control of the hostage situation but turning it over the US Army's
Delta Force (who are unnamed in the movie as the Pentagon was still denying their
existence at this time) once the President waived the Posse Commitatus Act of US
Code. The US Army forces at the end are accurately dressed and armed for the time.
And even the use of an AH-64 Apache for air support--which might seem a bit over
the top, is not terribly unrealistic. Far more expensive and frankly better movies
have portrayed American counter-terrorist forces with far less accuracy.
I recently rented this movie as part of a nostalgic phase I'm going through. I was
born in 1980, and so film from mid-80s to mid-90s has quite an important place in
my growing up. This particular movie was one of my favourites, and so I
was thrilled when it became available in the UK. It hasn't become worse with time,
it is still a great fun film, with plenty of excitement in its own way. Sure, it
pales in the shadow of bigger, larger budget films, but don't let that stop you
enjoying this. Worth a rent, or even a purchase at the discount prices
you'll find it for.
This film is a perfect example of great escapism! I loved this film and was sucked
in from the very beginning. Sure it's just an action flick, but isn't having fun
what watching movies is all about? The cast of this film are very
strong with likable characters. The friendship between the boys is so realistic and
appealing, it's heart warming and hilarious to see a group of teenage boys interact
- especially this group of boys!! Sean Astin makes a great rebel, successfully
avoiding being a precocious teenager. If you want fun, watch this film!
I thoroughly enjoyed it even though I was watching it on a very dirty and old VHS
that was terrible quality (Go DVD's!)
oh boy !!! my god !!!! what a movie this one !!! this is probably the best movie by
Sean Austin and Louis gosset Jr !!! i have seen all the comment for this
movie...and most of them loves this movie very much!! but i don't really understand
why it only got 6.1 in IMDb list??? this one should above 7.5 !!! the plot and the
script are completely perfect !! the acting are superbly well acted!!! Sean
Austin...will wheaton...Louis gosset Jr....have given an incredible and awesome
performance in their career!!! this movie contain a lot of action!!! just one thing i gotta say....WATCH IT !!!!!!!!! 10 OUT OF 10 STARS !!
This movie is my all time favorite movie! It has great acting, cute guys, and a
great plot. Sean Astin is great in this movie! It has funny moments, sad moments,
and happy moments. Who could ask for anything more? This movie is GREAT!
Not only does this movie have a great title but quite simply is the greatest drama
I have ever watched. The viewer is irrestiblely drawn into the movie involving 5
young men working together to try and overcome insumaintable odds, Sean Astin as
Billy Tepper is brilliant along with great supporting roles from T.E.Russell, Wil
Wheaton and Shawn Phelan, the guidance and leadership of Gosset's and Astins
characters makes the movie so much better. As time goes on the movie keeps
gathering momentum and its a dissapointment that none of the young actors made a
name for themselves in the film industry after this wonderful movie.
I've avoided seeing this film for some time but finally picked up a copy. Having
been born too late to see 'Hair' in its contemporary setting, I have just been
familiar with the UK and Broadway cast recordings for many years; and saw it on
stage in the late 1980s where it looked a little creaky but still, great fun. The film. It drops some of the songs (The Bed, My Conviction, Frank Mills)
and cuts others (Walking in Space). However, what is left is presented very well
indeed. All the singers and dancers are excellent, and the key performers
(especially Treat Williams as Berger, Beverley D'Angelo as Sheila, John Savage as
Claude) are memorable. As a hippy celebration and anthem, 'Hair' manages
to be remain potent even in a film made ten years too late. It was no longer the
era of peace, love, and Biba, but the time of punk rock ... although watching this
film now, in the time of Iraqi problems, gives a new resonance to the Vietnam
issues of the 1960s. Milos Forman, who also made 'Amadeus', did a good
job on directing. In its scope and feel it reminds me of Norman Jewison's 'Jesus
Christ Superstar', especially with the joy of the 'Aquarius' scene and the intimacy
of 'Easy To Be Hard'. I really enjoyed this film and consider it a good
representation of a musical born out of the first truly hedonistic era.
This is one of the best movies I've seen. The acting is good, the plot is solid,
and the whole movie is very believable, which adds a lot to the movie. I rate this
at least a 9.
Yes, it's not a great cinematic achievement, but Toy Soldiers is a fun and
entertaining movie. The young cast does a great job with both dramatic and comedic
aspects of the story, and I particularly liked Shawn Phelan as Derek/"Yogurt". I've
seen this one plenty of times over the years, and will probably see it several
more. Just don't think too much and you'll love it - enjoy!
This is one worth watching, although it is sometimes cheesy, it is great to see a
young Sean Astin, and this ends up being quite an entertaining and humorous action
movie. I watched it many times when I was young, and now still enjoy it when I pop
the old vhs into the machine (I happen to own a copy). So sit back with this movie,
let reality go for a little while, and you will be able to have a few good laughs
and an enjoyable hour and a half.
It's really not worthy of a 'best picture' consideration, but as entertainment
goes, it does the job! This is one that I've watched, with pulse quickening every
time, at least a dozen times. Most of these actors were unknown at the
time this was done, and we can recognize them from other work. Those that don't
have current name recognition probably don't want it. This was a fun
ADVENTURE. Sort of like The Little Rascals if they just had to be serious.
I have loved this movie since I saw it in the theater in 1991. I was 12 then and
Wil Wheaton was my favorite actor and adolescent crush. I am now 23 and I still
love this movie. The best part about it is whoever I am dating loves it too because
it is a total macho-guy movie! It is wrought with enough action and mayhem to keep
men with the shortest attention spans glued to the screen. I only wish that it was
available on DVD!
Quick summary of the book: Boy, Billy Tepper, about 12 years old is school's main
trouble maker, and if he gets kicked out of one more school he'll be sent off to
boarding school. His upscale boy's school in Switzerland (or somewhere like it)
gets taken over by Arab terrorists, why I'm not really sure. Billy has no friends,
and likes to use his laptop to hack into his school's database. He, with the help
of two teachers thwarts the terrorists' plans, and save the entire school. The book
wasn't bad, but was sooooooo cliché. Now about the movie; they switched
Arab terrorists to Cuban terrorists, and make Billy about 17 and the leader of his
group of friends. They like to get into trouble, but normal teenage stuff. This
movie was believable. Maybe not realistic, but the characters are real. You can
watch Billy, Joey, and the rest of the guys and see real kids acting out the way
they did (or at least wanting to). Great action scenes. Not everything
goes as planned for either side. Overthrowing the terrorists was messy, and good
guys did get hurt. I won't say who, but it is heart wrenching (I know, I use that
word a lot). Sean Astin is excellent. As a teenager he usually played the dopey
best friend. This movie proved once again that he could play the leading man, kid,
whatever. The only performance that may have upstaged his was Wil Wheaton's, who
played the only son of a New Jersey mafia man. He hated his father, and everything
he stood for. (A far cry from Wesley Crusher) Usually this genre of film is one I
watch for the soul purpose of making fun; but not Toy Soldiers. The story line
flows, the dialogue is usually believable. I can't think of a single moment where I
found myself shouting at the TV "Oh that would so not happen" Great movie that
should be in everyone's collection.
I'm seldom partial to movies about smart-assed teenagers who have problems with
authority, but "Toy Soldiers" has grown on me with repeated viewings. This is as
much a movie about Billy Tepper growing up and becoming an adult as anything else,
and I give credit to Sean Astin and writer/director Daniel Petrie Jr. that they
don't make a big deal of that, but let it just unfold and sneak up on you. The
camaraderie of Tepper's friends, their grief over Joey's death, and their joy at
their survival, all are genuinely moving. And, I have to admit, I take a certain
patriotic (and perhaps slightly reptilian) glee when the U.S. Army guys finally
move in and righteously kick some narco-terrorist butt. Ooh-rah, General Kramer!
And the heroic Robert Folk score is the cherry on top. I'm sure I could find a
hundred reasons not to like "Toy Soldiers," but as long as we don't take it TOO
seriously, I don't see the need. This is one of the most entertaining "bad" movies
in my pantheon.
This came as a huge surprise for me. I had never heard of this movie when I first
saw it, and the title really pointed towards something else than a great
terrorist/hostage situation at a high school. Toy Soldiers has the best from it's
time period of the early 90's, where action movies were light-hearted and very
enjoyable. The action is good, the plot is interesting and way over the top, the
bad guy is a one-dimensional hateful douchebag (which is great), Louis Gossett Jr.
is in it, it's simply a feel-good movie which I thoroughly enjoyed. You
can't go wrong with this one if you like action. I give it a solid rating of 8/10.
i haven't seen this in years but when i was about 6 i first saw this on VHS and i
must have watched it at least 10 times. now like i said its been awhile so i might
screw up the plot but i remember some Columbian terrorists taking a prep school
hostage with demands for the head terrorist(the "wishmaster")father to be released
from prison. now i could just check the plot here on IMDb but i'm pretty sure thats
right. any way, a group of boys at the school decide that they're not gonna just
sit around and wait to die so they decide to fight back. this film has always been
stuck in my mind. there are so many images that i haven't forgotten like Joey's(i
think?)death scene or billy spitting in the terrorists sandwiches or the one
kids(no idea of his name)fake asthma attack. just a great film. it may be films
like this that have given me my tolerance for film violence because if i remember
right this movie is pretty graphic. guys getting mowed down by helicopter machine
guns, a special forces guys hand getting blown off by a grenade(not sure about that
but i seem to remember something like that towards the end)and the most bloody
being the lead terrorist getting capped in the head in gory detail. great action,
great humor, good acting, wonderful film experience. i've got to watch this again
after all these years!
These kinda movies just don't get the credit they deserve. This is my 2nd all time
favorite movie, (Stand By Me being 1st.) The reason I watched this movie was
because Wil Wheaton was in it and he is my most favorite person in the whole world
and I think he done an amazing job in this movie and so did Sean Astin. I just
watched it last night actually and it just amazed me. Everything in the movie is
very exceptional. The script, the acting, the screenplay. I was on the edge of my
seat 80% of the time, and if my mom wasn't in the room I would have absolutely
balled whenever Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) died. I did not see that coming!! At
all!! I was real surprised when I heard that it wasn't real popular back in the
90's. I was born a few years after it came out so, of course, I didn't go see it in
the theaters, but im sure I would have if I would have been alive. If any of my
friends watched this, they would be like, "uhh okay?" but thats just cause their
not cool enough to appreciate work like this. If you haven't seen this movie, or
are wanting to watch something that is the bomb, this is the movie for you to
watch.
I Won't say anything about music, because this topic can be so deep that it can
become one huge separate review, so let's concentrate on movie that is brilliant...
No doubt, one of the best works of Forman. The simple story about love,
friendship, freedom and ideals... oh yes, the ideals for which even pacifists are
ready to go in war... There is not a single fake word, single fake
character, single fake feeling in the story, because the love, freedom and
friendship isn't something complicated for the characters of movie. These things
aren't something that "everyone can view from different angle" These aren't things
that need much thinking to understand... their love is simple, their friendship is
simple, their ideals are as simple as the word "simple" itself and that's why these
characters are so deep. Berger, the leader of a hippie played by Treat
Williams is a guy who lives to live and that's the biggest happiness for him... he
has his ass - (as he sings in one of the scenes in the movie) and that's enough to
make him happy with his property... Berger never accepts that something
can't be done... and his right... If he wants to go to some rich guys' banquet in
his dirty old clothes and huge long hair, he will do it... if he want's to go to
another state to just see his friend, he'll do it... he never thinks twice... he
just do it. How? why is he so powerful? the answer is simple: because he
is FREE. Just watch how the wind makes the hair wave in this movie and
you will understand it all, maybe you will even free yourself too.
Picture this. Someone makes a film about the Columbine or Virginia tech massacre
only the film is directed by the guy who did home alone (i know this isn't but bare
with me) and stars Sean Astin off of Goonies!! picture the terrorists being
overpowered by buckets of water on top of ajar doors and marbles and this is why
you need to see the film. unfortunately it doesn't go all the way by actually
having the skateboard lying on the floor for the evil Mexicans to trip on but its
halfway there you have to give it above 7 for that but not a 9 because it didn't go
crazy enough. Pity, its seemed like it would be comical cheesiness, well worth a
cult status
didn't sound like it was from a fantasy film. The film is dark, with dark
overtones. The soundtrack way too uplifting to the point it intruded on the
visuals. I'm sure they were aiming for something militant, but it just didn't work.
The scene when Astin is attempting to escape is a perfect example. Why does it
sound like the Goonies? There is no comedy, there is no brightness to this!! The idea of the movie is great, and the acting is very good as well. I
enjoyed everyone's performances. It's available on Netflix's online viewing. Definitely worth a viewing, but write your own soundtrack!!
Sean Astin pulls off another amazing performance in "Toy Soldiers". He plays the
highly intelligent prankster, Billy Tepper along with Wil Wheaton and Keith Coogan
who play his best friends, Joey Trotta and Jonathan "Snuffy" Bradberry. During a
regular day at Saint Anselm's school for boys, a group of dangerous terrorists take
all the boys and teachers as hostages and threatens to blow up the school if the
leader, Luis Cali (Andrew Divoff's), father isn't released from the American
prison, but these aren't just ordinary boys that are taken hostage, most of these
kids are the sons of very powerful people in America and half of them were expelled
from other schools before they came to Saint Anselm's. They're mouths and actions
just may get them killed. When the government is desperately trying to figure out a
way to help, Billy, Joey, Snuffy and some more boys decide to take matters into
their own hands.
This is really good. Original ideas in the film and a great terrorist action film.
Only second to die hard and die hard with a vengeance, this film has suspense and a
good plot. I would recommend it to anyone with a taste in films like mine; Action,
terrorism and gangster/mafia.
I first seen this movie like a year and a half ago and I loved it, I decided to get
the DVD last year for my birthday.. It has the right amount of suspense, action and
drama.. This movie is about prep school called The Regis School and its packed with
rebellious kids, in which one kid William Tepper (Sean Astin) has a hard time
adjusting due to prior rejections from other schools cause they couldn't control
his rebellious act and now at The Regis School committing more acts of a rebellion
there school gets taken over by terrorists on a random day and which the real
reason is because the leader Luis Cali's (Andrew Divoff) father has been sent to
prison,and the leader will do anything including killing the students, setting
bombs and so forth in order to get his father back. Along side William
Tepper, is his rebellious friends at the Regis School, one in particular is Joey
Trotta (Wil Wheaton) in which this guy holds a troubled past of living in a Mafia
family and being sent to The Regis School because of hating his father for who he
is and which now he must deal with these terrorists taking over the school, so
William, Joey and there friends must band together to stop these terrorists from
violent acts and hazardous tactics. This movie was really awesome and I
believe people should notice it more because when people think of a good hostage
movie they would say "Die Hard" and even though I would have to agree with them,
they need to recognize that Toy Soldiers was a good thriller, it sure had my heart
beating because the students are my age and I would be scared to confront
terrorists like these if they took over our school ... But overall this movie is
really worth a good 112 minutes of your time and If I had a decision to rent or buy
it... I WOULD BUY IT! I recommend it with a lot of hype! 8/10
This is one of the best "Bloke" movies from the early 90's and whilst slightly
dated, its one of those movies that would never get made today, which makes it very
special! In fact, a very similar movie was made in the 90's called "Masterminds"
and it was a PG variation on the same theme, but it was nowhere near as fun or
realistic for that matter. So what's so special about this film? It's
the comradre between the main characters and the against all odds theme of the
film. Sean Astin is very likable and has starred in some of the most memorable
films of the 80/90's, particularly "The Goonies". He also went onto greater things
with "Rudy" and "The Lord of the Rings" Trilogy, but "Encino Man" is a good trip
down memory lane. Will Wheaton from "Stand by Me" lends nice support to the film
and Andrew Divoff is a terrific villain. Louis Gossett Jr sleepwalks in his role,
but he does add some brevity to the film, particularly his relationship with
Astin's rebellious nature. So how's the action? By today's standards,
it's rather tedious and cheap looking, almost like a TV movie, but the production
values are good and the violence is actually quite nasty for a film involving
school students. However, the director makes up for the limited budget with some
nicely suspenseful moments and well placed humor. So park your brain at
the door and enjoy this fondly remembered action flick, but don't expect Oscar
material!
Colombian terrorists hold hostage a military school in the U.S. until their demands
are met. The students decide to fight back. Will they be able to do it? Silly premise but the film actually works. The group of kids who fight were all
up and coming when this film came out in 1991: Sean Astin (looking very cute); Wil
Wheaton (looking miserable); Keith Coogan; George Perez (the token Latino who is
very handsome, very muscular and is mostly shown in nothing but tight underwear);
T.E. Russell (the token black guy) and Shawn Phelan. None of them are very good
actors (except Astin), but who cares? This is a mindless action film. The only
other good performances are from Denholm Elliott (having a ball as the headmaster)
and Louis Gossett Jr. as the dean. Other than that--there's lots of
action, suspense, explosions and little brains. In other words---FUN! Only complaint (and this is minor)--it's a bit too long (there are THREE endings)
and there is LOTS of casual, bloody violence (the R rating was well-earned). Still,
I enjoyed it a lot.
I think that Toy Soldiers is an excellent movie. It's one of the only movies that,
aside from some well known actors, has an unknown cast that can actually act. In my
opinion, the plot is captivating. It keeps your attention without having an
outrageous story that couldn't possibly happen in real life. I think that everyone
would enjoy this movie. Sean Astin always seems to pick the perfect movies to be in
that showcase his talent. He's very underrated and doesn't get the recognition that
he deserves. Other movies that he has been in other actors have been in the
spotlight but this movie and Rudy really showcase him because he is the main
character in both. I hope that he someday gets the accolades he deserves for his
acting. If you want to see a great movie you need to check this one out and if you
are a Sean Astin fan you will definitely like this movie.
This is one of those movies that are very underrated. Again i am voting for an
underrated movie. This movie has a good story line, maybe a bit farfetched but it
could happen. Sean Astin(one of my favorite actors) again shows us a good
performance. The guy does a great job in acting but never gets recognized for his
roles. He has done well since the goonies. Not only him but Louis Gosset JR. does a
swell job. I thought maybe this movie would have made more money in theaters but
who cares about money anyways. All around this is a good movie that will have you
at the edge of your seat at times and the plot will keep the movie moving itself. I
enjoyed this movie and hopefully the rest of you will as well.
- The Best Bit : When the dull mobster (Nicholas Turturro) calls out to the runaway
(Matthew Modine) "Shane !.. Come Back Shane !" and when the older wise guy asks him
"What Are You Doing ?!" he replays simply "Enjoying My Time !" Actually like me at
the moment ! - The Most Creepy Part : I've been wondering all the time
of watching : where did I see that girl before ? where ? where ? Till I found out
while the closing credits.. OHH MY GOD ! She's (Elizabeth Berkley) .. From the
showgirls' fiasco ! But I just couldn't recognize her with her clothes on ! To tell
you the truth I felt a brief tremor. She's really cute and nice but maybe Hollywood
had no mercy at all ! - The Most Sexy Bit : When (Berkley) says "Do You
Mean The Stuff Which Gives You A Boner ?!". - The Most Dull Thing : The
retarded assistant after a day and a night in the back of the car is still alive
and healthy at the end !!??, moreover the Mexican smuggler took 3 bullets (at the
same car !) and he's not dead either !!?? - The Most Ugly Thing : All
of those murdered people, as well as the numerous (F) ward to a boring extent ! - The Most Beautiful Thing : The crazy clever script with all the funny
characters and the tumultuous situations, the acting looked sweet also especially
from (Paul Rodriguez) who stole the show for (as he had the best dialogue Also !).
 - The Most Disappointing Thing : Although the direction didn't mess
about the story's wittiness at all but in the same time it didn't give it a unique
touch, a matchless signature, some kind of insane hilarity like the one in the
story itself. However maybe the low production wronged it well ! And of course the
easy tasteless music which could be like that because of cheap production too ! - The Most Confusing Part : (Matthew Modine) is a talented guy but what did
he do exactly to be out of Hollywood's "A" list of stars ?! What could possibly be
the thing he made (or didn't make !) to end up in light independent jest like (The
Shipment) ?!! - The Most Absent Scene : Where did (Jose) the Mexican
smuggler go at last ?! I thought that we'll see him again at the end, smuggling
once more as the surviving little criminal who, in a brief gimmick like this, could
materialize the continuous disorder of such a world. - The Most
Question I had After The End : When we'll see (The Shipment - 2) ? As I'm so eager
to see that fine small comic hurly-burly atmosphere again ! These were
my own answers. If you interested in giving answers of your own for this
questionnaire, please E-Mail me.
This is a cult film for many reasons. First because of the phenomenal success as a
musical both in Broadway and London, then as a musical film. The film is close to
the play and some of the provocation of the play is no longer provocative twelve
years later. The discourse against the Vietnam war is no longer a protest song
against the war itself, but a strong song demonstrating how the young people of
these late 60s managed to bring the political establishment down. Milos Forman play
with some situations at the end of the 70s like the narrow minded justice, the
self-centered umbilical righteousness of the rich or of the little ones who have
just one rank of power more than the powerless. He also heavily plays with the
racial element and the sexual ambiguity he builds all the time. The film remains
pleasant and thoughtful. And of course it is a tremendous thrill to remember these
years when we have had the privilege, and that was not a chance, to live them.
November 11, 1969, Nixon ordering mass celebration for the 1918 armistice, which
became the order for teachers at all levels to take their students to the
celebration and the march, supporting thus the invasion of Cambodia that was in
full swing. And some dare give lessons in democracy to foreign countries. I also
remember the long campaign for the impeachment of Nixon in 1973-1974 that will
eventually lead to his resignation and the swearing in of Gerald Ford, the first
Vice President, and eventually President, of the US who had not been elected, since
he was appointed Vice President by the Senate after Spiro Agnew had to resign to
face trial, conviction and sentence for embezzlement. Of course that makes us think
of today when in 2000 a president of the US was not elected by the people but by
the Supreme Court, or of a war that was rejected by millions world wide from the
very start, and even before the start, and was started against the better judgment
of the United Nations and of three permanent members of the Security Council. And
some speak of a new world order based on the respect of others. Modern Western man
seems to have some problems understanding that the world is changing and has
already widely and wisely changed. Modern Western man seems to be kind of out of
sync and to need special evening classes to learn that democracy wants the majority
in the world to be the majority, and the West is far from that majority, and that
if the Soviet block had been able to understand that market economy is not
capitalism but that market economy can be either socialist or capitalist the Berlin
Wall would have fallen, but the other way round, and that China has learned that
lesson marvelously well and is at the foot of the wall they have to climb over to
learn that their socialist market economy has to lead to political democracy, but
they will, just like Vietnam was able to reconstruct itself after thirty years of
vicious war aggression and damage. In other words, Hair is a perfect food for
thought. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University
Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
A stolen shipment of Vigoroso, the mexican Viagra; a beautiful girl who is trying
to rebuild her life and to leave her husband, a boss of the italian Mafia; a young
sheriff who falls in love with his old sweetheart. This is the plot of "The
Shipment", a country comedy located in small town of Paradise, Arizona. Despite its
simply and classic story, the movie (directed by Alex Wright) has its fun moments:
when Elizabeth Berkley (as Candy Porter), looking at a Vigoroso green pill, says:
"What"s this? A mint candy?". Or when the girl enters the sheriff"s house and finds
him completely naked. Or when the Vigoroso shipment ends up in THAT lake, at the
final sequence... The cast offers some nice performances: by Matthew Modine as the
sheriff of Paradise Valley, who still loves his old girlfriend; and by Elizabeth
Berkley, who"s character still loves her old boyfriend... The supporting cast,
including Nicholas Turturro, Paul Rodriguez (as the mexican Josè) and G Michael
Gray (what kind of teeth...), makes a pleasant work, too. Not an Oscar material,
but not so bad. A fun comedy without pretence.
Peter Coyote was the only name that I recognised from the cast list, so I wasn't
too keen on watching this film. The only comment on IMDb was positive, so I watched
it on late night T.V. I would recommend this movie as a good late night viewing.
It's better than a lot of this genre. The plot is excellent, the acting isn't
brilliant, but it's not bad. I don't usually like flashbacks but in this film they
work. As I've stated, I didn't recognise any of the cast by name, but I recognised
Michele Lee, who gave a decent, hard working performance, as the woman wanting to
stand by her man, who is lying to her. (Was it Knots Landing?) Anyhow, she's
wearing really well. Note: You may enjoy it more, if you miss the first few seconds
of the credits. I did and it helped me. When you see the end credits, you'll get
what I mean The Wayne Kennedy character, who is really weird, takes this to a 7
rather than a 6.
I gave this 8 stars out of a possible 10. It had an excellent plot, and Peter
Coyote and Michele Lee, as well as the rest of the cast, did their parts
well. Both Peter and Michele were too long in the tooth for the ages
their characters were supposed to be, and their children in the film, obviously
would have been better suited being their grandchildren. I missed the
first ten minutes of this film, so I don't know just how that body turned up after
25 years and got traced back to Denny Traynor (Peter Coyote's character), but I had
no difficulty picking up on the storyline. Barbara Traynor (Michele Lee)
is stunned when her long-time husband, Denny is arrested for a murder in Oregon
some 25 years previous, a state Denny claims he was never in. However,
as evidence piles up against Denny, his story changes. Then his story changes again
and yet again, until Barbara doesn't know what to believe. Barbara makes
up her mind, however, to get to the bottom of the mystery whirling around the
fateful time Denny and a young girl named Sherry accepted a ride from a stranger
named Wayne Kennedy, that ended in murder. I found the film
entertaining, well paced, and it kept me guessing as to what had really happened
between those three people. From what I saw during the closing credits,
this seemed to be based on a true story.
This is a nice little lifetime movie about a guy (Peter Coyote) who's living the
perfect suburban middle class life when late one night the police suddenly bust
into his home and arrest him for the murder of some guy 27 years ago. In
his prison cell Coyote recounts to his wife the fateful events of 27 years ago and
how he came into contact with Wayne Kennedy the man who he supposedly killed. From here the story is told in flashback fashion and the more you learn
about Wayne and Coyote and how they came to meet and what happened when they did
the more interested you get. The acting isn't anything to crow about,
although the guy who plays Wayne Kennedy is pretty creepy enough. The real strong
point of the movie is that mystery of what actually happened on the mountain. The
wife spends the movie running around digging up clues to the mystery and each time
something new comes up we are treated with another flashback revealing more of the
mystery. It's actually pretty well. So as far as Lifetime TV movie's go
this little flick comes highly recommended. Enjoy!
I usually have a difficult time watching a TV movie, the extra long commercial
breaks will break my concentration and I give up and find a good book. This one
however made me put up with the adds and stay with it to the end. I realize the
movie was based on a true story but it was not brought out why it took so long to
find Denny? They had his name and I would presume his social security number. While
he did move around a lot it would seem he would be found as soon as his number was
entered for a job etc. The actors seemed a bit old for the part and a buried metal
object when dug up had no rust. These were only technical glitches and did not take
from the file. For a LifeTime Movie it was better than most.
This movie is sort of similar to "Better Off Dead" as it has some of the same
stars. This one though isn't quite as good. Granted it is rather funny and
enjoyable, there is something about "Better...that I like, well better. This one
has these guys going to Nantucket to spend there summer vacation. While there they
meet this girl who's trying to save here house from this guy who wants to turn it
into a lobster restaurant. This guy really doesn't seem to like lobsters, cause in
one scene he sticks it into boiling water and puts in a stethoscope so he can hear
it scream. The main character is torn between this girl and the girl of the son of
the guy who wants to make the restaurant. Somehow or another this leads to a big
boat race showdown, kind of like in "Summer Rental" though it works a bit better
here and fits into the plot a little better. Though what is the deal with boat
races at this time? Was there some weird fascination with them? For the most part
this movie delivers laughs at a good clip, but "Better Off Dead" was still better
cause it was the first and the jokes worked better.
i adore this film as much as any one adores viewing whatever it was they saw when
they were young. it was one of those films that Home Box Office showed every other
day throughout my youth. this film is forever lodged in my brain. For someone who
didn't grow up around this film, you may have become spoiled by the ADD cycle we've
been in since the mid-90's and may find it more difficult to appreciate this gem.
cool this is, as my sis was doped up on "better off dead" before i saw this (of
which i raped & loved)-and no one, NO ONE can deny the embrace of awkward teenage
humor in American cinema in the 80's - this gave birth to everything we have found
tiresome in teen comedies..because with all the overuse of slow-mo, the current
soundtrack, the new tech. I wonder if cinema will go back to these roots... THIS IS
the teen comedy...YES!
"One Crazy Summer" is the funniest, craziest (not necessarily the best), movie I
have ever seen. Just when one crazy scene is done, another emerges. It
never lets you rest. Just one thing after another. The soundtrack is great. The
songs are the right ones for the scenes. It is also a clean movie.
Little that is dirty in it. Of course, it has the story of the guys you
wouldn't trust with your lunch money, taking up a challenge, and winning over
people with more resources. Who'd want to see it if they failed? There is a serious
side, in that parents and children do not live up to each others' dreams. One
should always have an open mind, and weigh all the options. This applies both to
parents and children. In "One Crazy Summer", the parents are wrong. This is not
always the case.
I saw this movie for the first time in 1988 when it was on HBO and I loved it!! It
was so hilarious I have seen it too many times to count. I love the Stork brothers
and the pitiful, ugly dog, Bosco! My favorite quote form the movie is, "It's so
ugly, it should be put to sleep." I also loved it when the little sister slaps the
girls on the back and their faces stick that way. I love John Cusack and Demi Moore
in this movie too. They were great. This movie brings back memories of my college
days when I first saw it. I rented the movie countless times and watched it over
and over. My college roommate and I just couldn't get enough of it.Who couldn't
love this crazy movie?! I want to buy a copy on DVD, does anyone know where I can
get it?
This is classic 80's humor. If you were a teen in the 80's this was a summer hit to
go see. It was a early look at those now super stars. This and Better off Dead just
are fun and silly movies to sit back and enjoy. Everyone can admit they had a crazy
summer when they were a teenager. Even crazy family and friends like these
characters. To be introduced to some of these characters was so much fun. The uncle
who is crazy sitting every waking moment at a radio waiting to win a million
dollars, the grandmother who only likes the granddaughter and handed a bill to the
kids after dinner, the twin brothers who look nothing alike, and to meet hoopz was
so much fun. This may not of won an award but it is just a fun movie to get lost in
one afternoon.
Absolutely amazing! Humor, up-beat music and an anti-war message make this probably
the best movie I have ever seen. First of all, I love how clever this
movie is, particularly in the Vietnam part of the plot. It's interesting how they
make the army officials enforcing the draft look ridiculous. Follow that with the
serious situation of the actual war, and then the conclusion (which leaves me
seething with anger at the war); and yet there is absolutely no violence on the
screen. Wow. Also, the music is really cool. But what is very unique in
this musical (as opposed to Evita, or Wizard of Oz, for example) is that the lyrics
don't tell the story. The mood does (along with the visuals and between-songs-
dialog): "Donna" is an upbeat song which emphasizes the happy mood, whereas "Flesh
Failures" has a driving, intense beat, in a minor key. Also, I notice
the LSD scene is not very flattering. Now I'm definitely not going to do drugs (not
that I ever intended to). All things considered, this is an amazing
movie. The only negative comment I could say is that it's sometimes hard to hear
the dialog. But who cares? 10/10 stars!
This is the follow-up creation to Better Off Dead. In a competition, Better Off
Dead would win hands-down. But for star power, One Crazy Summer outshines Savage
Steve's better script. Problems with One Crazy Summer (OCS): casting. Better Off
Dead (BOD) was cast so much better. Friendship: OCS shows Cusack giving hateful
looks to Bill Murray's little bro. Trouble on the set?? More outrageous friends in
OCS, but more genuine friends in BOD. Plot was good. You'll predict some of it, but
even the predictable parts go further than you think they could. So, even though
this is Better Off Dead's ugly stepsister, it's worth a look. See Demi Moore before
the plastic surgery if for no other reason. John Cusack fans, you gotta see it,
just to say you have. If you don't like Bobcat Golthwaite, I'm sorry. I don't like
him either, but you can't escape him in this one. At least he does a great job in
the film doing a tribute to another movie monster. Editing needed help on the
beach, but for most part, not much to complain about. Overall, it's good and funny.
But try not to compare it to BOD or you'll find it lacking. *sigh*
I seem to notice that a lot of people have never seen this movie, and those that
have usually dismiss it as garbage... that's pretty bad really. The
first time I saw this movie, I admittedly was almost one of those people... thank
God I'm patient, otherwise I would have never found such a classic. As
goofy as this movie is, it's also a must have for anyone who is either a fan of
80's movies, or just happens to have a sense of humor. I know that there
are a lot of people out there that will tell you that this movie is sort of
derivative of Better Off Dead... so what if it is? They were both excellent movies!
 I can honestly say that Savage Steve Holland is a genius! 10/10
This is from much of the same creative team behind "Better Off Dead", but is not
quite as good as that amazing teen comedy. Its a lot of fun, but its all over the
place and just not quite as funny. Curtis Armstrong is used to less effect (he was
incredibly funny in "Better off Dead", Bobcat Goldthwaite is hilarious, Cusack is
good, Demi Moore is Demi Moore (only with better hair here.) Overall its fun, and
as a person from Cape Cod, it catches the feeling of an 80s Cape Cod summer very
effectively. For some reason, this film feels more "mainstream" than "Better off
Dead". There isn't quite as much left field absurdity going on here. Again, if you
are a fan of John Cusack and Savage Steve Holland its definitely recommended.
I really love anything done by Savage Steve Holland, the writer/director of this
great movie. Also see "Better Off Dead" and "How I Got Into College." Wonderful!
Anyway this movie is really humorous and delivers some unexpected things. Where
else but in this movie can you see Demi Moore as a talented singer and Bobcat
Golthwait as a twin? I recommend this to anybody looking for some old fashioned
slapstick comedy (George with the turtle raft), not to mention some really well
written sarcasm (the Christmas tree on the roof of the car). This movie constantly
throws you unexpected things even after you've seen it 100 times like I have!
Enjoy!
80's comedies (especially ones with John Cusak) are awesome. Almost all are
hillarious and instant classics and this film is no exception. Plenty of nods to
other films (i.e. Godzilla and Jaws) through out the movie that are so hillarious
you'll be laughing for hours. Some may complain that the movie is a little corny at
times but hey it was the 80's and things were always a little cheesy. Throw in a
young Demi Moore and an even louder Bob Cat and you have a laughfest on your fans.
If you haven't seen this, you better soon!!!!!!
One Crazy Summer is a fun and quirky look at love through the eyes of Hoops McCann.
what could have been hokey and dull is one of the freshest and most energetic
comedies ever. Savage Steve Holland reteams with John Cusack to make the ultimate
summer movie!
If I ever write movies or make them, i would want one of them to be like this one.
I enjoy the goof-ball sense of humor and jokes contained within. This movie does
stupid things without looking like it. The names of the places and characters are
priceless, Generic New York High School, Squid Calimari (George's sister),
etc...genius. I've seen this movie so many times because it was a cable tv staple
while I was growing up, of course I didn't get all of the jokes back than but it
was still funny.This movie is a time-less classic.
John Cusack stars as Hoops in this silly little movie that has to be one of the
best of the eighties teen comedies.Believe it or not Demi Moore is his co star...If
you love the eighties,grew up around that time,or are an angst ridden teenage
artist get ready to laugh.Wait until you see the cartoons..what a riot....
Ok, so there's always people out there that seem to make it a point not to like
movies because they're good, but instead choose to like movies based on how
depressing or boring they can be, or whether they're from a foreign country. All
that aside, One Crazy Summer is the perfect example of what a great American teen
comedy should be. The jokes are a good mix of slapstick (a la Bobcat Goldthwait),
surreal (Bobcat under the inspired direction of Steve Holland), and dry (John
Cusack, one of the most morosely dry and funny actors in American cinema), and
there is no character in this movie who does not deliver at least one funny line
(ok, except Demi Moore). Yes, it's immature, yes, it's screw-ball, yes,
Bobcat dresses up like Godzilla and trashes a scale-model of a seafood restaurant.
It's also funny as hell. Watch it.
What can I say about this movie except that it is great fun! John Cusack
plays Hoops McCann a recent High School graduate who has two choices, learn to take
up the family business of street sweeping or spend the summer at Nantucket with his
pal George Calamari (played hilariously by Joel Murray) and his zany friends. When I say zany, believe me, it can't get much zanier than the Stork
brothers, Egg (Bobcat Goldthwait) and Clay (Tom Villard) and Ack Ack Raymond
(Curtis Armstrong). Throw in a little girl named Squid and her weirdo mutt and a
great performance by Demi Moore and you have the makings of a split your sides
laughing, movie. The laughs flow freely in this movie and the story
line, though the typical good versus bad and good conquers, is great with the twist
of a regatta as the showdown. I would recommend this movie for anyone
who likes loads of laughs and a feel good time. If you like to thoroughly *enjoy*
your movies, then you can't miss One Crazy Summer!
Milos Forman's original HAIR was the perfect movie that actually revealed how life
was changing in those years, not only in the USA, but especially in this country.
One of the plots in the film was to be used in other films to come after Hair, for
example, in American Graffitti, etc. It was an original story with a touch of
generational sadness in it. The characters in the film were like lonely "cells" in
a "body" that was changing all over. Overall, a very good film, perhaps a little
underrated though. Annie Golden's role was minor but she acted very well. It was
the film that practically launched John Savage as an actor. One of the members of
the Chicago played his role well even though it was a minor role.
It's a simple fact that there are many of us from the 80's generation who grew up
loving those loopy John Cusack comedies made by Savage Steve Holland, and while I
prefer there other more bizarre, out-there flick, Better Off Dead, it's hard for me
to dislike One Crazy Summer, a movie I grew up loving wholeheartedly as a kid into
my teens. OCS was a follow-up to Better Off Dead, returning Cusack and Curtis
Armstrong from that film. Cusack is Hoops, following graduation pal
Joel Murray(George)to Nantucket for the summer to each some fun on the beach. Hoops
finds himself embroiled in a feud with a blonde, buff punk named Teddy Beckersted
whose lecherous father has designs on bulldozing over homes of a neighborhood to
build a giant condominium. One of the homes, needing it's mortgage repaid belongs
to Demi Moore(Cassandra). There's a sailboat race which might be their only hope of
saving Cassandra's grandfather's home(..he had recently passed), but it has been
won by Teddy over the past many years, and Hoops is deathly afraid of boats over
water. But, with the help and motivation of newfound Nantucket friends(..such as
Bobcat Goldwait and Tom Villard as auto-mechanic twin brothers!), George, and
budding love-interest Cassandra, perhaps Hoops can come to terms with his fears and
win the race to save the neighborhood. Armstrong has a supporting part as the son
of a kooky, manic weapons salesman, General Raymond(..SCTV's Joe Flaherty in an
inspired bit of casting), Ack, who uses the training from his father to assist
Hoops and company in their goals to win the race. Memorable scenes
include Bobcat getting stuck in a Godzilla suit(!)running rampant across an entire
model of Aguilla Beckersted(Mark Metcalf, barely recognizable as Teddy's rather
unhinged pops)'s condominium, Hoops being chased by deranged cub scouts wishing to
perform first aid, George a victim of toxic flatulence, Bruce Wagner's nutty Uncle
Frank's increasing insanity every time he tries to better his chances to win 1
million dollars from a radio show, and the wonderful Billie Bird as George's
grandma who actually bills the group after a meal! Jeremy Piven as(you guessed it)a
brutish jerk who associates with Teddy and causes trouble for Hoops and his posse,
the yummy Kimberly Foster as Cookie(..Teddy's girl who attempts to make-out with
Hoops while he attends a luncheon with his father), and the one-and-only William
Hickey as Old Man Beckersted, who will not reward his son and grandson an
inheritance if they lose the sail boat race. Demi Moore is cute, but this is
Cusack's vehicle, though Bobcat and Villard steal most of the scenes their in.
Again, some delightful animation from Holland are sprinkled throughout the
movie(Hoops is an artist, appropriately). If you like his movies, I highly
recommend the underrated, How I Got Into College.
Affable aspiring cartoonist Hoops McCann (a wonderfully engaging performance by
John Cusack) and his best buddy George (the deliciously deadpan Joel Murray) go to
Nantucket for the summer following graduation from high school. Hoops, George, and
several newfound pals come to the aid of Cassandra (Demi Moore at her most
charming), a singer who's family house is being threatened with demolition by the
greedy Beckersted clan. Writer/director Savage Steve Holland offers an often
hilariously wacky and zesty nonstop barrage of admittedly broad and dumb, but still
very funny jokes. The constant madcap lunacy has a real giddy, good-natured and
infectiously inane vitality to it that's impossible to either dislike or resist.
Moreover, the lively and enthusiastic acting from a fine game cast adds immensely
to the zany merriment: Bobcat Goldthwait as the spastic Egg Stork, Tom Villard as
his goofy brother Clay, Curtis Armstrong as the sweet Ack Ack Raymond, Mark Metcalf
as evil rich jerk Aquilla Beckersted, Matt Mulhern as the mean Teddy, Kimberly
Foster as the fetching Cookie, Joe Flaherty as the gung-ho General Raymond, William
Hickey as cranky Old Man Beckersted, Jeremy Piven as smug preppy bully Ty, and John
Matuszak as hulking biker Stan. Isidore Mankofsky's slick cinematography, the hip
thrashy soundtrack, Cory Lerios' cool rockin' score, and the funky animation are
all uniformly excellent. Single funniest scene: Egg in a Godzilla suit terrorizing
a posh dinner party. An absolute hoot.
Thus starts "One Crazy Summer", the evil twin of "Better off dead..". How can any
movie be bad when the opening lines are sung by David Lee Roth? This
movie is a total blast. Pairing again John Cusack with Curtis Armstrong, but this
time adding Bobcat Goldwaith to the mix has great, funny results. Hyperactive
Bobcat grates the nerve of everyone around, Curtis "Ak Ak" is the son of a deranged
military with pacifist tendencies, and Demi Moore (with natural breasts... wow!) as
the love interest of, once again, chronically depressed Cusack. The
story is, well, simple enough. The laughs are there, but both Savage Steve Holland
films have a certain quality to them... they are funny, but they are also sweet.
The scene where Curtis finds a blown up doll in the target practice beach, and
begins musing about how a little girl won't be able to sleep was dumb, funny and
touching. The animation used throughout is quite surreal. "The Boat" is hysterical
(complete with Watsamatta U. sail and Odie plush doll). Overall, a fun film, though
not as good as "Better off dead..."
In the eighties, Savage Steve Holland put out three movies, two of which are
classics of what seems to be a very small genre, absurdist teen comedies. The third
"How I Got Into College" does not measure up to "Better Off Dead" and this one,
mainly because of it's lack of John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong (Except for a tiny
cameo). One Crazy Summer is an underrated movie, with lots of great
characterizations and gags. As I recall, Savage Steve's movies were vilified as
being brain dead at the time and after three movies he drifted into children's TV.
We could use more movies from the likes of him.
When one thinks of Soviet cinema, the propaganda masterpieces of Eisenstein or the
somber meditations of Tarkovsky generally come to mind. They're great films sure,
but generally not the most entertaining material out there. However, the countries
within the Iron Curtain apparently enjoyed their escapist musicals just as much as
the states had. In fact, from the 1930s up until the 70s, forty of these song-and-
dance extravaganzas were released to much adoration by the public. However, they
are completely unheard of in the West, so this documentary attempts to rectify that
situation. It does a terrific job of both showcasing these films and putting them
into the proper cultural context. Despite the fact I've never been a fan of
musicals, I found this documentary to be completely compelling from beginning to
end. It goes to prove that, no matter how many films you manage to see in your
lifetime, you're only skimming the surface of whats out there. As for
the film clips themselves, they're very entertaining. While some of the musicals
are blatant propaganda showing workers singing of how much they love working under
the regime, some of the films (particularly the later ones) look quite accomplished
from a production standpoint. Plus, they are all extremely campy because of how
alien they are to my western eyes. There's a few similarities between them and the
American musicals I'm used to, but the presence of strict government enforcing of a
message gives them a surreal edge. They certainly don't resemble the musicals made
in the West. This documentary is both one of the most bizarre and entertaining
films I've seen in recent memory, and its an absolute must-see for any film buff.
(9/10)
East Side Story entertains and informs about an unknown part of Cold War history.
What is the purpose of any documentary? To inform the reader through commentary and
footage. This one succeeds at both. You will never find many movies whose clips you
get to see in here because some of them have been destroyed and some are
unaccessible. You get to see and her music from musicals made in East
Germany, Russia, and other countries under Soviet Control. It shows you that the
people who made these movies and the people who watched them all look for same
things a Westerner would look for, which are pretty women and men singing and
dancing on the streets with smiles and (hopefully) white teeth.
I wonder if I could take sitting through a whole musical comedy from Russia or East
Germany or other countries that for decades put out almost always propagandistic
film, anti-fascist films, anti-war films (as this documentary points out) that just
reflected the dark, grueling times under Stalin and life behind the Iron curtain.
It's fascinating then to see the other side of the coin, the sorts of clowns and
rebels with music at their side to try and please the masses more often than not
stuck in the Socialist walk of life. One film actually seemed rather impressive,
called Jolly Fellows by the pioneer of the very small group of musical filmmakers,
Grigori Aleksandrov. From the clip(s) I saw of that film, I'd wager that it was one
of the only works to actually step out of itself and go into just wild, manic,
make-you-laugh kind of mode. But as this film shows, if you were a filmmaker
looking to entertain, it better be with a 'message'. Through interviews,
some occasional quasi-dramatizations (of Russia/Germany/etc's sort of motion
picture association) at the censorship table, and clips, one gets the full picture
of what it was like- both behind the scenes and on the screen- to just make sheer
entertainment for the masses. Some of the films (well, most of them, as apparently
only 14 screened over 40 years in the countries mentioned) made a good chunk of
change, but for what purpose really? One also gets drawn into the culture of it
all, how it differs greatly from the American way of 'if it works, make em while
they're hot' attitude. But at the same time, perhaps out of this repression, some
interesting, funny, and (from what I saw) up-beat films were made. They might've
been fairly typical of what was asked to be shown to the masses, under Stalin's
fond but demanding terms, like life with tractors. It gets to be even juicier a
story though as we get shown what it was like in the 60's, the last wave of musical
comedies, as rock and roll and pop tunes finally hit their airwaves. In
short, some good stuff...but only if interested, really. I was shown the film in a
class on documentary films, and half the class fell asleep. So be warned on the one
hand, though on the other if looking for it, it can make for a really rewarding
trip into European film history.
"East Side Story" is a documentary of musical comedy in Stalinist Russia and later
in the eastern European satellite comedies, with many clips from the films and
commentary from the survivors. Although some of the Stalinist films look laughingly
bad (The Bright Road (?) being a notable exception), the films from the sixties
actually look pretty good. "My Wife Wants to Sing," "The White Mouse," and
"Midnight Revue" look particularly entertaining. The producers had to contend with
the censors, who had the power to decide what was politically correct, which led to
some confusion, humorous in retrospect, since the people whom the censors were
trying to appease were the very people who supported making the films to begin
with! Since musical comedies were fairly rare behind the Iron Curtain--there were
only something like forty made in forty years--they had a disproportionate effect
upon their audiences, who made major hits of some of the films. I notice
that the sound for the sixties films was much better. The directors often had to
make do with antiquated equipment, and stringent power regulations--they had to
film in seven minute takes or less--and dangerous officicrats. I also
notice that "West Side Story" seems to have had a strong influence on "Hot Summer."
The later films may not measure up to "Singin' in the Rain," but they certainly
look like they beat the hell out of "Bye Bye Birdy"
When I went to see this documentary on Communist bloc musicals, I was expecting
something totally demented, along the lines of a Communist "Cop Rock." Some scenes
did deliver, including a rousing clip from a Soviet film called "Tractor
Drivers." You'd think that moviemakers given the task of making
ideologically correct musicals that sing, dance and espouse the Party line face
insurmountable odds. And yet, one of the surprises of "East Side Story" is that
some of the films presented actually looked promising. One was a mid-1950s East
German effort called "My Wife Wants to Sing," in which, as the title implies, an
unhappy hausfrau seeks to launch a singing career over the objections of her
traditionally-minded husband. Another genuinely interesting-looking
movie, also from East Germany, was called "Midnight Revue." In this film-within-a-
film, the producers spoof their own creative plight with the story of a group of
filmmakers under Party orders to make a musical. (The on-screen filmmakers
themselves get to do a musical number about avoiding "too hot" subjects very
reminiscent in tone of the 1957 movie "Silk Stockings.") The documentary
is marred by somewhat insipid narration, but it's still a lot of fun to watch.
(Look for the closing dedication to the person who made it all possible.)
Scary in places though the effects did leave something to be desired unless you
have bad eyesight or are afraid of the dark. However most of the acting was
convincing and most of the effects were well done. I thought the creature looked a
bit too much like a man in a gorilla suit for my liking. It reminded me of the
original pink panther film.
i watched it because my friend said we could try it, when my father asked if we'd
watch it. i didn't want to because it was such an old film, how could that be
good ? i finally did watch with that friend and my father. my friend and i loved
the film. the songs are great, the actors were cool and we were crazy about it. i
guess this shows even though it's from dad's time that doesn't mean it can't be a
good film. i bought the film not so long after seeing it on TV, i put it on a lot
and sang along with the songs. i even watched it with my classmates on my birthday
party. it's a nice, good, and sometimes funny film. if you don't try,
you can't say it's bad. even if you think no, i'm not going to watch a film from
dad's time. try the first part of the film you can always stop watching if you
don't like it. i really recommend it, it's great!!
i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder
why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow
the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is
also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially
michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!! come
one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than
this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the
worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have
great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop
action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on
DVD... by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch
it!!!! you will never regret !!! 10/10*
Bears about as much resemblance to Dean Koontz's novel as Jessica Simpson does to a
rocket scientist. If you've read the book, I suggest you put it as far out of your
mind as possible before watching the movie. Watchers is your typical
"Boy meets dog, dog turns out to be super-intelligent government lab experiment,
dog and boy are pursued by super-intelligent and emotionally disturbed monster
created by same lab, and, oh yeah, did I mention the shady government agents
pursuing the monster pursuing the dog?" movie. Corey Haim is the boy,
Barbara Williams is his mother, Michael Ironside is one of the evil government
guys, and Sandy the dog is, well, the dog (named Furface here; Einstein in the
book). The monster effects are ridiculously cheesy, much of the dialogue
is laughable, the script rarely makes sense or is believable - a good example is
Haim's character's unquestioning acceptance of the dog's intelligence, as if every
Fido off the street can type messages on a computer keyboard or bark once for yes
and twice for no! Hmm, it's gotta be the puppy chow, right? Haim's performance is
enthusiastic but shaky, as he carries off the stupid dialogue with the least amount
of skill. Ironside has been the highlight of many a bad movie, and this is no
exception. He easily gives the best performance of the movie, although I'm
compelled to add that the dog (who's a pretty darn good actor himself!) comes in a
close second. All in all, an atrociously dumb movie, and yet . . . And
yet I watched it three times within a week. And yet I can't help liking it. Hey,
what can I say, I have a taste for junk - and Michael Ironside (not that I've ever
actually tasted Michael Ironside- I'm sure there are laws against that). But any
movie that can make me laugh that hard (yes, even unintentionally) can't be all
bad. Chalk it up to a guilty pleasure, a "yes I know it's insultingly stupid but I
like it anyway" movie. It's tough for me to rate this. On a normal scale
I'm forced to give it a D-, but on my own personal cheese scale, it gets bumped up
to an A-. Yeah, I know. I'm weird like that.
I love dogs, and the most interesting character in this movie is a Golden
Retriever. He is smarter, better looking and more interesting than any of the human
characters. Like many other contributors I have not read the book but I doubt that
having done so would change my opinion of the movie. It is predictable from the
first five minutes on. No surprises. Mad scientists create a monster that gets
loose and a teen age boy and his wonder dog collaborate to destroy it. All in all
the movie is a dog. But as I said, I love dogs and will therefore give this movie a
7/10 rating. Watch it if it comes on TV, rent it if you are bored and nothing else
catches your eye, but don't buy it unless it is on special.
Watchers is a fun movie if it's not taken too seriously, the novel written by Dean
R. Koontz is obviously a lot better but the movie itself is entertaining in it's
own way. The film has a lot of changes for the novel Watchers, the one difference
is the main character Travis. In the book he was an adult and an retired Delta
Force soldier while in the film he's a teenager. Watchers has it's good points, the
film does have some gory scenes in parts. I'm a fan of Micheal Ironside and it was
cool to see him in this film, he always does a great performance in all his films.
The OXCOM costume looks kind of cheesy but the camera never really shows the
creature fully until near the end of the film. The dog Einstien was impressive
since it was well trained. The film sees two genetic experiments
escaping from a lab, a dog and a monster. Both experiments are linked
telepathically since the two animals are part of a military project were the dog
would infiltrate an enemy base then the Creature would attack and eliminate them.
The Dog finds a teenager named Travis who takes him home and discovers that he's
intelligent and so he names the dog Einstein, meanwhile the OXCOM is roaming around
killing people and gouging out their eyes, two Government agents are sent to find
the two experiments before this incident gets out of hand. Soon Travis learns that
his not safe as the OXCOM is drawn to the dog and will stop at nothing to kill him
and anyone in it's way, so Travis and his mom go to rescue his girlfriend who's
being held at the hospital by the two agents. They then hideout in the woods while
the Government agents and the OXCOM are not far behind. Watchers is not
a great adaptation of Dean R. Koontz novel but it is a entraining 80's horror
flick, some fans of the book may not want to watch this since it's not faithful to
the book but fans of cheesy 80's horror movies may want to check this out.
I would consider myself a fan of Dean Koontz; having read a number of his novels
and liked them all, but unfortunately I never got around to reading Watchers so I'm
left with no choice but to rate this film on it's own merits rather than comparing
it to the book that I haven't read. I went into this expecting something awful, and
while I didn't exactly get a brilliant horror film; I am lead to believe that it's
fans of the book that are rating it down because as a film in it's own right,
Watchers is an entertaining and somewhat original little horror movie. The plot
obviously takes some influence from Predator and begins with an explosion at a
research lab. It's not long before a rancher is killed by some strange beast and
the boyfriend of the dead man's daughter has picked up an ultra-intelligent runaway
dog. A secret Government agency is soon on the case, as the murders continue. The
boy continues to be fascinated by the dog's intelligence, but it somehow ties in
with the murders and the agency is soon on his tail too. The script for
this film was originally written by Paul Haggis, who later disowned it. I don't
know why the writing here is nowhere near as ridiculous as his 2004 hit Crash!
Anyway, the main reason this film works is undoubtedly the dog, who aside from
being rather cute, is also the best actor in the film. Corey Haim, hot off the
success of The Lost Boys is the human lead and actually has a rather good chemistry
with the dog, although it is a little bit ridiculous seeing him talk to it most of
the way through the film. The plot is rather convoluted and as such the film is
more than a little bit messy; but the ridiculousness of it all pulls it through
during the more awkward moments. Michael Ironside also appears in the film and does
well as the 'bad cop' side of the Government agents. The monster is, of course, one
of the most interesting things about the film and the way it goes around killing
people is always entertaining and gory; although unfortunately we don't get to see
a lot of it and when we finally do it's rather disappointing - obviously the
filmmakers had seen Bigfoot and the Hendersons! Still, this is the sort of film
that can be easily enjoyed despite the numerous problems and I'd recommend to any
undiscerning viewer of eighties horror.
When a saboteur blows up a controversial government research lab, two experimental
animals are loosed in a small community in Washington State. One is a dog with
unusual intelligence. The other is an "Outside eXperimental COmbat Mammal", or
"OXCOM". Because of reasons divulged further into the film, the oxcom hates the
dog, and so is trying to kill it. Watchers concerns the accidental involvement of
Travis Cornell (Corey Haim), his mom Nora (Barbara Williams) and his girlfriend
Tracey (Lala Sloatman) with the dog and oxcom, as two National Security
Organization agents, Lem Johnson (Michael Ironside) and Cliff (Blu Mankuma), track
them down. Many comments are made about Watchers being very different
than the Dean Koontz book that serves as the launching pad for the film. This is
true. But it should not affect your rating. If you want the book, read the book.
Judge the film on its own merits, not how closely it matches the book. Bill Freed
and Damian Lee, who wrote the screenplay, are just as much artists as Koontz is
(that's not a quality comparison, just a statement that they're all artists). So is
director Jon Hess. Their job as filmmakers isn't to slavishly follow the book as if
it were a script. They're adapting the book, as artists, to make a unique artwork.
It's based on the book. Not identical to it. You have to loosen your
preconceptions/expectations when you watch the film, because you're going to be
experiencing an artwork that you are not already familiar with, even if you've read
Koontz' novel. So, is Watchers a good film? It's pretty good, not
excellent. Good enough to earn a "B", or an 8. Hess begins things on the right foot
with one of the most beautifully filmed explosions I've seen in awhile.
Unfortunately, he trips a bit immediately afterward as we listen to some very
thick, jargonistic exposition. After that scene Watchers threatens to become a
clichéd 1980s film as we first meet Travis and Tracey. Veering towards
cliché is a tendency continually threatened. But it is only a skew. More often than
not, Hess is able to transcend well-trodden territory with a number of interesting
twists: Both Travis and Tracey are from single parent homes, with their genders
flipped. Both have unique, mature relationships with their parents. Although this
is a horror film, a major focus is a cute, intelligent canine, and it often feels
as much like an adventure film as it does horror, a thriller, or sci-fi, which are
all genres it touches upon. Hess introduces a large cast of characters, some not
entering until late in the game, yet the film is never confusing and no characters
feel as if they are left in the dust--all of the threads are nicely tied up in the
end. The structure is also complex in that there are two major villains, the second
becoming less obviously ill-intentioned as the film progresses, until a twist
accompanied by brutal violence makes one antagonist clearer. Soon after, Hess gives
us a nice moment of doubt with the other antagonist. The biggest flaw in
my eyes is a dreaded, common one with horror films since at least the 1980s--the
"attack" scenes are shot too darkly, too close, too out of focus, and they're
edited too choppily. It makes it extremely difficult to tell what's going on, which
saps most of the tension from scenes that should be a highlight. Surely, part of
Hess' motivation for the style, and this is the typical justification for this
problem, was worry that the creature would come across as humorous and/or fake
rather than frightening and suspenseful. In my view, presenting the audience with a
dizzying blur isn't a satisfactory solution. We only get to see the creature
costume/makeup clearly towards the end of the film. It was well done enough that
better shot and edited attack scenes would have brought the film up to at least a
9. Regardless of the degree of correspondence between the novel and the
film, Watchers presents a gripping story using smart, alluring characters. It is
frequently a nail-biter and the horror scenes are more feral than you might expect,
if not exactly gory (although there is a fair amount of blood in a couple scenes).
Watchers tends to be underrated because of misconceptions about the role of film
when it comes to adapting literature--don't pass it up or summarily dismiss it
based on a misconception.
If you want to have a great time then this is THE movie to watch. Take
the premise - There is this college which admits people with minimum qualifications
of BA, B.Com, M.Com, MA, MBA, MCA, B.E., M.Tech and BCA. So you have to take into
account the time consumed and thus it is obvious that all students are 40+ Also the
school admits students of a 'heavier' dispensation and has a course of P.Hd in
weight loss and the only student who failed this course is Manisha Koirala. Only
she was a snake in the past life. Still not convinced? OK read on. Here's a scene. Akshay Kumar, a college student, is chased by Arman and he takes
out a bazooka and shoots him! Then throws grenades. Then one of the grenades hits
Akshay. But doesn't die and continues to fight, Arman, the snake, plunges a half
foot dagger into Akshay and stomps on it but Akshay is still there. Then Akshay
gets on a jet ski and follows Arman. They fight and Arman chokes Akshay underwater
and finally Akshay is dead. So we think, as soon as Arman is out of the picture
Akshay swims away to Raj Babbar, Principal of this college + Boxing Refree +
Parapsychology ka professor + mumbling priest. But no one, I repeat no
one takes the cake but a certain Mr. Nigam. You gotto watch to learn more. :-)
This movie is without a doubt the best I have seen in my entire life. The stellar
star cast is only an added bonus over the amazing special effects, and profound
story and sublime choreography. The movie is about an ancient love affair that
folds down into the modern world. Two lovers in heaven incur the wrath of a great
sage and are cursed. Subsequently the woman is born again on earth. While she is in
college, she is raped and commits suicide. The rest of the movie basically focuses
on the hunting down of the people who were associated with the rape, by her lover
who possesses superhuman strength and the mastery of several languages. Sonu Nigam
delivers a very mature and deep performance in this film, and all the other actors
do almost as well. Te action scenes with Akshay Kumar are mind-blowing, and must
not be missed. You simply HAVE to watch this movie!!!
All the people who voted a meager 1 on this movie, this is all I have to say: You
guys have not matured enough to enjoy cinema of this kind. It takes a certain
amount of dedication to reach that level of appreciation. And that is the segment
of people this movie was aimed at. Not you average movie-goers by any chance! .
Back to the movie. This one was a gem all right and definitely an inclusion in the
Bollywood hall of fame. I'd give it an all time rank of no # 2, surpassed only by
Kanti Shah's legendary Gunda. This movie had an impeccable story line and created a
beautiful blend between a fantasy and sci-fi. Pan's Labyrinth would have in fact
been ashamed of the balance created between the parallel stories. And now do i
really need to mention the stellar cast and even stellar-er (that is a word from
NOW) performances from them (a special mention goes to Mr. Nigam for the best debut
ever in any movie on this earth). Every actor in this movie had been very carefully
chosen and the role were tailor made for them (and for their age too, I must add).
Manisha Koirala still looks like she's 18 and wow man, with that figure I would
have raped her too. Are you wondering where did this rape thing come in suddenly?
Yes, a rape is what the premises of this movie is based on. And that is so not like
your average Bollywood type movies. If you are an atheist or an agnostic by any
chance, this movie is again a must for you. Because this movie can heal your faith.
I don't think it'd even be going too far saying that this movie can cure cancer.
Only the people who need it the most fail to appreciate its power, charm and
undying beauty. Tchch, so unfortunate! Only flaw in this movie: In your
dreams, baby! This was flawless. Only minor complain: The director
failed to star Mithun Da as well. I won't ruin it for you any further.
Just go and watch it. TODAY. And if you like it, here are some more recommendation
from me. Gunda, Desh Drohi, Aparichit, the old Ramsay Brothers horror movies, Loha,
Indra the tiger and Sivaji.
This movie deserves the 10 I'm giving it. But it's not the 10 that you'd
give to movies like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas' or 'Psycho'. This is the kind
of 10 you give to a movie which just makes you laugh,over and over again! It's the
most horribly written and directed movie, yet it doesn't fail to entertain. It has
the most amateur effects, yet you enjoy every moment! I saw this movie today on TV,
and I didn't want to move away! Read the following dialogue to know why! (Whole college is standing around Manisha,who has just undergone a rape
attempt and the guys who attempted the rape are asking for forgiveness) Bad Guy 1: Please forgive us! Bad guy 2: Yes,we won't do it again.
 (No response from Manisha) Akshay: Come on,forgive them!
 Manisha: I don't know... Akshay: You are a beautiful woman,
and even dead men can get aroused by you! And these are living young males! Don't
blame them! Pancholi: Yeah Manisha.. Manisha(To Suniel):
What if they tried to rape your girlfriend??? Suniel: I'd break their
hands,legs and kill them.But anyways,just forgive them.. Akshay: Yeah if
you don't forgive them then it will be as though you are too arrogant about your
beauty! Now that is a true masterpiece of a dialogue! This movie never
fails to entertain, mainly because there are so many goofs and unrealistic
situations! The bad guy (Munish) can do basically anything..He can blow a sandstorm
from his mouth, or he can get a motorcycle from his backside and just as easily
make it disappear again. Every actor takes turns to speak..One line
from Akshay,then from Suniel, then from Arshad, then Aftab, then Nigam. It's the
main rule followed by the director, so that equal screen time is given to each guy.
And then there's the all powerful pendant, which can cause even a speeding car to
go right through you without you being harmed! All these things make it an
enjoyable movie, and I can watch it over and over again. I think this movie can go
into the comedy hall of fame if there is one.. The only problem is that
it wasn't trying to be funny.
Hair is one of my favorite movies of all times. Even not being part of my
generation, I already watched this movie 9 times and I can't get enough with the
beautiful message of understanding,passion,beauty and love. This movie is against
the Vietnam war and shows how people should be united independent of the
color,origins, religions and classes. I love the characters Berger and Woof and I
think Central Park of the 70's one of the most beautiful places I already saw in my
life. By the way,I still have this music in my mind: When the
moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the
planets And love will steer the stars This is the dawning of the age of
Aquarius The age of Aquarius Aquarius! Aquarius! Harmony and
understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or decisions Golden
living dreams of visions Mystic crystal revelation And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius! Aquarius! ps: I am surprised to see that the director of this
movie is the same director of AMADEUS. I just love both movies!
I caught "On the Run" at the Screening Room in New York and was immediately seduced
by its true independent spirit. Starring Michael Imperioli and John Ventimiglia
from The Sopranos cast, "On the Run" sets us up in a 24-hour wild ride in the city
that never sleeps, as we follow the meanderings of an introspective sales agent who
is suddenly dragged by his long-gone school companion, just out of jail. In fact he
has escaped from it and is "on the run" looking for some action and a glimpse of
life amidst the great metropolis. Powered by great performances, this movie gives
us back the old feeling of 70's pics, with both characters rediscovering themselves
as they blaze across town bumping into wild events and locals. An elegy to a
certain side of New York that seems to be disappearing, "On the Run" displays great
sensitivity and humour. I predict it to be a cult classic that urges to be
discovered: future viewers should definitely surrender to this nocturnal trip.
Don't let the rating of 5.9 (as of this writing on 12-8-02) fool you, this is one
excellent film. I cannot fathom how this got such a rating considering
being so solid at all levels. The direction, acting, cinematography--all good. The
story is interesting and original and my only inkling as far as understanding why
the rating is such, sits in the fact that it is probably the type of movie that
people rating might not normally see. I equate it to playing modern rock
for an 80 year old. You might be young, brought up on it and love it, but he or she
has not been and as a product of a different time and taste--doesn't care for
it. If you like films and can handle movies based more on real people
versus those comprised of mindless action, enormous flashy budgets and mediocre
talent, give this one a try next time you see it on... 
Just watched this movie over the weekend, and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The 2 Italo American actors are excellent as usual (Michael Imperioli and John
Ventimiglia). It is obvious that the director was influenced by 2 great films of
the past directed by Italians. Primarily he was influenced by Dino Risi and his
film IL SORPASSO. It is the story of 2 young men who meet by chance and become
friends. One is extroverted and the other is introverted. They enjoy the whole day
together and by the end of the day, the shy one learns that there is more to life
than his usual routine monotony. The same thing happens to Albert De Santi.
Unfortunately, IL SORPASSO has a very similar ending and this apparently influenced
the director of ON THE RUN because he uses the same technique but with a twist. I
had expected something but was surprised to see that it turned out to be the
opposite. If you watch both movies you will understand. The other film that
influenced the director is AFTER HOURS directed by the great Italian American
Scorsese. I highly recommend all 3 movies !!
I went to see this film because Joaquim de Almeida was in it. Joaquim had a fairly
small part, so it was good that I liked the film on it's own. In fact, I liked it a
lot! The film centers around two characters, Albert and Louie. Albert is
a shy, retiring sort, and Louie... well Louie is not. The story revolves around
Louie's request to Albert to let him come over to Albert's place for just a little
while. Louie has just gotten out of prison. Albert and Louie have known
each other since childhood, and of course whenver they do something together there
is trouble and it's Albert who always takes the fall. The action of the
film is based on the adventures that ensue from Louie's visit. On The Run is a
chronicle of mad-cap, zany, situations. However, Bruno de Almeida and scriptwriter,
Joseph Minion (After Hours), don't always take you where you expect to go. There
are twists and turns that add depth to this film. Of course there is plenty of
outright comedy, but there is much subtle humor here as well. There are
some downright good performances here as well. Albert is played delightfully by
Michael Imperioli. He's getting fairly well-knownthese days from the HBO series,
The Sopranos. Louie is played by John Ventimiglia, who imbues his
character with a lovable, child-like quality. (no matter what he does, you just
gotta love Louie!). Both these actors are excellent in their individual
characters. With Imperioli, you'll want to hug him and bring him home to Mom.
Ventimiglia, well, you won't know whether you should slap him or bring him home
(and NOT to Mom!). There are other stand-out performances as well.
The character of Rita is played by Drena DeNiro (yes, Robert's daughter). The
audience adored her. In talking with the others who saw the film it was fun to
discuss whether it was Albert or Louie who was their favorite of those two. But,
everyone loved Rita! Is this film perfect? No, I can't say that it is.
There were many times I wished the director had had a bigger budget to work with.
There were some scenes that cried out for more budgetary freedom. (Give this guy a
decent budget to work with and I believe you are going to see a film that will make
you stand up and notice.) The ending sequence was a bit of a victim of
budget. Yet, budget or no budget, the ending screen shot, in my opinion, brought
together the talent of actor and director into a memorable, emotionally effective
scene. 
This B&W film reached the spartan movie house of my Frisian village about 18 months
after its release. In those days much of our full-length comedy fare hailed from
Denmark (Nils Poppe anyone?) so this movie struck like a thunderbolt -- it had me
weeping with helpless mirth, ROTFL as we'd now put it. OK, so some of the sight
gags were in fact recycled vaudeville 'schtick', but how was this 'barefoot boy
with cheeks of brass' to know that at the time? In any case, my favorite scenes had
Jerry's unique brand of frantic clowning, like that Hawaii boxing match. Seeing "Sailor Beware" again fifty years later I still guffawed loudly at
the goings-on. Granted, without the nostalgia component it would probably be just
another fair-to-middling comedy. But then, another movie that once had me in
stitches even more helplessly, the Spike Jones outing "Fireman Save My Child", now
seems dated and stilted apart from some too-short orchestra bits and Doodles Weaver
scenes. Must be some special ingredient that makes Martin & Lewis product stay
fresher longer. To me this one at least rates eight out of ten.
This is not especially well written. The songs are not memorable. The cast,
however, squeezes a lot out of this Martin and Lewis in the Navy situation. They
both look great as young sailors. They are believable. The scenes on the submarine
show how cramped it must have been on those underwater missions in the 1950s and
before. Lots of sailors in many scenes. Hundreds perhaps, in a big
outdoor exercise field, and again in a boxing arena. You will see James
Dean in his scene. He does stand out even though he is an extra here. In a scene
where Jerry walks across a busy street we see some of his "almost accident" comedy
which he would bring into play years later in The Patsy. Dean giving
Jerry boxing instructions is a good comedy skit to watch for. Jerry in the boxing
ring shows his high energy that was his trademark in the late '40s and early '50s.
Dean and Jerry dancing is a bit of a treat. Not great, but better than most non
dancing movies. Worth seeing if you don't mind black and white. Good
ending. Tom Willett
One has to take Martin & Lewis like a dash of salt & pepper. Why does Martin put up
with Lewis? Then again, why do all the women in this movie like Jerry? Because he
is innocently likeable! Martin sings a few good songs (lip-sync'd at least once)
and Jerry manages to kiss more girls than in all his other movies combined. I
generally find that I can take just so much of Jerry's antics before they become
aggravating. BUT.... in this film, watch when Jerry gets stuck outside on a
submerging Navy submarine! EXCELLENT! Buster Keaton should have been proud. I give
the film a 7.
I liked this movie. No one I know likes it, but I do. I
didn't like it as much as the first one but it was still good. The script and plot
may not have changed at all, but the story was better than Caddyshack 1. The only reason I didn't like Caddyshack 2 is... NO RODNEY
DANGERFIELD! I think the movie would be better if Rodney Dangerfield had
Jackie Mason's part. Although I did like Jackie Mason in the movie, it would be
alot better if they kept Rodney Dangerfield. Another flaw in the movie,
that I didn't hate as much, was Dan Akroyd. The movie was done 8 years after the
first one. Bill Murray, "Carl", could've quit his job as an assistant greenskeeper
and joined the military, you know? If Warner Bros. had thought of that, it could've
made the movie better, also. This was my comment for Caddyshack
II. I give it 8.2 out of 10 It could've been better, but good
nonetheless. If you've seen Caddyshack 1 and are debating on whether or
not to see Caddyshack 2, I say give it a try.
The only conceivable flaw of this film is it's title!! Please stop comparing it to
the first! I did in my previous review only to separate it from the first. If you
haven't seen the movie and are curious, TOTALLY forget about the first and invent a
different name for this. There is nothing alike and has a mood all its own. This is
a great exponent of screwy mid-80s comedy. I seriously doubt such big names in this
cast did the movie because they were broke or even wanted to remake the first.
Anybody who ever wanted to give a kick to the snobbish aristocracy should love this
little opus. I maintain, the only reason this is in the IMDB bottom 100 is because
of its title. I usually hate movies like these (i.e. adam sandler, will farrell,
farrelly bros....), but this movie just keeps me laughing hysterically. I dunno,
maybe it's like a bad relationship I can't get out of or just a ridiculous guilty
pleasure. Either way, this is the single most underrated movie of the 80s behind
'The Stunt Man.' Robert Stack- WE LOVE YOU!!! (1919-2003)
Amazing, one of my favorite movies way down at the bottom. Guess I can take some
pride in not liking what "the general populace" tends to go for. Jackie Mason is
hilarious in this movie, and so's Randy Quaid. I can never get enough of his
"strong-arm" tactics, just like in Moving. He was also notable in National
Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Love that guy.
When I was younger I saw the end of HAIR on TV. I just watched the last 5 minutes
of the film. And I was really impressed by it. I got goose pimples and I said to
myself that I HAD to watch this film. And I did, and I've to say: This
film is amazing. The songs are great, the actors are very good and the message...
The message of this film is one of the most important ones: "Make love, no war".
This film is a real masterpiece. Meanwhile it's my favourite film. The
last song is one of the saddest and happiest I ever listened to. I nearly could
feel myself joining the crowd. All I've got to say: "LET THE SUN SHINE, LET THE SUN
SHINE IN"
i am in a vast minority here. i also didn't much care for the original caddyshack,
aside from the chase/murray duo scene and select rodney jokes. okay, break it down:
rodney vs. jackie- both jewish and have similar humor. rodney's a bigger name and
more distinct. jackie has an incidental and more observational approach to his
jokes and is more 'up yours' in this sequel. jackie's attitude toward everything is
memorable and in a way, inspirational! his quick lines and over-confidence left me
wishing i could express myself in such a way. rodney was good, but there wasn't
enough of him, and he was more 'in your face' and dismissive. jackie, in a rare
film appearance, makes a perfect sub for rodney (come on, a gun shaped hair
dryer?!?!) really, look at the little things! stack vs. knight- both
play snobby yuppies very well. ted knight, despite his wonderful tv/film career,
kinda shows his age. but, he does pull off the snobbish demands of the part and we
want to see him fall. ted looks kinda weak and is pretty annoying, playing his
anger and frustration too slapstick, while stack is more incidentally snide and
vengeful; you really hate him and enjoy see him constantly fail. stack wins with
me. murray vs. aykroyd- well, both had great, vintage SNL-like scenes
with the ever-present and enjoyable chevy chase (ty webb). i did like the
murray/chase one better. murray plays his great, annoying, chatty character with
obvious improv skill and is loveable- yet annoying. and the exact same can be said
for aykroyd. both get annoying after a while, but it's a tie. i really
loved part 2 over the first. they are 2 totally different mooded films. part one is
more drug/bathroom/sex humor with a cast full of great names. part 2 uses golf as a
backdrop for a 'stick-it-to-the-rich' type of comedy that makes one feel better
about being working class. 80s script? yes. a bit far-fetched? yes, but wasn't the
first? an insult to the sport of golf? yes, it's a movie. thin story? yes, it's a
comedy with actual humor- not 'dances with wolves'!! besides- part 2 has a much
better soundtrack!! PLEASE- DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE A SEQUEL TO PART ONE!! IT IS
98% ITS OWN MOVIE AND SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE NAME 'CADDYSHACK' IN IT. that said, i
am a big fan of caddyshack 2 and it is a great exponent of 80s fluff entertainment
with quality humor. VIVA JACKIE MASON!!! to all the reducers- lighten up! it's a
great comedy of its own. randy quaid was wonderful, jonathan silverman was
wonderful, heck, everyone was!! all this chatting and now i feel like watching it!
i think i will
I have no idea why everyone hates this movie to call it garbage a travesty an
unexceptable sequel is just unfair i mean what else could they have made for a
sequel then. Cause seriously I think it should have had a sequel (Rodney
Dangerfield) says: hey everyone were all going to get laid and then a little
dancing goffer and thats it thats the end of Caddyshack even though the film rating
on first one was (R) and the second one was (PG) it was still lots of fun . (7/10)
Like Richard Pryor, Mason never got the material he deserved. Whatever you know of
him is probably wrong. Get past the accent and go see his stand-up. You'll be very
surprised -- he's one of the best stand-ups I've ever seen and I have seen a lot of
stand-up comedy (from Lenny Bruce to Eddie Murphy to Jerry Seinfeld to Chris Rock
-- Jackie Mason is definitely up there). He's known for being a comic's comic. Even
Howard Stern said he is one of the top 3 funniest comedians ever. The
accussation that Mason is no Dangerfield is ridiculous. Dangerfield is known for
having been a huge Mason fan. Dangerfield's career was going nowhere for a long
time until he started following Mason's shows. That is when Mason provided
Dangerfield with inspiration for his, "get no respect" routine. While I think
Dangerfield is great, see them both do stand-up and you'll see Mason is the better
comedian.
One of the most interesting things is that this 1988 film is highly touted as an
ìn-name only' sequel. There's nothing wrong with that except this: The return of
Chevy Chase as Ty Webb. This connects the viewer to this character (from the
original Caddyshack in 1980,) and makes fans thinking or wanting Caddyshack II to
be similar to the first one. There are rumors that Rodney Dangerfield
was supposed to return. He carried a big part of the first film, so his return
would have put Caddyshack 2 over the top. Jackie Mason is the `new' Rodney for this
movie and does a decent job, even though their comic deliveries are way different.
Dan Aykroyd was great but not in the film enough. He should have been involved to
the tune of how much screen time Bill Murray got in the first one. Robert Stack
(Airplane!) was good in the `new' Ted Knight/Villian role. (We miss you, Ted!)
Danny Noonan should have been back. So many others could have returned to show us
what happened to their characters eight years later. Bushwood should not have
undergone the total makeover it did. Instead, the characters involved, rather than
the club itself, should have been the main focus like they were in the first one.
When you watch this film, keep in mind that it isn't a major sequel and you may
think it's another good or bad eighties comedy. Fans of the first should see it but
don't be shocked when the comparisons between the original and Part II are so far
apart.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The only critic who counts is yourself. I think
this is a great movie. Much better than the original. In "Caddyshack",
Rodney Dangerfield is funny, but obnoxious. He was asked to do the sequel, but
things got in the way. Jackie Mason shows the saying that "less is more". He is
funny, but a man with real family issues, a more rounded person. It's no drama, but
a movie that makes you feel. Actually in some points, you feel sorry for Jackie
Mason, especially when his daughter walks out on him. It has a good
soundtrack, and overall, a good sorry. A good end to the series. In the
TV show "Alf", Alf says that he cried in "Terms of Endearment". The wife , Kate
Tanner, played by Anne Schedeen, also says he cried at "Caddyshack 2".
Seriously. If this had been the first Shack movie, it would have been passable as
funny, silly and goofy. Light satire commentary on the class system would make this
an enjoyable late-night rental. However, everyone wants to compare it to
the first film, and maybe that's not fair. The first film is a cult classic; what
could possibly follow it up? Nothing. So take this second film as a stand alone,
and it certainly has its moments. Jackie Mason is amusing, doing his
best Rodney-wannabe impersonation. Is he as good as Rodney? No. Are his lines as
good? No. But he is funny. The rest of the cast falls in line as being decent, but
not outstanding. You'll recognize faces amongst the cast and wonder how they got to
where they are today. The film is predictable, but aren't most in this
genre? Again, it's not the best comedy you'll see, but if you like Cannonball Run-
type fun, you'll enjoy this one.
Caddyshack 2 has a dreadful reputation, due only to the fact that it is a sequel to
a highly-held classic. People have criticised the film on a lot of grounds, but
they all ultimately hark back to the fact that this is not Caddyshack. I
would begin by saying that we should just take Caddyshack out of the equation and
consider this film on its own merits, but I think that would be unfair. The movie
does have a lot in common with its predecessor. The class-related themes of 'snobs
versus slobs' and the desire to fit in to a class above your own are as prevalent
here as they were in the first movie. The two things that are truly lacking here
are Bill Murray and Rodney Dangerfield, who are replaced with Dan Ackroyd and
Jackie Mason respectively. Now I am not about to try and argue that
Ackroyd comes close to Murray in the movie, but Jackie Mason is an admirable
successor to Dangerfield. He comes off as a cross between Dangerfield and Arnold
Stang, but without biting too heavily on either. I wouldn't say that he is anywhere
close to being as funny as Dangerfield is in Caddyshack, but there is a whole lot
more point to his character and his dilemma in the film. Chevy Chase
only pops up and handful of times in the movie, which is another common complaint.
Maybe these particular naysayers didn't notice that he only popped up a few times
in the first movie. For my money, his scenes here are a lot funnier, if somewhat
over-directed. While I'm on the subject, it is really the over-direction
of this movie that brings it down. It comes across as far more self-conscious in
its attempts to get a laugh. Many of the jokes are laboured and there's far too
much of the Gopher, who seems to have taken on a far more anthropomorphic
personality and a voice, just in case we didn't grasp the idea that its meant to be
funny. Characters are similarly hammered home, particularly the smarmy
yuppy kids. Jackie Mason rarely misses a beat, and is consistently likable and very
funny, but we didn't need the tango sequence at all! The director is clearly not of
the same school of thought as Harold Ramis. Not to suggest that Caddyshack was
subtle, but the jokes here are just a little overcooked, and most of them are
unnecessarily embellished with a quirky music cue. All things
considered, this is a fun, goofy movie with something to say about class and
identity that very few movies at the time were saying. Don't be put off by the
appallingly low rating on IMDb, check it out for yourself.
The casting of Robert Culp is probably the only decent move the production team
made with this film. Falk and Culp were marvellous, but as culp was not Falks
nemesis this time, chemistry was lacking. Columbo is only as strong as his opposite
number, and this time he didn't have one.
This is, without a doubt, one of my favorite Columbo episodes ever. The acting is
very well done, the music is very catchy, the script is ingenious, and the
direction is fabulous. Peter Falk, who acts brilliantly in every Columbo
episodes, acts particularly well in this episode. Also, great
performances from Stephen Caffrey, Gary Hershberger, Alan Fudge and Robert Culp. The ending is absolutely brilliant and I love the way Columbo describes
it. This is a Columbo movie that WON'T, go amiss.
At the end, it is clear that the murderers planted the murder weapon in Mrs.
Columbo's car and it was at the police ballistics lab. But where did
the gun under the hood, used in the demonstration, come from? Wouldn't the
murderers have cleared out the stuff under the hood? They had a whole week? Or did
Columbo's cops replicate the camera/gun under the hood used in the demonstration?
How did they do that without breaking and entering the car? Perhaps this is why the
murders seemed surprised at the end. But how could Columbo have replicated their
camera/gun device and gotten it calibrated to their key fob? Columbo must have
gotten the gun back from ballistics and had it re-planted under the hood of the
car, and been very lucky that the rest of the device with camera was still there
and transmitting. This was a 10/10 show until this glaring plot error at
the end.
The antiwar musical "Hair" is my number one cult-movie. I do not know how many time
I have seen this film in the movie-theaters and on VHS, or how many times I have
listened the CD with the stunning soundtrack, and now, this masterpiece has been
finally released on DVD in Brazil. The pacifist and touching story is
still amazing, a hymn of freedom, friendship and liberty of choices, and pictures
the resistance of a generation against the stupidity of war. I do not know what
happened to this wonderful generation of the counterculture of the 70's and their
dreams, since the present world is probably worse than in the 70's. I do not recall
who won the Oscar in 1979, but Treat Williams and John Savage deserved at least a
nomination for their awesome performances. Beverly D'Angelo is extremely gorgeous
in the role of a hypocrite spoiled upper-class teenager. I have seen "Hair"
probably more than twelve times, and my eyes always get wet while Berger walks to
the airplane singing "That's me, that's me, that's me", and I start crying with his
gravestone in the cemetery. I believe this is one of the most beautiful, sad and
touching conclusions of the cinema history. My wife, my daughter and my son also
love this film; therefore I can guarantee that "Hair" is timeless and recommended
for any audience. My vote is ten. Title (Brazil): "Hair"
I finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: "Fire". To begin, I'd say that
"Water" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with
Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this
film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb,
the script creating friction that starts the entire process of "heat" from the
beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving
into complete rupture of relationships. Mehta is one brave lady: she
sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great
society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of
this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making
of "Water" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many
taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face,
cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to
hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India
thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so.
Whereas "Earth" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war
after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and
religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense)
that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this "Water" is
scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see
it. Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw
in "A price above rubies". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be
like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they
have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain
loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly
impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in
misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no
expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film
seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In
any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that
holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these
films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture
sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing
the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot
highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo
shattering.
I was looking forward to The Guardian, but when I walked into the theater I wasn't
really in the mood for it at that particular time. It's kind of like the Olive
Garden - I like it, but I have to be in the right mindset to thoroughly enjoy
it. I'm not exactly sure what was dampening my spirit. The trailers
looked good, but the water theme was giving me bad flashbacks to the last Kevin
Costner movie that dealt with the subject - Waterworld. Plus, despite the promise
Ashton Kutcher showed in The Butterfly Effect, I'm still not completely sold on
him. Something about the guy just annoys me. Probably has to do with his simian
features. It took approximately two minutes for my fears to subside and
for my hesitancies to slip away. The movie immediately throws us into the midst of
a tense rescue mission, and I was gripped tighter than Kenny Rogers' orange face
lift. My concerns briefly bristled at Kutcher's initial appearance due to the fact
that too much effort was made to paint him as ridiculously cool and rebellious.
Sunglasses, a tough guy toothpick in his mouth, and sportin' a smirk that'd make
George Clooney proud? Yeah, we get it. I was totally ready to hate him. But then he had to go and deliver a fairly strong performance and force me to
soften my jabs. Darn you, ape man! Efficiently mixing tense, exciting
rescue scenes, drama, humor, and solid acting, The Guardian is easily a film that I
dare say the majority of audiences will enjoy. You can quibble about its clichés,
predictability, and rare moments of overcooked sappiness, but none of that takes
away from the entertainment value. I had a bad feeling that the pace
would slow too much when Costner started training the young guys, but on the
contrary, the training sessions just might be the most interesting aspect of the
film. Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers are heroes whose stories have never really been
portrayed on the big screen, so I feel the inside look at what they go through and
how tough it is to make it is very informative and a great way to introduce
audiences to this under-appreciated group. Do you have what it takes to
be a rescue swimmer? Just think about it -you get to go on dangerous missions in
cold, dark, rough water, and then you must fight disorientation, exhaustion,
hypothermia, and a lack of oxygen all while trying to help stranded, panicked
people who are depending on you for their survival. And if all that isn't bad
enough, sometimes you can't save everybody so you have to make the tough decision
of who lives and who dies. Man, who wants all that responsibility? Not
me! I had no idea what it was really like for these guys, and who would have
thought I'd have an Ashton Kutcher/Kevin Costner movie to thank for the education?
 Not only does The Guardian do a great job of paying tribute to this
rare breed of hero, but lucky for us it also does a good job of entertaining its
paying customers. THE GIST Moviegoers wanting an inside look
at what it's like to embark on a daring rescue mission in the middle of the ocean
might want to give The Guardian a chance. I saw it for free, but had I paid I
would've felt I had gotten my money's worth.
Sorry to repeat myself over and over, but here's another great Columbo episode. I
guess that's why I'm such a fan - most episodes really are great! The best episodes
always have a standout feature of some sort, and in this case the murderer and his
accomplice are possibly the youngest ever Columbo villains. After
watching a lot of episodes where Columbo and his adversary act like close friends,
it's good to see an episode where tempers fray and bad feelings rise to the
surface. It just gives an episode a bit more drama and bite. Columbo is rapidly
onto the fact that the two students who claim to be helping him are not very
secretly laughing at him and feeding him false clues. He happily plays along,
deliberately turning up the bumbling in front of them to make them underestimate
him! But of course he knows instantly when they are talking baloney. The
murder itself is another complicated one, along the lines of The Bye Bye Sky High
IQ episode, with a sophisticated chain reaction of events that manages to kill the
intended target while providing the assassins with a seemingly watertight alibi. In
the intervening years between 1978 and 1990, the technology has moved on from
record players and firecrackers to remote control car locking systems and hidden
cameras. Stephen Caffrey puts in a great performance as Justin Rowe, the
obnoxious, spoilt student. Gary Hershberger is low-key but good as his "yes-man"
friend Cooper Redman. And it's nice to see Robert Culp as Mr Rowe, Justin's dad. A very satisfying episode in all ways.
or any stories reminiscent of the Leopold and Loeb case, you may find this movie
entertaining. The cast includes Robert Culp,with Stephen Caffrey and Garrison
Hershberger as the college students. Peter Falk is his usual self,
pretending to be tricked by the precocious students. Caffrey ("Longtime Companion",
"Buried Alive") is excellent, and should do more of these menacing roles. Basically
the two frat buddies become tired of their demanding parents, who expect nothing
less than academic perfection, attendance at the best schools will only be financed
if they conform. There is an excellent scene wherein Culp rakes Caffrey over the
coals after he gets a low grade, threatens to cut off his trust funds and Caffrey
later says to his friend: "I hate him, I want him dead"... All is not
well in Beverly Hills. This is always an excellent theme. I believe this film came
out in 1990 right after the Menendez killings. If you watch "Menedez, a Killing in
Beverly Hills" and then compare it to this film, you may find some interesting
parallels.
After all these years of solving crimes, you would've expected criminals to know
that they can't afford making mistakes with him, especially not with regards to
talking much. This time Columbo goes to college, and actually explains
his entire technique, but for some reason the murderer still doesn't pay enough
attention. However, this still creates wonderful scenes and delightful dialogues.
Columbo is guest lecturer for a criminology class. The students invite him along
for their after-class get-together. Transiting the nearby parking garage, they
discover their regular teacher, next to his car, dead from a gunshot wound. (No,
Columbo was not after the man's job.) As a class project, Columbo involves the
students in his sleuthing. Two students, tentatively identified by the
viewer as culprits, were in the lecture hall for the entire class. Furthermore,
surveillance camera tapes of the parking garage show that no one other than the
professor entered or left after he was last seen unexpectedly departing the lecture
hall. Reversing the normal routine, Columbo is the one that is pestered
by the evil (?) duo, eager for progress reports and an ear for their theories.
Forensic evidence is almost nonexistent. Solution of the case hinges on some
eventual and interesting good luck. On first viewing, it seemed that
Columbo had swallowed whole the culprits' misdirection; however, on repeat viewing,
small details revealed that not to have been the case at all. This
reviewer has yet to tire of "Columbo Goes to College."
I felt that way when I saw the episode in its original run and still agree when I
watch it on reruns. You had the culprits totally mocking Columbo throughout the
episode and treating him like he has down syndrome. And in the end you see their
shock when Columbo gets them dead to rights and arrest them. You also get a
realistic reaction from the arrogant preppy killers. They stillcouldn't give
Columbo his props and say he just got lucky. I like the formula where there is an
elaborate crime, the killer(s) totally underestimate Columbo, and then you get
their realization that Columbo was totally playing the criminals. I recall in the
first few episodes of the post 1989 episodes they weren't following that formula
and this was the first episode that I was pleased with.
And I do. Peter Falk has created a role that will live on forever in TV land! And
I'm grateful for that. This isn't one of his finest hours, though. Columbo goes to
college and basically teaches how he solves a crime, and yet there are bad guys who
go ahead and think they're smarter than he is. What all us fans know is that
Columbo needs a worthy opponent. Without a great enemy, how can he be the hero in
the wrinkled coat? Still, it's better than NO Columbo, and I'll wait and watch the
next one as well.
Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under
communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually
the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only
this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not
full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were
shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist
'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in
your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides
for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA!
Fun movie! The script is awful but the quality of actors saves the day. John Hurt
is perfect, as is Jane Alexander. Beau Bridges is fair and the actress who plays
his wife is very weak. The story is the true star. Based on a true story, the pace
moves well and the whole concept of escaping East Germany sucks you in and holds
you. Joyous ending provides enough elation to compensate for script. Don't expect
Academy Award quality but it's a great ride for the whole family.
What can I say about this film other than the narrative is one of the most exciting
in film history...and based on a true story! Being old enough to remember the
Berlin Wall when it was still used to contain a country, this film gives you a dark
insight into the grim incarceration of East Berliners, and their desperate attempts
to escape, no matter what the cost. The film follows the lives of two families ,
who decide to escape using a hot-air balloon manufactured by themselves. Forever
fearing arrest by the authorities, under scrutiny by neighbours, they have to
calculate a plan to reach the other side of the wall. A tense & thrilling story of
courage and determination which truly pays homage to all those who succeeded and
failed the treacherous journey to West Berlin and freedom.
I grew up outside of Naila Germany(where they landed),every detail of the film was
100% authentic,the power lines that they flew over,the nosy neighbors,the
grandmother telling the kids that they cant watch west German TV,etc..This movie
brings back lots of good memories to those that are European,a great production
from Disney...The same movie in German has Klaus Lowitsch and Gunter Meisner using
their own voices for translating the English version into German...for the German
version they also use Cookoo birds ,a bird that is native to Germany as background
noise to let you know that you are in Germany..I showed this move to many of my
German relative and they really liked this movie.(these people made made a
prototype balloon which they had to give up because the materials that they used
was too porous and the other 2 balloons that they used for the escape.The burner
problem was solved when they turned the propane cylinders upside down.)
The songs are fantastic and the story-line is good. Like many other acting schools,
mine also produced HAIR. For most hair production it's a golden opportunity to do
nude, but my production was fully dressed... I don't think full frontal nudity in a
movie or a play guarantees artistic quality... And so did the creators of the
movie. The movie version is great with classic hits following each other while
letting the plot develop to the chilling climax. A great cast of actors, dancers
and singers.
I was surprised as I watched this movie, how much it had 'encaptured' me. No the
actors didn't act like typical 'Hollywood' actors, but that's not always bad
either, as this film proves. Quite different from the Disney standard, it is a
refreshing turn none-the-less! They also give you a taste of what it was probably
like without being 'educational'. A movie everyone should both see and enjoy. Many
people love arguing over 'accuracies' in any movie of this type, but just getting
the basic idea has plenty to offer. Mild gripe; East and West Germany, viewed on
any map, would have West Germany on the left side, East to the right. The movie at
times, sets you back slightly, because about half of the scenes have West Germany
on the right side of the screen, and other times on the left side. Even during the
same events, they shift back and forth. Perhaps, just a little more consistency
would have avoided this mild distraction. Go See It!
I think that this film has become an important record of the most horrifying aspect
of the East German regime - the imprisonment of its people by what the regime
called its anti-fascist protective wall. It is a document of desperation and
courage not to be missed. I would however like to comment on the actual location of
this escape. It did not happen in or around Berlin as supposed by some respondents
and was nothing to do directly with the Berlin Wall. The escape balloon was flown
over the Iron Curtain which not only divided Germany but it divided the whole of
Europe at that time. The balloon took off from Pössneck, 170 miles south-west of
Berlin in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and flew 14 miles to Naila
in Bavaria and freedom in West Germany. The opening of the Iron Curtain in Hungary
in 1989 preceded the fall of the Berlin Wall later that year. Whilst the balloon
flight created entertaining suspense cinema, it should remain as a monument to
those who lost their lives whilst attempting to escape from East Berlin, other
parts of the GDR or other Soviet-controlled states.
This movie accurately portrays the struggle life was for the typical East German.
Watched by the secret police, friends and coworkers, most easterners simply
existed. The Strelzyk's and the Wetzel's were two families that decided
they weren't going to take it anymore. Despite the extreme danger
involved in escaping to the West, they feel the rewards far outweighed the risks.
John Hurt and Beau Bridges, portraying the respective family heads hit upon the
idea of flying over East Germany's heavily fortified border. There are
tense moments as they gather and jimmy-rig the necessary materials for the flight.
They work their day jobs and construct the balloon at night, right under the noses
of the authorities, one of whom is Strelzyk's neighbor (Klaus Loewitsch). The first attempt, involving only the Strelzyks, ends in failure when the balloon
crashes just a few yards from the border. The crashed balloon is discovered by
border guards and an relentless search begins for the conspirators who are
determined to try again. With sales of materials being closely monitored Peter and
Guenter still manage to procure bits and pieces of cloth with which to construct a
second balloon for their nail biting escape to freedom. The film also features a
heartwarming and effective soundtrack by the late Jerry Goldsmith.
A real surprise. Not exactly family entertainment from "Disney". Some violence,
lots of tense moments, and a great story, based on fact. The theme of "Night
Crossing" is, determination wins. Never losing sight of their objective, two East
German families risk it all, in their daring balloon escape to freedom. The story
is both harrowing and heartwarming. Time is not on their side. The East German
Police are closing in and the outcome far from certain, until the very end. If you
are looking for a good evenings entertainment, that contains no nudity, and limited
violence, then I highly recommend "Night Crossing". It is pure entertainment. -
MERK
The movie Night Crossing captures the feelings experienced by the vast majority of
East Germans during the period 1961-89. I lived in West Berlin during most of 1967
and travelled through The Wall into East Berlin on a weekly basis. Why? Excitement,
crossing a border into a Soviet governed country, experiencing the smells and the
feel of East Germany, which is why Night Crossing is excellent, it captures that
very feeling, and it is exciting. I was arrested by the Vopos in Checkpoint Charlie
and accosted by a man in his leather coat and dark glasses I am led to believe was
Stasi. When I watch the movie I can smell cheap diesel and cooking oil, I can see
the outdated vehicles, the drab clothing the public wore and the lacklustre produce
in shop windows. It brings back memories of realising just how lucky I was to live
in a free country. In 1988, I toured the DDR from East to West, North to South.
East Germany had changed little since 1967. The Trabants, constantly breaking down,
were still the main mode of private motorised transport, the shops still featured
nothing much to tempt me, uniforms were still commonplace, but the people, the
ordinary people were open and nice once you had gained their trust. Watch Night
Crossing, it's as close to the truth as any movie you will see on divided Germany,
even closer than two other favourites The Spy Who Came In From The Cold and Funeral
In Berlin.
'Night Crossing' is about an enormous barrier designed not to keep enemies out but
to keep its own people in 'Night Crossing' is about a very long border
fencer equipped with silent alarms and automatic firing systems 'Night
Crossing' is about the denial of the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness 'Night Crossing' is about the fear and pain that
afflict so many families 'Night Crossing' is about one attempt to risk
a crossing through the border zone 'Night Crossing' is about a loving
father whose only desire is to give his boys what should never have been taken away
from them 'Night Crossing' is about a disturbed mother who wants her
babies and her husband alive 'Night Crossing' is about a caring husband
who wants his family to be together but in a better place 'Night
Crossing' is about children who want to be free to reach at anytime the sky 'Night Crossing' is about a hot-air balloon handcrafted and built by two
families 'Night Crossing' is about a balloon which could go just high
enough to crash or catch fire and explode 'Night Crossing' is about two
determined men who want their family to climb into a hot air balloon and float away
to 'liberty' 'Night Crossing' is about the fear of getting caught by an
evil regime 'Night Crossing' is about a sensible man who can't let bad
dreams stop him 'Night Crossing' is about an icy policeman who wants
every lookout tower on full alert With exquisite music by Jerry
Goldsmith, Delbert Mann's 'Night Crossing' makes us realize the true value of
freedom Final thoughts: There are a few moments in
everyone's life, certainly in public lives, that can define a person... For those of us old enough to remember the Reagan presidency, seeing the clips
again in the wake of his death makes it seem like those events happened just
yesterday, or last week. The voice, the expressions, are all so familiar. But for a
large percentage of people, these events might as well have happened fifty years
ago, if not more. They are part of the distant past. President Reagan is a name,
and not much more. President Gorbachev is another name, and not much more. So how
can we remember these two men who had such a huge impact on their country? Reagan and Gorbachev worked together to tear down the Berlin Wall and to steer
their superpower nations away from nuclear confrontation
Ex-reporter Jacob Asch (Eric Roberts) is hired by an acquaintance (Raymond J.
Barry) to find his ex-wife and son. Asch heads to Palm Springs and quickly locates
the ex Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) with someone he believes to be the son (a young
Johnny Depp). But things turn out to be a bit more complicated as Asch discovers
former white trash Laine has definitely married up in the form of millionaire Simon
Fleischer (Dan Hedaya) and her first son is nowhere to be seen. Director/writer Matthew Chapman is channeling BODY HEAT here and this mid-80s
neo-noir is watchable enough thanks to an all-star cast and nice locations.
D'Angelo was still looking good around this time, so she makes for a good femme
fatale and isn't afraid to show some skin. However, the mystery isn't very
compelling in the end. Co-starring Dennis Lipscomb, Emily Longstreth and Henry
Gibson. Chapman made several thrillers in the 80s, but his "biggest" career
achievement was co-authoring the screenplay for the infamous COLOR OF NIGHT.
This movie is a coveted member of my movie library. While not a mainstream film, it
is, in my view, a highly effective film noir in which Eric Roberts is totally
underrated as an actor. (I would qualify him as a much better actor than his
sister, Julia, who is overrated, but that's another review...) Roberts plays the
down-on-his-luck ex-reporter with the perfect mix of narrative precision and jaded
idealism: two ingredients that are part and parcel of any effective film noir. The
first-person narration by Roberts enhances the quality of the movie, and keeps us
guessing on the real motive behind the crime. Set in Palm Springs,
everything about the setting in the movie progresses slowly as a metaphor for the
theme of oppression: Asch (Roberts) is oppressed by his past; the police are
oppressed by the rich residents of Palm Springs who treat them as servants; the
rich, meanwhile, are oppressed by boredom (watch Johnny Depp's classic performance
as the insightful rich kid who only wants to be loved...); the isolation of each
character is omnipresent and is further augmented by the heat and isolation of the
desert. There is an audience for this film if they're looking for a more
contemporary version of film noir. While there are elements of the film that might
have been tighter, I recommend getting a copy of this film and putting it right
between The Big Sleep and Chinatown in your movie library. (The film is based on
the Arthur Lyons book, CASTLES BURNING, and if you like Roberts's acting in this
one, you may want to get a copy of The Ambulance, in which he showcases his
funnier, lighter side.) BEST LINE IN THE FILM: "Careful? Careful of what? I
should've asked. Only fools ignore the strange warnings of trailer park ladies."
This is one of those films that, for whatever reason, just clicked with me.
Everything about it is right. Eric Roberts laconic, nice investigator, his
voiceover narration, the twisting plot, Dan Hedaya and Denis Lipscomb given good
roles, the settings, the paintings in the artist studio scenes, the end credit
sequence and the wonderfully haunting theme music that perfectly encapsulates the
mood of the whole film. If I have any reservations it is about Beverly D'Angelo as
the femme fatale, but she plays her final scenes beautifully. I think that director
Matthew Chapman was trying for a sort of 'Chinatown' feel to the whole thing. It
didnt work. But as a murder-mystery its a gem.
Richard Norton really lights the screen up in this Portland, Oregon based martial
arts masterpiece. Norton, an Aussie heartthrob, plays the evil Mr. Milverstead who
runs a successful import/export business both smuggling arms and participating in
the female flesh trade. Usually the women are plucked from his favorite dance club
with the help of a squad of goons the most well known of who is Bolo Yeung, playing
the role of Ice. Trouble comes for Milverstead when a new cop in town John Kim
(Britton Lee) is out to avenge his dead partners murder at the hand of
Milverstead's organization. If you have time to see only one martial arts movie
this year, don't miss this classic.
I'm not a big musical fan, but this is one of the few I really love. Unlike many
other musicals, such as "The Sound of Music," none of the songs are about
gratuitous stuff. Each song is social commentary, acumen on war, sexuality,
recalcitrance, spirituality, and freedom. Especially amazing songs are "Easy To Be
Hard," "Age of Aquarius," "Hair," "Flesh Failures/3-5-0-0," "Walking In Space," and
"Hare Krishna." Totally revolutionary and wonderful. I can't wait to someday see it
live!
I think that just sums up this film. Watch it and you'll find out why. The acting
of the lead character John Keem is really, really bad and he has no on screen
charisma whatsoever. It's very funny because of this thought, as is the ending
where Keem beheads the bad guy despite the fact he is unarmed and has surrendered.
Brilliant!
Even though I saw this film when I was very young, I already knew the story of Wild
the Thief-Taker and Shepherd who famously escaped from Newgate prison. Apart from the liberty taken right at the end, the film more or less faithfully
follows the true story. The temptation to bend the facts which is the hallmark of
so many so-called historical films is resisted in this film and the film makers
must be praised for that. Of the performances, There is scarcely a poor
performance, and Tommy Steele is ideally cast. Also good is Stanley Baker as the
Thief-Taker and Alan Badel is good as always. Because the film sticks to
the facts, it makes it suitable to be watched by all the family.
When commenting on this film, one must realise that it is based on a true story,
and must therefore be reviewed for the quality and accuracy of it's portrayal of
the events, as well as its entertainment value. It may well be implausible that
Jack Shepherd should surrender twice to Jack Wild because Wild had captured
Edgeworth Bess. None the less, it happened. It must also be noted that the director
was young and inexperienced, which explains why he relied upon tried and tested
techniques. There were occasions when Clavell did not have the confidence to follow
the script as written. The film would be better if he had. And yes, I used to have
a copy of the script (Stanley Baker's copy - one of five), which I returned
recently to my father, Rafe Newhouse, the writer.
Note: I've tried not to give away any important plot twists (or the ending) but if
you're concerned about that, please think about viewing the film before reading
further--Thanks! This was obviously a fairly high budget production,
released by Paramount. The story follows the (supposedly true)exploits of hiway-man
Jack Shepard in 1700's London. He was a locksmith who got blackmailed into a life
of crime by the nefarious "Thief-Taker" to save his brother's life. After being
double crossed by the Thief-Taker, we turns into a sort of Robin Hood type figure
and gains the support of the common folk. He proceeds to make escapes from several
prisons (including the infamous Newgate) as well as having time to "entertain"
numerous noble ladies. I really enjoyed the film, even though the plot
was a bit predictable. The film was shot in Glencree and Wicklow Ireland and the
sets were very well done and seemed realistic. I think Clavell captured the
bustling atmosphere of London in the 1700's quite well and I enjoyed his creative
use of camera angles. And, unlike many films depicting this period, Clavell pulls
no punches in showing us the deplorable conditions in which the poor lived (in one
scene several folks fight over a meat pie that has rolled through the filth in the
street). Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I will admit that it lacks
the wonderful scenery and underlying political commentary that Clavell's next film
The Last Valley has (a parable to the Vietnam War), but it still merits a viewing
or two. It is regrettable that it has not ever (to my knowledge) been released on
video or DVD.
Dan Finnerty and the Dan Band are so-o-o-o-o-o good, they must be seen to believe.
Does anyone out there have a copy of the Bravo concert for sale?? Please, if there
is an upcoming release, let us all know. I checked the Bravo site, but there is no
future date scheduled for a repeat performance by the most appealing guys ever
choreographed, the Dan Band. What great energy they exude, flinging themselves
about with cute American-boy attitude, based on butch sensitivity being wrapped up
in sequins and tears, making men and women alike fall in love with them. I hope
enough people can influence the powers that be at Bravo to bring the show back into
our lives, as a semi-annual special.
This Bravo special is one of the most purely entertaining things I've ever seen on
TV. Unlike Me First & The Gimme Gimmes (the worlds foremost Punk-Supergroup/Cover-
Band), The Dan Band really must be seen to be appreciated. On paper, The
Dan Band is just a one-joke act- guy sings girly songs and inserts gratuitous
profanity into the lyrics. If you listen to their "Dan Band Live" CD, that's all
you'll get, and it'll get old quick. (I only bought it because it had some songs
that weren't on the TV special.) But what's made Dan Finnerty a Hollywood cult hero
is his amazing stage presence. This guy OWNS his audience for every second he's
onstage. And the backup singers are a large part of the visual punchline as well.
As for the actual band- they stay out of sight for the most part, but are certainly
much more energetic and enthusiastic than your typical lounge-act backing band.
Hopefully, a DVD version will be released soon- there were almost certainly some
songs cut and although the heavy censoring adds a bit of unintentional humor, it
also removes the INTENTIONAL humor. If there is any sense in the world,
the Vegas casino owners will soon be fighting over who can build Dan his own
showroom faster. "Re-------member my name...FAME!"
This was really one of the most enjoyable specials that I have seen on TV. He is
just an incredible performer. His personality shines through in each one of the
songs that he does. I really wish this was available as an uncut DVD so I could
watch it over and over without the -beeps- for explicit language. I have not had
the chance to see him live, but that is something that I really want to do now. I
can't forget his backup singers. They really added a lot of substance and humor to
the show. With their campy style, and flamboyant dance moves, they really
complement the true talent of Dan. I wish there were some more of the songs that
are on his live CD, which is also incredible. It is refreshing to see someone like
him perform. Just so incredibly personable and real, I really can't say enough good
things about Dan and this show. Once again, I just wish this was available as an
uncut DVD.
I laughed my ass off for an hour. I had no idea who Dan Finneity was. Why haven't I
heard of Dan Finnerty before? He's hysterical and so are his backup singers. They
make all of these women songs that we would never wanna hear a new experience. They
blow these songs away. This was on Bravo last night. Why isn't this Dan guy like
"ultra famous"? Great voice! Charisma to burn! He blew me away with this show! I
just read on the internet that he was once a member of "Stomp" I guess there isn't
anything he can't do. I saw "Stomp" at a UCLA theater years ago and those guys were
amazing. This show last night was done by Dreamworks! Does that mean that Spielberg
did this? Why don't they star this Dan Finnerty in a movie. There was a standing
ovation at the end of this show and every time the camera's cut to the audience,
everyone was so into it, singing along or dancing. The whole show had this amazing
energy. My only complaint was that it was not longer, but looking back, when you
see how much energy these guys put out, I guess it would be impossible for any
human being to perform with such gusto for over an hour. Man I loved this show!
Spending an hour seeing this brilliant Dan Finnerty and his "Dan Band" perform
their special on Bravo is the most enjoyable hour I've ever spent watching TV. This
young man (Dan) is such an incredible talent, as a singer, performer and even
dancer. He can go from the cheesiest of ballad pop songs, all of which have only
been sung by women, to hip-hop, rock, also songs written for women.. This guy can
do anything. I've seen him live at least 11 times, so I was not expecting just how
well that his show would adapt to a television or film format, but all reservations
went away instantly when the show started because of Dan's overwhelming star
quality.Do yourself a favor and watch this, or better yet, buy it.
I think that Gost'ya Iz Buduschego is one of the best Russians minis for teens. I
think i were near 6-8 parts of the movie. "One boy form 6th grade found a time
machine in the old house where nobody lived. And he goes to the 21st century, just
100 years in future. In future he meat pirates, they tried to steal a "milafon" -
machine to read minds and a story started..." Soundtrack for that movie was very
popular in Soviet Union. Everybody loved that movie which was on TV every year.
The 1979 film musical of HAIR was loosely based on the infamous 1960's Broadway
musical that became famous because of its infamous nude scene. The stage musical
isn't really much more than a group of skits strung together with some amusing
musical numbers; however for the film director Milos Foreman (who won an Oscar for
directing ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST) and the writers have taken the basic
premise of the play and the score and constructed a real story to make the show
more "user friendly" for the big screen. In the film, naive farm boy Claude Hooper
Buchowski (John Savage) is about to go into the army and decides to spend a couple
of days in New York where he meets a group of aging hippies (Treat Williams, Dorsey
Wright, Annie Golden, Don Dacus)who get him involved in a group of nutty
misadventures, including the pursuit of a snooty society girl (Beverly D'Angelo).
The story divides into a series of vignettes that range from the ridiculous to the
sublime, but it is all gorgeously photographed with a clever use of NYC locations
and imaginatively staged musical numbers (outstandingly choreographed by the
legendary Twyla Tharp). Treat Williams lights up the screen as Berger, the
unconventional and free-spirited hippie who does his best to get Claude to loosen
up and is matched scene for scene by Savage as Claude, who brings a lovely
sweetness to the role of Claude. Annie Golden is a charmer as Jeannie, the pregnant
hippie who is pregnant by Wright or Dacus, doesn't know which one is the father and
doesn't seem to care. There is one outstanding musical number after another
here..."Aquarius" is a tour through Central Park which includes dancing
horses...Treat Williams disrupts a fancy dinner party in "I Got Life"..."Black
Boys/White Boys" features the late Nell Carter and Ellen Foley extolling the ethnic
virtues of men and "Easy to be Hard" is a powerful rendering of one of the best
songs in the show by original cast member Cheryl Barnes, who plays Wright's ex-
girlfriend and mother of his child. This is a beautifully photographed, well-acted
sung, and danced psychedelic acid trip of a movie that must be seen and once seen,
will initiate multiple viewings as this dazzler has to much to offer to catch it
all in one showing.
Guest from the Future tells a fascinating story of time travel, friendship, battle
of good and evil -- all with a small budget, child actors, and few special effects.
Something for Spielberg and Lucas to learn from. ;) A sixth-grader Kolya "Nick"
Gerasimov finds a time machine in the basement of a decrepit building and travels
100 years into the future. He discovers a near-perfect, utopian society where
robots play guitars and write poetry, everyone is kind to each other and people
enjoy everything technology has to offer. Alice is the daughter of a prominent
scientist who invented a device called Mielophone that allows to read minds of
humans and animals. The device can be put to both good and bad use, depending on
whose hands it falls into. When two evil space pirates from Saturn who want to rule
the universe attempt to steal Mielophone, it falls into the hands of 20th century
school boy Nick. With the pirates hot on his tracks, he travels back to his time,
followed by the pirates, and Alice. Chaos, confusion and funny situations follow as
the luckless pirates try to blend in with the earthlings. Alice enrolls in the same
school Nick goes to and demonstrates superhuman abilities in PE class. The catch
is, Alice doesn't know what Nick looks like, while the pirates do. Also, the
pirates are able to change their appearance and turn literally into anyone. (Hmm, I
wonder if this is where James Cameron got the idea for Terminator...) Who gets to
Nick -- and Mielophone -- first? Excellent plot, non-stop adventures, and great
soundtrack. I wish Hollywood made kid movies like this one...
I was a schoolboy when I watched this film for the first time. The next day I knew
that all pupils of our form watched it and all were fascinated by the film as I
was. I think the same situation was in all forms of our school and in the whole
Soviet Union. Later I watched it every time it was shown on TV and want to watch
more. I think that comparison with "Back to the Future" or other Sci-Fi films is
not appropriate. "Gost'ya iz budushchego" is unique in many ways, once you have
watched it, you never forget it. This film is full of belief in peaceful
science achievements, full of belief in the beautiful future of our world. It's not
only the film, but also a forecast of many scientific inventions and achievements.
The time shown in the film is the year 1984 (the year of its creation) and the year
2084 (where a schoolboy Kolya Gerasimov has traveled for some time and where his
friend Alisa Seleznyova was from). The year now is 2005, many inventions and
achievements predicted in the film are not realized yet. Such as "Mielophone" (a
device, which can read thoughts of any animal and human), expeditions to Venus and
Mars (as easy as going for a picnic in the weekend), creating and launching of the
satellites as a homework for pupils, easy to drive flying machines (which
completely replaced automobiles), biorobots, "historical identification" of any
kind of material or creature performed in a couple of minutes, and many others.
Meanwhile, some of them nowadays became much more realistic than they seemed in
1984! Just wait for 2084 :-) The film also depicts typical Russian
schoolboys and schoolgirls (and does it so naturally!). With their inventiveness,
curiosity, humour, dreaminess. Look for example at Fima Korolyov, you could find
such character in nearly all forms of every school of the Soviet Union, similar
character was in my form too! Alisa Seleznyova... I myself, as well as many my
classmates fell in love at first sight with her! By the way, later an actress who
played Alisa became a scientist - I think she was as much influenced by the film as
people who watched it on TV. Beautiful idea, beautiful realization,
beautiful actors, beautiful music, beautiful song "Prekrasnoye Daleko" ("The
Wonderful Far-Away")... Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful... The last
thing I want to say is that different remakes and "new versions" of the song from
the film and even the film itself were made later and spread on TV and in the
Internet. All they are not even comparable with the original. I should not even
comment them, my comment is only about the original. So, request the original and
enjoy it!
Hollywood has turned the Mafia in to a production line of output ranging from the
banal to the excellent and despite some good acting and a reasonable script (much
of which is - for a change - true!) this "home entertainment" effort has to fall
slap bang in the middle. The script is not only obvious (all of the
checklist boxes end up being ticked), but spends a lot of time trying to create a
pastiche of the best of other people's work. The Godfather being the most obvious,
but there are other references too. I won't bother naming them. Nevertheless it is
a good taste borrower! The producer seems to set a quota for gunshots and murder
(one at least every twenty minutes?) and the ending is weak and "so what?" I am
told there are various versions of this production so that maybe that is just the
version I have seen. Gangsters don't make money they take money. Usually
by fear. Some seem more in to the murder and mayhem side of the business than
making money. They were the ones that were the first to go (in real life and here).
"You can't make money with a gun in your hand" says Charlie 'Lucky' Luciano at one
stage. One of the smarter gangsters, although all things are relative. He was a
skilled white slave trader and a drug dealer before being bundled home to Italy. The old school "moustached Pete's" were picked off by the new bloods who
wanted the power and the money for themselves and to break free of the straight
jacket of Italian/Sicilian power (rarely doing business outside themselves). The
young Turk knew they needed to be allied with other groups (most notably "the Jews"
who knew how to launder money) and this is at least referenced and acknowledged.
What isn't made so clear is that most immigrant groups had their own Mafia's - but
most of them made their money and went legit. And why not? Who wants to die in
jail? Joseph Bonanno was a ruthless man prepared to kill if needs be ,
but not an unfair or stupid one. His story was tragic in that he could have made
money in the over ground world and he showed a special skill in avoiding getting
killed. With a little bit of luck attached, naturally. Despite the range
of respectable names and three actors in the title role (Bruce Ramsay, Martin
Landau and Tony Nardi) there isn't the charisma or the talent to bring us in and
feel anything. We are - merely - passive observers in a life we are glad not to
have lead. The people shown here were born in to a cruel world but their only mark
was to make it crueler. If you can't get enough of the gangster genre
that will be better than watching Godfather 1 & 2 for the tenth time and it is even
better -- as basic entertainment -- than the horrible misfire that was Godfather 3.
I found parts of this movie rather slow, especially the first part; the second part
seemed to go a lot faster, but it's not totally clear to me as to why one part was
faster than the other. I somehow managed to find it enjoyable. The acting was good,
the writing was good (yet vulgar). There was also another good side to it: it was
easier to understand than say, the Godfather movies. You knew who was on whose
side, etc. All in all, the movie wasn't half-bad.
This movie have 4 parts and every is around 170 minutes long. Its based on true
story of life of Joe Bonanno and it is telling all how he did see. So in some
events we can notice that we heard different about it. Movie make you tied up for
chair till the end, i think it is possible to watch all 4 in a row, and not notice
i watched 2 in a row and 2 next day in a row. Acting in movie is OK in some scenes
awesome but in general could be bather, but this movie is not about acting or
special effects and glamor, this one show real thing and story is key to this
movie. So the one who look for same spectacular Rambo/matrix/titanic movie you can
skip this one. Good thing in movie is that follow the main story so you will not
have long and boring love scenes or any different interrupt with something not
important to crime business of Bonanno.
Very well done acting and directing. This is a cross between "The Last Don" and "
Godfather 2".One large plus for this production is that it is claimed to be a true
story of Joseph Bonanno. With a better music score to create mood, it could have
been a rival for both Godfather movies.
Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit
silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you
turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you
can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all. In one
of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the
Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost
is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady
string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but
Eskimos. First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane
crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off
course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried
about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen
seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for
Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never
really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as
soggy bread. Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for
naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce
she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and
refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but
the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans
Loy and Montgomery were making. How all this is resolved is something
you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and
contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see
this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films
like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing
despite not being especially believable.
The Turner Classic Movie Channel has spent the month of January doing the films of
one of my favorite actors, Robert Montgomery. His films are mostly rarely watched
these days, except for those that were atypical for most of his career - meaning
that the roles that frequently reappear on television are THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE
LADY IN THE LAKE, JUNE BRIDE, NIGHT MUST FALL, THE SAXON CHARM, RIDE THE PINK
HORSE, RAGE IN HEAVEN, THE EARL OF CHICAGO (in short the films he fought to get the
roles in because they were not the usual comic fluff he usually appeared in). It's
ironic that nowadays when one thinks of Montgomery's career it is the films that
were mostly made after 1937 that are pushed - the ones that broke the original
image that MGM and Louis B. Mayer pushed. The pity of this is that Montgomery was a
gifted comedian, and saved many films from being routine. PETTICOAT
FEVER is one such film. Made in 1936 with PICADILLY JIM and TROUBLE FOR TWO it was
a banner year of good performances by Montgomery, and helped lead to his being able
to convince the powers that be at MGM to allow him to play "Danny" in NIGHT MUST
FALL the next year. PETTICOAT FEVER is set in Labrador, and Montgomery
is a weather station operator there named Dascom Dinsmore. He has been living there
for five years, and has not been in the company of a woman (except for Inuit women)
for most of that time. He has a girlfriend of sorts named Clara (Winifred Shotter)
who he sort of proposed to, but it's been two years since he has heard from her, so
that he believes she has given up on him. Dinsmore's world is rocked
when Sir James Felton and Irene Campton (Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy) show up. They
were flying to Toronto for a business meeting that Felton was to address. Felton is
engaged to Campton, but Dinsmore finds her enchanting...and gradually she finds him
equally attractive. Certainly the pompous, self-important, and hopelessly inept
Felton is no competition (it is a measure of Owen's acting that he keeps the
character entertaining even if one finds it hard to believe such a boob is a
Canadian captain of industry). There is something surreal about this
film - probably due to the original play. While the "Labrador" scenery is quite
phony looking it does serve it's purpose for the comedy (witness th polar bear
sequence). But the height of the surrealism is the dinner Dinsmore serves his
guests, a dinner of "pemmican steaks", which Owen eats with real gusto. Owen (a
minor noble as a baronet) is dressed in normal clothing - a winter suit for the
climate). But Montgomery is dressed in his suit of evening dress (as though
attending a ball at the embassy). Loy, seeing him dress up, likewise puts on a
gown. They are being served by Dinsmore's servant - assistant, the Inuit Kimo (Otto
Yamaoka), who is wearing a suit of evening dress too - it turns out that it is
Owen's! Owen, who earlier insisted that Dinsmore change into clothing more suitable
to his station, is the only person who is improperly dressed for this dinner!!
Montgomery was MGM's most elegant actor in a tuxedo or evening dress (Franchot Tone
was the his closest rival). It is a toss-up in movie if Montgomery or Fred Astaire
was the more elegant figure in such suits. Hard to decide. The course of
love does not move smoothly in comedy or drama. Clara shows up (we are tipped off
too early about this at the start of the film when we see her on an icebound ship).
Will Dinsmore break with Clara? Will Irene break with Felton? The film is funny,
and Loy and Montgomery make a nice couple. They had appeared together in one other
film, and both were in separate scenes in a second, before this movie. But this
would be their last film together. One last interesting point - at the
start of the film when the credits are shown, you see illustrations of men and
women in comic situations. They are based on the art work of John Held Jr., the
great cartoonist/illustrator of the 1920s and 1930s - who was the recorder of the
flapper and "Jazz Age". It's an unusual choice - as it has absolutely nothing to do
with the film's plot or Labrador.
This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're
interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat.
It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly
like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit
prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover
(!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured
Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If
she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made
up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to
recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular
affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally
captivated by the film.
This isn't far away from the trash that Bollywood normally makes but there's just
something really good about it. The title song is one of Bollywoods best
and is haunting throughout. This is one of the films (along with Baazigar - a must
see Bollywood film) that made Shah Rukh Khan and it's for this you have to check it
out. Other reviews give away the story - it is a fairly basic idea -
ShaRukh definitely stands out and one of his final expressions right at the end
made me give this film an extra star. Its fairly cheesy but definitely
worth watching if you are new to Bollywood or not! 8/10
(May contain spoilers) I find myself disappointed with the criticism this movie
receives. While it is most certainly not perfect, it is much better than it is
given credit for. The acting and photography are excellent. Some of the musical
numbers are great; including the title number, "Where Do I Go?", "Easy to be Hard",
and "Black Boys/White Boys". While I have not seen the stage musical, I think that
it clouds the judgement of many. This is not the musical you see in theatres. Do
not attempt to compare them. The theatrical musical might have been sensational to
watch, but it would never have had the same effect on film, so a plot had to be
added. And the ending that has been added is just amazing. The movie left me
feeling like I had actually watched something important, unlike most of today's
movies, which only satisfy on one level.
Darr, although a copy of some Hollywood flick, is one of the best films I have
seen. It is not only beautifully portrayed but also has great songs and beautiful
scenery. Shahrukh is his usual self. His expressions and voice matches his
character. I was pleasantly surprised by Sunny Deol's portrayal in the film. He is
a bit romantic and lovable in the film, unlike his other characters in his other
films.At times you feel like Justice hasn't been done to his character. Sunny was
intended to be portrayed as the good guy in the film but ends up looking like the
villain at the end. Juhi Chawla is beautiful and bubbly. She is her usual self. In
short, A great love story with passion.
Darr was a Super Hit film, which was loved by many peoples. It tells the story of
Shahrukh Khans innocent obsession for Juhi, who loves Sunny Deol. Honestly it was a
entertaining movie, but if you look carefully its not too realistic. Shahrukh Khan
keeps phoning Juhi and tells her that he loves her too bits. He gives an
announcement in college that he Loves her, and gives her some nice surprises like
beautiful photos of her. Unfortunately, instead of being flattered that a guy loves
her too bits, she gets very very scared. I personally know 100s of people that get
pranked by someone, and these people enjoy it, cos they play a long. Yash Chopra
gives us a good film that does entertain, widely because of Shah Rukh Khan's
character. Sunny Deol is suppose to be the main actor, but Darr belongs to Shah
Rukh Khan delivering a Superb performance. Shah rukh Khan is literally the villain
of the movie, but i would of been happy if he got the girl, because he loves her so
dearly. Sunny Deol gives a decent performance, but he beats up all those guys on
his own, and survives a brutal knife attack. Juhi Chawla is cute as ever in a
fairly good performance. Some good songs including Tu mere samne being the best.
Darr is an brilliant movie..It is 1 of my favourite films..SRK has done a mind
blowing job in the movie.... this role couldn't have been played by
anyone else because this type of role only suits SRK... SRK plays a
mental villain in the film.. SRK's performance in this movie is the best
performance ever in boll wood... SRK deserves an honour and an
encouraging appeal for his fantastic performance... Juhi also delivers
an excellent performance.. Sunny Deol looked strong and physically fit
in the film..
Darr (1993) was an incredible movie. In my opinion, it is one of Bollywood's
finest. The movie itself triggers feelings of sympathy, fear, confusion, happiness,
and sadness. Shahrukh's role was unbelievable, in fact he gave obsession a new
face. Juhi Chawla's innocent and girlie character contrasted greatly with
Shahrukh's fiery and passionate character. Sunny Deol's role made the "good guy"
role seem like the "bad guy" one. The fact that Shahrukh, not Sunny, captivated the
audience's attention proves that everyone has that helpless inner drive to pursue
something that's not really in their hands. Even though the movie is several years
old, it surpasses any recent one. The song "Tu Mere Samne" was full of passion and
meaning. His personality fit the role perfectly. He should seriously consider re-
starring in a similar film.
This movie is just brilliant, SRK's acting is just amazing, the end is so
incredibly sad, I cry every time I see this film, it's the kind you never get sick
of, and can see again and again, an absolutely amazingly brilliant movie.
Watch this movie just to see Shahrukh Khan say "I love you,K-k-Kiran..." It's both
heartbreaking and frightening at the same time when he says this, from the
beginning to the end. This movie made him famous, and I totally recommend it :D
It's highly entertaining, the music's wicked and you will laugh right along with
Shahrukh here...You'll genuinely feel scared for the hero and heroine and oddly
enough you will identify with at least one of the characters. You will feel sad and
happy and relieved and afraid at the same time. Go see this classic Bollywood movie
with your good buddies and some lovely food and have a day in. And after you see
the movie, have the songs and scenery playing in your mind...forever.
this movie is such a good movie shah ruck khan does a great job as the crazy mad
villain who is totally obsessed with the girl the story is fantastic the
acting by all characters like the girl and shah ruck and Sunny are all
fabulous and i really love the first song especially how it comes back at the end
oh and its so emotional if your a true shah ruck khan fan you have gotta watch this
movie because its the best shah ruck khan movie ever he plays an excellent role and
i wish he done more crazy man roles but u have to watch this what so ever this is a
really good movie this is a really good movie you have to watch it it is truly
amazing you have to watch it it is fabulous i can go on and on about this movie
because it is a fun funny scary cool and totally fantastic movie in the world
This was Bollywood's answer to Fatal attraction and this is a classic film in its
own right. Juhi Chawla was good and so was Sunny Deol but it was Shah Rukh Khan who
shot to fame as the stalker. Since then he has become a favourite of the Chopra's
(Dilwale Dulhaniya le Jayenge, Mohhabatein, Dil to pagal hai, Veer Zaara and Chak
De India). Shah Rukh at first appears to be a villain but then towards the end you
start to sympathize with him. The scripting was superb and the songs were
chartbusters. My favourites are Too mere samne and Jaadu teri nazar. After the dismal failure of the underrated Lamhe Yash Chopra fought back with
Darr. The dialogues were memorable, the k..k..Kiran dialogue is often repeated.
Since Darr Yash Chopra has slipped bit. Dil to pagal hai was bad but he redeemed
himself slightly with Veer Zaara, which was far far better. This was Yash Chopra's
last masterpiece.
I have seen many of Shahrukh's movies and this is a very good role for him. He has
such versatility, but he mainly stays in positive roles. As Rahul, he is very dark
and disturbing, yet I found myself sympathizing with him much of the movie. If for
nothing else, watch this movie for Shahrukh. He plays a very complex and real
character very convincingly. The story is very typical and has been done before,
but the character development is very strong and entertaining. The opening is a
little confusing, but by the end, it doesn't matter. The songs I found very likable
and give insight to what characters are thinking. Very clever. I think this movie
was very good and recommend it to all Shahrukh Khan fans. It is a must see!
Shahrukh Khan and Yash Chopra films have never disappointed. Dilwale Dulhania Le
Jayenge is a romantic classic. Dil To Pagal Hai was fresh and perfect to watch.
Mohabbatein remains as one of my favorite movies ever. And Veer-Zaara was magical.
Darr, though not the best, is a romantic thriller that is different from the
aforementioned movies, but definitely worth a watch. And SRK, who blew me away with
an excellent performance in Baazigar, repeats a villain act. And this time he gets
an experienced Juhi Chawla and Sunny Deol to support him. Before I
comment on the acting, it is not just the acting, but the wonderful script that
makes it worth a watch. It is the writing that compliments the great acting. The
story is gripping, but the characterization is what stands out. The comedy track
goes along well. But the movie has the tendency of shifting at romance too much.
The viewer is bound to lose interest and you will make a couple of yawns. But the
movie is still good. Shahrukh Khan is brilliant in his author backed
role. Shahrukh Khan once again is sympathetic and cruel. You are bound to cry at
the end. Juhi Chawla is decent. Her screams are bound to become annoying after a
while. But in facial expression she is excellent. But her ending scene she is
brilliant (though she was overshadowed by SRK). She has an author backed role that
makes her very likable. Sunny Deol is adequate. His character was very likable, but
too perfect. And it gets boring after a while. He does a good job though. Anupam
Kher is really funny, but his role felt a little out of place. Tanvi Azmi supports
well. The songs are enjoyable and come at the right time. Jadoo Teri
Nazar (Magic At Your Sight) is my favorite song, and presentation is very 90's film
like. Tu Mere Saamne (You are in Front of Me) and Likha Hai (Written Here) are nice
love songs. Darwaza Band Kar Lo (Close the Door) is a decent love song also. The
instrumental song is danced to perfection as well as the naughty wedding song Solah
Button. The movie may not be perfect, but it is well worth your time especially if
your favorite actor is in it.
The first time I ever saw this movie was when I was four years old. I remember
loving it and everything about it. 13 years later, I am now 17, and decided to
watch it about a month ago because I am taking a 1960's class in school. I didn't
really know what to expect, since it had been 13 years since I last saw it, but I
was completely blown away by it. The actors were amazing, the music was so fun, and
I now find myself singing along to every song. Treat Williams is great as Berger,
the "leader" of the hippie group, who always gets what he wants, one way or another
(except for at the very end, of course). John Savage is actually very convincing as
Claude, the Oklahoma draftee who falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo).
D'Angelo is lovely as the prim and proper rich girl who eventually rebels against
her upbringing and joins the hippies. The other hippies are played by Annie Golden,
Don Dacus, and Dorsey Wright. Annie Golden is just adorable as Jeannie, the girl
who is pregnant but still as cute and innocent as a child. Don Dacus and Dorsey
Wright are good as Woof and Hud, the other two members of the group, and Cheryl
Barnes, who plays Hud's fiancée, has an amazing voice. The only problem
I have with this movie, however, is that the relationship between Claude and Sheila
is not very convincing. They are barely ever shown together, and when they are,
they fight (remember the skinny dipping scene?). It seems as though their
relationship is very weak, and by the end of the movie we are supposed to believe
they are madly in love, only based on the few meetings they had. I also see that
many people writing reviews here are upset by the PG rating this movie has. I
personally would raise the rating up to a PG-13, only because there is some drug
use... but remember in 1979, PG-13 didn't exist. I don't think the nudity is bad at
all, it is in no way sexual (in fact, there isn't really any sex at all in this
movie), and it is only to show the childlike innocence that the group maintains. In
most European countries, nudity isn't regarded as something bad, and I don't see
why it is here in the US. Anyways, I give this movie a high rating, and I'm glad it
was made back then, because in the insanely "politically correct" world of today,
they wouldn't even think of making it, and even if they did, it would be a very
"watered down" version, and I'm sure you wouldn't get the full effect. In conclusion, this is a very underrated film that is definitely worth checking
out.
Pertty Kiran comes back to home after completing her college. She has got a nice
charisma which always drawn men to her. Sunil Malhotra a dare devil navy employee
is one such guy. He loves her deeply and even engaged to marry her. Rahul is
another person who is insane and he also loves Kirrrran. Sunil is very
close to her family and is adored by everyone in his home. Kiran has never met
Rahul, but then Rahul would kill anyone who comes between him and Kiran. So when
Rahul comes to know that Kiran is in love with Sunil, what will he do ? Will he
kill him or he himself will be punished for his devil acts.
The movie is a very good movie.one of the best from Yash raj films.The direction is
incredible.The screenplay is brilliant.The story is excellent.It tells about Rahul
who is obssed of Kiran his college friend.He is a full blown psycho doing things
like talking to his mother on a phone(anyway she died 15 years back) etc.Kiran is
engaged to Sunil.Rahul does everything so he can get her.He even trys to kill Sunil
but he survives it.He even goes to the place where they are going to their
honeymoon.The movie is every nes delight.Shahrukh is superb,Juhi is fairly
good,Sunny is average,Anupham is okay and so is Tanvi,Dalip did good.The movie
belongs to Srk.The dialogues are brilliant(Shahrukh ones and a lot if not the
overacting and comedy)."Jaadu Teri Nazar" and "Tu Mere Samne" are absolutely
melodious tracks.
I've never seen a Bollywood film before but I caught the first ten minutes of this,
laughed myself silly and hit the R button on Sky+. I'm glad I did!! I hope I don't
insult anybody (because basically, the BF and I loved it!) but we couldn't take it
half as seriously as the actors did - especially the obsessed one (who, I
understand, is a huge Bollywood star because we've seen him on the cover of lots of
dvds since and i even saw a doll of him today in Hamleys!! The BF keeps on about
this bloke - I am beginning to think HE'S obsessed! He keeps saying that it's
strange for the traditionally good looking one to be the anti-hero of a film! But
then we do like films that aren't your stock predictable Hollywood fare). It was completely over the top but really good fun. If all Bollywood films
are like this then we're watching more. I have had that bloomin' song in my head
all week and I can't speak a word of Hindi! PS any recommendations would be
appreciated!
Darr is a great movie! Shahrukh plays an obsessed lover who will do almost anything
to win over his lady which in this case is Juhi Chawla. Little does Juhi know in
the film that Shahrukh has a MAJOR crush on her and is constantly stalking her. I
have to admit, some of the things he did in this movie were pretty creepy... like
the threatening phone calls. Never in my life will I forget the line, "I love you
K..k..k..Kiran!" It's just too bad that Shahrukh and Juhi weren't
exactly "together" in the film. But Juhi and Sunny do make a fairly good couple in
the movie. Though Shahrukh's role was pretty psychotic, I still think he did a
great job of playing it and can't possibly imagine anyone else doing that role. No
wonder he got an award for Darr in 94'! Juhi... what can I say??? She
looks especially amazing in this film! It's not that she doesn't always look
amazing in her other films, but Darr did give the public a wonderful image of her!
 As for the music... it was excellent! Especially "Jaadu Teri Nazar,"
one of my all time favorite songs. I also thought "Tu Mere Samne" was quite nice
also. A must see for everyone! Overall Darr deserves a 9/10!
Shah rukh khan plays an obbsessed lover who would go to any lengths to get his
lady. Juhi chawla does a wonderful job of making the best of her character and
sunny deol plays the hero and action man. this film is very good and i'd reecommend
it to anyone.
The story of an obsessed lover (Shahrukh Khan) and the lengths he goes to get his
true love (Juhi Chawla) who's already married to her husband (Sunny Deol). The film
is considered one of Shahrukh Khan's best performances and won him acclaim from
critics and audiences alike. Fear that your love may not be reciprocated, fear that
you may lose the one you love, fear that your beloved could have a change of heart.
In short, fear is the villain in every love story. But in 'Darr' fear is
the ultimate expression of passion, of obsession and of sacrifice. 'Darr' is
Rahul's (Shahrukh Khan) story whose love and obsession for Kiran (Juhi Chawla)
frees him from all fears of life & death. 'Darr' is Sunil's (Sunny Deol) story,
whose enduring love and passion for Kiran gives him the courage to face the fear of
death. And finally 'Darr' is Kiran's story who is caught between one
man's love and another man's obsession. She fears one & fears for the other. One
stands for love, the other for life. In this battle between love & life, the
supreme victor is love, because love always wins, in life & death. simply "Darr" is
one of the best Indian films ever made.
I generally love SRK as a villain (how can you not?) and I believe that SRK and
Juhi are a perfect match on screen as they both are actually more nice than
pretty. This movie is great to watch, although it has some major flaws:
 1) the good guy (Sunny) - not only he's so much less attractive than
Shahrukh(what in my opinion is soooooo important in Bollyfilms) but his role lacks
character - it would be much better if there was a conflict between two strong
personalities, instead we have a conflict between a personality and an average
soldier 2) Kiran's and Sunil's reactions for Rahul's actions are
unbelievably silly and naive even for a Bollywood production But all
this is not that important in comparison with the wonderful melodramatic
atmosphere, great songs (really truly great)and (let's say it again) Shahrukh as a
villain, I just love him when he's so pagal A must-see (along with
Anjaam, Baazigar and Duplicate)
So many times, Bollywood has tried to remake Hollywood hits, only to produce total
duds. Mercifully, Yash Chopra's interpretation of "Sleeping with the Enemy" is an
extremely stylish and well-made films. Shah Rukh Khan is obsessed with
Juhi Chawla (who's looking her very best in here!). When he realizes that Juhi has
a fiance in Sunny Deol, he stops at nothing to make sure she becomes his. Every frame of this film is a delight to watch. Whether it's Shah Rukh
chanting his trademark "I love you, K...k...k...kiran!" or the feel-good mushy
scenes between Sunny and Juhi (who make a perfect match), you won't feel like
leaving your eat in boredom. Each and every song on the soundtrack is
ear pleasing, especially Jaadu Teri Nazar and Tu Mere Samne. Like I said, Juhi
looks like a Goddess in this film. Darr may not be SRK's best film (that honor goes
to Baazigar), but it definitely figures as one of his most flawless performances!
Sunny is OK. He's done similar roles before, but he's good. Overall,
Darr is g...g...g...great! ;)
Certainly not a great show, but better than most other sitcoms out there at the
moment. It reminds of shows like Married With Children and Roseanne as they go to
places not traditionally dealt with in sitcoms. It's sometimes funny even if you
ignore the laugh tracks, but not rip-roaring hilarious. Some of the
characters are pretty funny (the gay friend) and some of the other drop-ins. This
is also one of the few shows where the characters soliloquy (sorry for the
butchered spelling) actually is effective and funny. Is this an All in
the Family or Seinfeld type show? Absolutely not. However, it is certainly better
than a show like 'Til Deat (probably the worst TV show of any type out at the
moment). Oh and the mom is not too bad looking and the Hilary character
is a little hottie.
I haven't seen this funny of a show on fox in a long time, and the wait was worth
it. The kids in the show have something that i can relate to on every episode, and
even my dad will sit down and watch it. It is a show not for all ages that doesn't
dumb down for kids. It is like still standing but to the next level. The stuff that
everyone says is stuff that everyone says and actions that everyone does. It says
stuff that we all think, but in a well rounded way of presentation. The first time
i saw the show i could not believe that it was on fox, and that it was allowed to
stay on the air after a few episodes, from Hilary's boyfriend choices to Kenny's
boyfriend choices, it is well worth the watch.
Now more than ever we need Peace & Love in this world! This film really
showcases the wonderful music of the Broadway show, and the fabulous Choreography
of the legendary Twila Tharp! I saw it again after many years, and it still holds
up well. Thank you, MGM/UA for putting this on DVD! I love the option of
seeing in Widescreen. MGM rocks for doing this on many of their DVD releases. Ya gotta love Treat Williams as Berger and John Savage as Claude. They
couldn't have picked better actors & actresses for this film! Beverly D'Angelo is
such a 'hot mama' in this film--I had forgotten just how hot! WOW! The
supporting cast is absolutely great, with the late great Nell Carter
making a singing cameo in a couple of scenes, as well as the kooky Charlotte Ray
(Mrs. Garrett on 'Facts Of Life') The story gets a little weak toward
the end, but the anti-war sentiment of the late 60's still holds up, and is
relevant today. It's beautifully filmed (quite a bit on location) and
is so colorful and lovely and really brings the spirit of 1968 back on the big
screen. I saw this movie when it was released in 1979 when I was 15, and
was moved by it then, and it still moves me now at 40. Some other reviews on here
say they think it should have been made sooner--I don't think Hollywood was ready
to make such a movie back in the late 60's-early 70's. The Vietnam War
ended in 1975, and the whole thing hit a little too close to home, I think for this
story to be filmed before it was (like in 1969, 70, 71) Bravo to
Director Milos Foreman! I love this film!!!!!!! It's nice to see it
again, this time on DVD. It never looked better!
I have realized that many people have commented on the nature of this show being
racist and homophobic, but I don't feel that is what this show is about. The show is about parents who weren't ready for kids and are now not ready
for teenagers. This show helps to bring humor to a very hard topic that is
sometimes over looked: parenthood. Yes we have all had shows that had
families in it, for example: Family Matters, Step by Step, Family Ties, Full
House....but it always would have the same old recipe to it's episodes. "Steph"
cuts from school and gets caught by her father. They have a heart to heart
conversation and music is played and it's over with a two week grounding that after
an "aww, Dad..." gets a smile and the show is over. Where is the comedy in such a
situation? Where is the realism? With The War at Home, you get real situations from
a real father type figure. Most parents that watch this show hear some of the lines
the parents put out and they either laugh (cause they know they've said it!) or
they nod their heads (cause they know they've thought it and never had the guts to
say it!) The War at Home has situations that bring out great comedy as a father
thinking his son is gay. Doesn't sound funny, most think it makes the father
homophobic, but the comedy comes in the bumbling father trying to talk to his son
to open up. What parent knows the right thing to say, especially in a situation as
this? I greatly recommend this show to anyone that I know has a sense of humor, and
especially to anyone who is a young parent or was young when they had kids. You
relate to a show like this when you are either.
i really like this series. its funny and unique style of off the wall, sometimes
controversial comedy, is a fresh take on the genre. whilst it is a sitcom, it
stands out due to the what could be awkward subjects. every aspect has a
comedy turn, and the show really is very good. my favourite part of the program is
the rather odd comments of the father, dave. his rants break the program up, and
allow a really good flow. not perfect, because sometimes the comedy isn't laugh out
loud funny, and the actors sometimes seem to be waiting for an audience response,
but otherwise this program is good. i strongly recommend this program,
and am very sad that it has been cancelled. please make another series, and finish
it properly
This was one of the few shows that my wife and I agreed on watching. I was upset to
hear that it was canceled, especially because I didn't realize the ratings were so
poor. As far as I knew it was doing very well with a lot of viewers. Almost all my
friends and most of the people I spoke to watched the show. Now we are stuck
watching either crappy shows or DVD's. How bad was the show doing? does anyone know
the real results of the shows viewings? I know that when it went to Thursdays, it
was more difficult for me to catch. Thank G*d for DVR's! Anyways, this
was a real surprise to know that there will be no more "The War At Home". If any
other networks see this, PLEASE PICK UP THE SHOW!!!! PLEASE!
The war at home is a splendid television series and I don't understand because she
has been annulled. Please fairies something to continue with this very beautiful
television series, with excellent and marvelous actors, good recitation and good
situations, please we want the third series and even so many new episodes. I pray
you!!!! I would like if possible somehow to make to reach this and mail the
interested forehand, since I can tell you that here in Italy this series is very
liked, as in other countries of Europe chest of drawers for example Spain. In
effects as I have written above what strikes of this television series it is the
good recitation of the actors and also the honest one with which numerous matters
of true importance are treated. I think both one of the best American television
series arrive on the Italian screens in these last years.I pray you!!!!
I'm not from USA I'm from central Europe and i think the show is amazingly good. It
can be easily compared with married with..children. My title says that it isn't
show for conservative public. I mean i'm not so liberal but it may be slight
difference between European conservatism and us cons. Anyway, show is starting to
be very popular in our area and it's very bad that it contains only two seasons.
Last episode opens many continuous and funny moments. Anyway I and many peoples
would be glad if that would continue playing. The last thing i'm thrilled about
this is some moral education very nice packed into humorous scenes. I mean i have
seen many comedies that has over two and even more minutes of very sad in tragic
scenes that absolutely don't fit into comedy. War doesn't contain something like
that and is made for laughing. It's like The Simpsons and married whose also don't
have any sad or even unfunny moments. I'm apologizing for my awful knowledge of
English but I still hope that You will understand what I meant.
Hilarious show with so many great stories, that it reflects the world today as we
know it, in such a funny way it literally stole my laughters for other shows. I
laughed so hard that I just found any other comedy shows unfunny. The unique
confessions of each characters is a great original technique that just makes the
show funny and very humorous. You may think that this is an average comedy show
about hard life with a family. That's what I thought at first but I found out that
it holds new and unique techniques that completely sets it apart from any other
average comedy show. Michael Rapaport is a star. I sure wish that this show wasn't
canceled.
This show is verging on brilliant. It's a modern day Married...with Children. The
scripts are witty, as they are sprinkled with clever sarcasm. They are also
realistic, dealing with issues that face many parents of teenagers today. As well
as the on going burden that you might not be the worlds greatest parent, and how is
the best way to deal with this? However, at the same time, it manages to remain
light hearted and fun. Which, with all the drama and action on television these
days, is a very pleasant and welcome change. It is something you can sit down in
front of for 30 minutes and relax, laugh and relate to. It isn't the world's most
hilarious comedy. yet will make you laugh at least a handful of times an episode.
Michael Rapaport is brilliant in the lead as Dave. He fills the big shoes that the
heavily sarcastic script requires and then some. He and Anita Barone (Vikki) have
fantastic chemistry and bounce off one another very well. This show has a strong
future if it is marketed at the correct target audience, and put in the right time
slot. Also, if Fox release it on DVD, the following will be stronger and larger.
(As is a classic example with Scrubs.)
Like many situation comedies, "The War at Home" is getting better with each
episode. The characters are starting to become real and I believe them as a family.
I agree with many that the first few episodes were not that funny; I thought the
show would be canceled for sure. But with the absences of "Malcolm in the Middle"
and "Arrested Development," "War" provides much needed live action comedy for FOX
on Sunday nights. And when compared with the rest of the sitcoms airing right now
"War" is an even better choice. Its appeal, at least for me, lies in its
real situations. Teenagers have sex. Not every parent likes how their kids are
turning out. Parents fight and call each other names. But rather than relying on
being "mean" like many shows, everything is nice in the end which is the number one
rule of a good sitcom. One detraction from the show is the narration
during/in between scenes. The "Arrested Development/Family Guy" style of flashbacks
work well enough but the narration can be too much. So anyone who needs
something to watch on Sunday nights should check out "The War at Home," especially
considering what is on the other major networks at that time.
This show is actually pretty good. Like all shows on TV, it has its good episodes
and its bad ones. I have read where people compare this show to Married
with Children, and I suppose it is a similar show for the new generation. However,
because of what was expected and allowed on TV in the days of Married with
Children, that show was taken to great extremes to show that it was in fact, a
television show, and not meant to be take seriously. The War at Home has
the luxury of being a bit more realistic. The parents talk to each other like real
life parents often do, telling their children one thing, when they will turn around
and do the opposite. Sure, some of the content can be considered
controversial. But I find this show really tries to maintain a sense of honesty.
Like it or not, there are a lot of families out there just like this one. Every episode does teach a 'valuable lesson'. Its just that sometimes the
lesson is that you will not find a perfect solution for every problem that a family
may encounter, and sometimes the solution is to pick the lesser of two evils. We
all know that in some cases, as a parent, the only goal you can have is to keep
your kids out of really big trouble, and hope that they learn right from
wrong. I respect the writers for attempting to keep the show true to
life, instead of having some magical ending like the Cleaver family always had.
The War At Home is so good it's become my new favourite show.Me and my neighboors
Carly and April watch this together every Sunday and laugh at how true to life it
is.I love how everyone is so sarcastic and so worried and they dwell on every
little issue.Once someone does something stupid they never live it down and that is
soooo how family is.The father always harps on all three kids about every little
thing.I love how the parents have no idea how to deal with the kids.It's so true to
real family life and the fact that the parents are so overwhelmed and have no clue
how to solve their teenagers problems just puts the show over the top.The War At
Home is so brutally honest,and so true to the world we live in that it has become a
milestone for sitcoms to come.This isn't Happy Days or The Brady Bunch this is real
life.
I have seen this movie more than 50 times in my life, and each time I watch it the
movie is just as entertaining as it was the first time! George Berger (played by
Treat Williams) leads a small group of 1960's-1970's era anti-war "hippies" living
at large in New York City. This small group happens upon a young man, Claude
Bukowski (played by John Savage) who has been drafted into the US Army for service
in Vietnam. Despite their best efforts to dissuade him, Claude does eventually
report for basic training in the Army. Still distressed over his having left them,
the hippie group steal a car and travel across the USA to visit Claude "...for a
couple of hours," in the words of George Berger (to an M.P. stationed at the entry
gate of the Army base Claude is temporarily stationed at in Nevada). The outcome is
truly touching, so I won't spoil it for those who have not yet seen this fantastic
movie. The musical score is equally fantastic! Don Dacus (of the rock group
Chicago), who plays the part of "Woof" - one of the hippies, is a not a key
character, but the movie wouldn't have been the same without him. Beverly D'Angelo
(who plays Sheila Franklin, an uptown girl who is befriended by the hippie group)
is sensational in her role! A MUST SEE film!!
This is not a GREAT movie as tho the cast (especially the kids) admirably help to
carry along this very sad yet contrived plot it is filled with cliché upon cliché.
Poor family in 50's mid America, dying mother, alcoholic father, 10 children (1 of
whom has epilepsy) and an awful decision to be made. Its very easy to watch and
some of the kids performances are moving without being sickly or naff. And little
Frank and Warrnen steal the show for me with the last scene leaving me bawling no
matter how many times I see it. A great rainy afternoon movie i recommend to all.
Only those with the hardest of hearts could fail to be moved by it. Not on a par to
Sophies Choice but a good TV movie equivalent!!!
Starring: Ann-Margret, Frederic Forrest, Cathryn Damon, Donald Moffat, Lonny
Chapman, Patricia Smith Directed by: John Erman "12 Months to Live... So Little
time to Plan a Future She Would Not Share. For the Sake of her 10 Children She Must
Succeed!" Lucile Fray (Ann-Margret), is the caring mother of 10 young
children. She is the loving wife of Ivan (Frederic Forrest), a man almost crippled
by arthritis. She is also dying. Stricken by a terminal illness, she has only a few
months left to live. Her husband, tormented by the painful truth, turns to the
bottle and, with a broken heart, Lucile is forced to accept that he will never be
able to cope as a father alone. And so, for the sake of the children
she loves so much, the young mother must make an agonising decision. Inspired by real-life events, 'Who Will Love My Children' is a tribute to one
woman's courage and strength - a story of sacrifice and of a dying mother's undying
love. One of the best films that I have ever seen Cried from start to
finish.
I blubbered like a little girl during the ending of this movie and I dare anyone
else to hold it together without a sob. Absolutely heart-wrenching stuff, yet
uplifting at it's core. A great effort on the part of Ann Margaret who
plays a terminally ill mother of ten who, knowing her arthritic steel-working
husband won't be able to support the family when she is gone, arranges the
adoptions of her children before she shuffles off. The role really deserved an
Oscar. You truly feel for this poor family as the dying mother gives her
all to ensure that her kids don't end up in a poorly administered state orphanage
system. If you haven't seen it - get it if you can.
I have nothing but praise for this movie and cast, especially Ann Margaret. But
more importantly I have praise for my in-laws who were (are) the adoptive parents
of Warren and Frank in real life. I met most of the "children" at Warren's wedding
in 1989. This is an amazing story and is even more incredible to me knowing the
family and what everyone went through. It is also enjoyable for me to see how my
in-laws were portrayed in the movie. It was pretty accurate. My wife even enjoys
seeing some little details such as a toaster that she remembered from her
childhood. Yes, it is a hard movie to watch, but so amazing and heartfelt. The beauty of this story for me is how many of the children passed through my in-
laws lives and, as a result of marrying their daughter,and having Warren as a
brother-in-law, how many I have met in mine. For the past 20 years this story has
been a part of my life because of what my mother-in-law has shared with me. That
and knowing Warren. For what it is worth, Warren lives in California with his
family. He married his high school sweetheart, who he reconnected with at his 20
year high school reunion. There was a show in the 1980's called "That's
Incredible." They had a reunion of the family who also got to meet the cast of the
show. For anyone's interest, the DVD is available in Great Britain and
Australia. It is a tough video to come by here in the United States and I have not
been able to find a DVD here, yet.
Ann-Margret did the best job she has ever done in her history of film making. I
felt as if she WAS Mrs. Frey. There might be one or two films of Ann-Margret's I
have not seen since her film debut in "Pocket full of Miracles" with Betty Davis in
1961. I feel she has been totally under-rated in the industry. Though she was
nominated for an Emmy Award for this role in "Who Will Love My Children," she was
overlooked. Like she was nominated for an Academy Award for her roles in "Carnal
Knowledge" and "Tommy," she was snubbed. Over all, I think everyone did a superb
acting job including all the children in "Who Will Love My Children." Yes, it is a
sad movie (as true stories can be), but well worth the time. Thank you.
This movie is based on the true story of Iowa housewife Lucille Fray, who got
breast cancer after the birth of her 10th child. Realizing that the state would
take the children away from her ineffectual, alcoholic husband, she devoted the
last year of her life traveling around the state to find new homes for each of the
children. A terrific script - which still holds up 20 years after it was first
made. The grown children, many of whom had not seen each other since their mother
died in the late 50's, were reunited on "That's Incredible," prior to the film's
airing in 1983. Barbara Stanwyck won the Emmy for best actress in a TV movie or
mini-series, but during her acceptance speech, she went out of her way to single
Ann-Margret out for her moving performance.
I originally saw this on its premiere in the UK. I was mesmerised by it, and it had
me in tears all throughout its duration. I taped it off the TV for safekeeping, but
over the years, it's worn out. And TV never seem to show it. Therefore it was a joy
to find out that True Movies own the copyright and were showing it on their
channels. This time, I taped it onto a DVD, so I can enjoy it again and
again. Lucile Fray (played magnificently by Ann - Margret) discovers she
has cancer, and that it is terminal. Her husband has arthritis, and, although he is
loving, he is an alcoholic, and would be incapable of taking care of their children
after she has gone. Therefore, she has to find new homes for each of her children
before she dies. The acting is top notch, the music beautiful, and it
has stood the test of time wonderfully (it still makes me cry!) If you ever get the
chance, you would be silly to miss this. It is a wonderful film! A must see for
everyone!!!
I was still living with my parents when they aired this on dutch TV. Usually I was
the one watching movies with the other's not caring. But somehow we all sat down
and watched this movie. This kinda movie used to be aired at Wednesday-evening. It
is the story of a woman who'll die soon. But before she dies she wants to make sure
her ( many ) kids will have the best possible foster-parents. So we were watching
this and my dad ( the most emotional of the four of us) started to cry. I followed
almost immediately and before long my sister and mother were teared up too. There
we were, totally moved by this simple but heartbreaking story. If you want a good
cry, this is the one for you!
This has to be the ultimate chick flick ever. We taped it off the T.V. years ago
and I've watched it about 30 times over the years. I hadn't seen it for about 12
years and just recently watched this movie. I'm not lying, I cried from the opening
credits to the ending credits. This movie truly tears your heart out, even if you
don't have children.
"Who Will Love My Children" Saddest movie I have ever seen. Definite 10/10.
Released on TV in 1983. Movie has been released on VHS. DVD release is a must,
sooner rather than later. Mother dying of cancer, must find homes for all her
children before she dies, because her thoughts are that her husband and father of
the kids is not capable of caring for them once she has died. She manages to find
homes for the children except one, a young boy whom is not wanted because he
suffers from epilepsy. Very sad when your not wanted. In for a real good tear
jerker, get your hands on this movie. I'm a male even I cried when I watched this
movie. Not to be missed.
I first saw this film in the early 80's on cable. It was unique as a statement
about the sixties, culture, war, music, race, and a bunch of things I'm certain I
missed. However about a year ago it came back into my life as I started enjoying it
with my son. He's a little young (9) for a lot of the themes in it, but he
understands dancing hippies are fun to watch, and he gets the idea that end is
ironic. While I can't think of other films in this genre, it does have a stand
alone genius I love. It also does a unique justice to Central Park. Most musicals
are lost on me, one way or another. "Tommy" was over the top and heavy handed in
direction, "Oliver" seemed like crowd control on the silver screen, "The Wall" was
so much abstract self important and indulgent dribble, but listening to "Failure of
the Flesh" from Hair sounds right for our times today, as it did in the eighties,
as it must have in the sixties...truly Timeless.
I watched this film many years ago on TV and taped it from there I could never
really understand why my own mother was upset watching it! It was because I was so
young at the time. I have just sat and watched this film again I now have 2
children of my own and I had to try and fight the tears back but that didn't happen
I was crying through most of the film It just go's to show how different you feel
when you have children of your own! Such an amazing family such a heart wrenching
film truly wonderful! Someone has said about 8 still living any more news are you
all still in touch I would love to know! Touched by the film all over!
I saw this movie when it was broadcast on television in February of 1983. I was in
the hospital, having just given birth to my first and only child. I'll refrain from
telling you the extent to which I was moved. Suffice it to say that the memory of
the movie has remained with me to this day, almost 23 years later. I hope I can
find a copy of this movie, if such a thing was ever made. This movie should be
remembered fondly by anyone who ever saw it. However, I must admit that the fact it
remains somewhat obscure is just fine by me. This way, it will always be a small
secret to me and those who were also moved by it. I never saw Ms. Margaret perform
a better part. Nor have I ever seen her in a more convincing role. I will forever
respect her just for accepting such a lovely part.
Who will love my children has changed my heart, it made me cry all the way through,
the most i cried with was when the family had to say goodbye to the baby, i cried
the most with that, and each time a child was adopted, i cried when they had to say
goodbye to their mother, it was sad for them to lose their mother, I felt sorry for
the kid with epilepsy, i was glad he was adopted by the same family as one of his
brothers. To me that boy i thought was the special one because he was going in a
home. I feel that i am special because i am in a world with Aspergers Syndrome and
sometimes when i feel down, i sometimes like to cry. I really enjoyed this movie,
10 out of 10. A true story, very good. Another movie that would bring tears to your
eyes i think would haver to be Tuesday's With Morrie
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207805)
Most definitely the saddest movie I have ever seen. A must see, just so you can
walk away and realise just how precious your life and loves are. The acting is
superb, the story line potentially 'real'. Remains a firm favourite of
mine even after all this time.
I was just looking up " who will love my children" to buy, when I came across this
web site and an entry made by a fellow Briton!! I am a great fan of this movie and
would, and have, recommended it to all. What I found comforting is to find someone
else who also finds comfort in the good will of others. I also have a son with
Aspergers (amongst other things) and it is also a fear of mine to think if anything
ever happened to me and my husband, that someone would not only want to take on
just my beautiful 'normal' daughter, but my special and gifted son also. Missing
home and being able to relate to people raised with the same values as myself has
more meaning than you know. Living here in the US I have yet to meet anyone who has
seen this movie. So to all of you reading this, if you have not seen it, make an
effort to do so. It is a very moving experience, especially for anyone who is a
parent, or even if you just have a sympathetic bone in your body, you will cry, and
beg. After that you will count your blessings, And to anyone who has ever been
through an experience like , or close to this one, my heart goes out to you. It
makes me realize no matter how hard or stressful thing get, just remind yourself
that there is always someone worse off than you. An amazing movie and what makes it
more powerful is the fact that it is based on a true story. Do not be put off by
how sad it is, at the same time this movie is heart warming, and makes you feel
encouraged about the strength and goodness of mankind.
I saw this movie so long ago, but it remains in my memory as the saddest movie
ever. I cried non stop. My mother will not ever watch this movie again because its
almost painful to watch. Anyway, apart from that the story isn't exactly
complex...Ann Margaret is dying and has to give away her 10(?) children. As if that
isn't bad enough, it is during the depression and she has to break up the close
siblings one by one. I guess this was very sad to me because I too am from a very
large close knit family and could identify with each child's pain of leaving their
mother and siblings. Maybe I am a masochist but I would like to see this
movie again because it was well done and the end, surprisingly, is slightly happy
(so at least we could smile and sob simultaneously). It should come on TV sometime
so I can see it again.
Forget all those sappy romantic movies involving notebooks and lip-locked couples
who somehow manage to go to the great beyond together after a screen lifetime of
over-simplified unrealistic romance. Forget all those shameless "dog gives its life
to save its family" flicks (although I have to admit that I have a soft spot for
them myself). Forget Ricky Schroeder already displaying his propensity to overact
at a tender age (now that one WAS shameless!). This TV-movie, which
unfortunately never seems to get aired anymore, is the all-time champion of tear-
jerkers, hands down. And a well-written and well-acted story to boot. Ann-Margret
took a big chance in taking this role. Nothing flamboyant or sexy about her here,
and that's a monumental achievement in itself. Based on a true story, she plays
Lucile Fray, a terminally ill mother who chooses to struggle till her dying breath
to find good homes for her ten children, instead of leaving them in the hands of
unpredictable government agencies. Frederic Forrest does a great job as her
husband, the good-hearted but unreliable breadwinner whose crippling arthritis and
personal demons make him unable to care for the kids. The film takes us
through Lucile's heart-wrenching process of interviewing prospective parents and
then watching her kids leave home. It also gives us the perspective of the children
themselves, and of the father - grieving over the tragedy taking place now and the
one sure to follow, and frustrated over his inability to do more. The scene in
which the youngest of the children (Steven)is taken to his new home is the most
heart-breaking I've ever watched. Now, I grew up as a "hopeless romantic", and have
spent the many years since then growing myself a harder, more cynical shell. I
usually find more to mock than to empathize with in the sentimental cinematic tripe
foisted upon us these days. But this gem from the early 1980's still slays
me. I really wish that someone with a lick of marketing sense would
release a DVD version of this drama. Among the special features one needs to
include the Emmy Awards telecast the following year. A-M was nominated for this
role, but the award for best dramatic actress went to Barbara Stanwyck for "Thorn
Birds." In what has to be one of the greatest moments in what is now a truly drab
awards show, Stanwyck broke into tears during her acceptance speech and gushed out,
"Ann-Margret, I love you!", which brought Ann-M to tears. One final
note. The IMDb rating for "Who Will Love My Children" is 6.4 as of this writing.
However, over 75% of the ratings are in the 8-10 range (mostly 10's). Whatever kind
of handicapping system this site uses to modify the overall ratings of the movies
listed by IMDb, it completely misses the mark on this one. This one is the "weeper"
of all time, and a darn good TV-movie to boot.
I may be a good old boy from Virginia in the Confederate States of America, but
this man does it for me. That mustache gets me riled up. I remember when I first
saw a video of his. That girl he beat was amazing. The depth of his acting when
they cut to his weathered facade was a new level of masculinity. It reminds me of
the granite sculptures of our Mt. Rushmore. If I could ask him one question, it
would be,"If you were a hot-dog, would you eat yourself?" Will Orhan be doing a
reunion tour? Take note from the greats like Gordon Lightfoot, true music from the
heart never fades away. Vive La John Denver. Gracias my friend, O.F.F.L. (Orhan Fan
For Life)
First of all, I should point out that I really enjoyed watching this documentary.
Not only it had great music in it, but the shots and the editing were also
wonderful. However, all these positive things about the film does not change the
fact that it plays to the orientalist "East meets West" cliché that bothers many
Turks like myself. Okay, this film tells the story of traditional and contemporary
Turkish music in a very stylish manner which is a good thing, something that would
show ignorant Europeans and Americans that this country is not just about murdering
Armenians and Kurds. However, the problematic of the film is that it looks at what
it defines as "east" from the eyes of the "west". I mean, like one jazz musician
says in the film, maybe there is no east and west, maybe it is just a myth, a lie
created by the ruling leaders of "western" countries in order to keep fear and
hostility alive so that they could continue ruling the world and "keep the cash
flowing"? Why don't you think about that?
I have been away from Istanbul for the last 10 years. During that time I constantly
lived in London. When I have seen the movie I realised how much I am Istanbuler. I
am not just from Turkey I am a part of Turkey. One of my part is Istanbul, the
sound of the Istanbul, the people of the Istanbul. Probably Faith Akin
thought that he has done great musical documentary but I must say it is more than
that. It is about putting nice blend of vastly different musics, cultures,
approaches, politics, ethnics into a delicious pot... As we all know
Turkey to be precise Istanbul is always comes and goes between being eastern or
western city. As one of the band member said Istanbul is a bi-cultural city. But
much more a eastern city because we always tried to be a western city. It shows
we've never been one. This movie will catch from very first second.
Music is excellent, people are fascinating. Especially Aynur and Sezen Aksu.
Singers, band members! It is nice to see you all at a small cinema in Wood Green.
The largest crowd to ever see a wrestling event in the US took place at
Wrestlemania 6. Over 93,000 people showed up to break the Rolling Stones indoor
record, and this event didn't disappoint at all. Maybe the biggest match of all
time took place as the Immortal Hulk defended his world title against the Ultimate
Warrior. There are over 12 matches in all so you get tons of action
A European musician and composer sets out to capture the musical diversity of
Istanbul. A lover of experimenting with sound, Alexander Hacke (of the German
avantgarde band Einstürzende Neubauten) roams the streets of Istanbul with his
mobile recording studio and "magic mike" to assemble an inspired portrait of
Turkish music. His voyage leads to the discovery of a broad spectrum ranging from
modern electronic, rock and hip-hop to classical "Arabesque". As he wanders through
this seductive world, Alex collects impressions and tracks by artists such as neo-
psychedelic band Baba Zula, fusion DJs Orient Expressions, rock groups Duman and
Replikas, maverick rocker Erkin Koray, Ceza (Turkey's answer to Public Enemy),
breakdance performers Istanbul Style Breakers, digital dervish Mercan Dede,
renowned clarinetist Selim Sesler, Canadian folk singer Brenna MacCrimmon, street
performers Siyasiyabend, Kurdish singer Aynur, the "Elvis of Arabesque" Orhan
Gencebay, and legendary divas Müzeyyen Senar and Sezen Aksu.
'Crossing the Bridge: The Sound of Istanbul' is one of the best music documentaries
that I have seen lately and is more than a film about music. It is also a musical
love declaration about a fabulous city, one of the greatest city in Europe and the
world, one of the most important cities for Europe history and for Islam, the city
that may bridge in the future Europe and the Middle East or may signify once again,
as is already happened in history the precipice between two worlds. Then
there is the music. The interesting approach that the film takes with regard to
music is that it starts from modern music, and we hear a lot of (good) rock and rap
in the first third of the film. An then, like a backwards move in time the
soundtrack takes us to the roots, to Turkish traditional music, to commercial
romances, and to the exotic instruments that are basic elements in the landscape of
Turkish music. In such a complex and conflict ridden country as Turkey is the film
does not avoid some of the political aspects, like censorship introduced by the
military rule in the 80s or the relevance of the songs of the minorities especially
the Kurdish one. One of the best musical moments is actually provided by a Kurdish
singer with a fantastic voice singing in a cathedral-shaped hamam (Turkish
bath). One gets to love the city and its music by the end of the viewing
and hearing of this film. I have never been to Istanbul but after having seen this
film I am sure that I want to visit this place soon.
This is a great documentary and above comments make a brief summary of how great it
was so I won't repeat the same compliments. But, Faith akin, being an Turkish
oriented guy who probably knows about that country more than an ordinary European,
falls into the trap of orientalism that other western artists usually fall. But
come on man you are Turkish blooded and your movie could be deeper and could
describe what's beyond "beyoglu-old town" It's a missed opportunity for Akinfor
that reason. Performances by Muzeyyen Senar and Orhan Gencebay are peek of the
movie and Ceza (a very talented and bad ass Turkish rapper) makes some trash talk
about American gangsta rappers which I totally agree. I will recommend this movie
to my American friends.
Turkish-German director Faith Akın ("Head-On" & "The Edge of Heaven") follows
German musician and "Head-On" soundtrack composer Alexander Hacke of Einstürzende
Neubauten to Istanbul for this documentary which delves into the modern music scene
of the city from arabesque to indie rock and was screened out of competition at the
2005 Cannes Film Festival. Alexander Hacke makes for an amiable guide as
he travels around Istanbul with a mobile recording studio and a microphone in hand
where he runs into and records the likes of classic rocker Erkin Koray, rapper
Ceza, Kurdish singer Aynur Doğan, Arabesque singer Orhan Gencebay and pop star
Sezen Aksu as well as rock bands Baba Zula, Duman and Replikas. The
director has pulled together a diverse collection of popular performers and ground-
breaking acts from what was at the time a highly competitive short-list to give an
eclectic account of modern Turkish music as seen from the streets of its cultural
capital which will enchant and entertain even if at times it seems a little rushed
and unfocused. "Music can reveal to you everything about a place."
Turkish culture is complete with lots of different cultures. different cultures
have different styles of music. Istanbul is like the mixture of turkey. it has
mostly the same language but different dialects. this documentary shows us these
different kinds of music with different dialects and different instruments. you can
watch reportings with singers and groups, their performances , their daily life and
learn their thoughts of music. the movie includes not only the music of Istanbul
but the life in Istanbul , how people communicate and what they eat and drink. the
surprising part is although i live in Istanbul i learned lots of things from this
movie.
Istanbul is a big , crowded city between Europe and Asia.Too many types of people
living together there for hundred years.In this documentary movie you can see how
music can give description about the culture of the owner race. You
would be able to hear too many types of music including rock , hip-hop ,
arabesque , alternative and more. Some of the musicians are famous in Turkey , some
of them are famous also in Europe. The rest are just street musicians. Their music
tell viewers , different faces of a city. Impressive !
This movie is one of the most memorable films I have seen. I went reluctantly with
a Turkish friend who recommended it. I am not a very enthusiastic proponent of
music documentaries, but when Aynur Dogan, a Kurdish woman banned for years from
singing in Turkey, sings her piece, the theater was in awe. I would give my all to
hear a CD recording of this haunting, gorgeous song. And she is just one of many
artist interviewed and recorded, speaking of their experiences of performing in
Istanbul. Even now, a month later, I remember the footage of Aynur singing in an
acoustic auditorium, and I try to remember the music as it echoed in the cinema.
Well done to Faith Akin, the director of this film, and his great idea to capture
the many splendid sounds of such a cosmopolitan city. It would certainly encourage
me to visit Istanbul.
I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed: At first there is a gentle
breeze And the leaves on the trees Softly sway; Out there, far away, The bells of
water-carriers unceasingly ring; I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes
closed. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed; Then
suddenly birds fly by, Flocks of birds, high up, with a hue and cry, While the nets
are drawn in the fishing grounds And a woman's feet begin to dabble in the water. I
am Iistening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. I am listening to
Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. The Grand Bazaar's serene and cool, An uproar at
the hub of the Market, Mosque yards are full of pigeons. While hammers bang and
clang at the docks Spring winds bear the smell of sweat; I am listening to
Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my
eyes closed; Still giddy from the revelries of the past, A seaside mansion with
dingy boathouses is fast asleep. Amid the din and drone of southern winds, reposed,
I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. I am listening to
Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. A pretty girl walks by on the sidewalk: Four-
letter words, whistles and songs, rude remarks; Something falls out of her hand It
is a rose, I guess. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. A bird flutters round your
skirt; On your brow, is there sweat? Or not? I know. Are your lips wet? Or not? I
know. A silver moon rises beyond the pine trees: I can sense it all in your heart's
throbbing. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. FOR
YOU For you, my fellow humans, Everything is for you, Nights are for
you, days are for you; Daylight is for you, moonlight is for you; Leaves in the
moonlight; Wonder and wisdom in the leaves, Myriad greens in daylight, Yellow is
for you, and pink. The feel of the skin on the palm, Its warmth, Its softness, The
comfort of lying down; For you are all the greetings And the masts winnowing in the
harbor; Names of the days, Names of the months, Fresh paint on rowboats is for you
Mailman's feet, Potter's hands Sweat on foreheads, Bullets fired on battlefronts;
Graves are for you and tombstones, Jails and handcuffs and death sentences Are for
you Everything is for you. SEA NOSTALGIA Vessels sail along
my dreams, Over the roofs, ships in a feast of color, And poor me, Yearning for the
sea year in year out, I gaze and weep. I recall my first sight of the world Through
a mussel shell I pried open: The greenest water and the bluest sky And the
rippliest of lump-fish... My blood still flows salty Where the oysters slit my
skin. What a mad speed plunge was ours Into the high seas on the whitest foam! Foam
bears no malice, Like lips Whose adultery with men Is no disgrace. Vessels sail along our dreams Over the roofs, ships in a feast of color, And poor
me, Yearning for the sea year in year out. -- Orhan Veli I
could not have said anything better than what Orhal Veli Kanik said about Istanbul.
About this movie, all I have is praise. A very nice and balanced introduction to a
city and its music that connected Asia, Europe and Africa at one point of time.
Ich will danke Herr Hacke für den Filme. Mein Deutsch ist nicht gut. Enschuldigen
Sie. First of all, i didn't know how diverse the sound of Istanbul,
inspite i live in Turkey.Faith Akin and Alexander Hacke have made a different
approach for Turkish music.Narrating, performing, seeing Istanbul and Istanbul
Music from a foreigner aspect had given the real meaning of the music itself. In this movie I had found out how different our(Turkish) culture is, how
interesting our performers are, and how much respect they deserve. Unfortunately no
one have been able to serve this kind of documentary before.
German-born Turkish director Faith Akin captures in his film the endless variety of
the different styles in music and songs in Istanbul, a city that is a bridge
between East and West, a city that is uniquely located on both sides of the
Bosporus, in Europe and in Asia. Kurdish dirges represented by Aynur, who performs
her own brand of Kurdish gospel music, passionate and melodic. We are introduced to
Romany instrumentals, to Orhan Gencebay, who has been called the Elvis of Arabesque
music - sounds of music are heard everywhere in the city as Faith Akin takes us
into underground clubs, to the street performers, and to recording sessions. German
bassist Alexander Hacke who comes to Istanbul to play and to learn about Turkish
music quotes Confucius, "To understand the place, you have to listen to the music
it plays". Akin's fine documentary does just that - gives us 90 minutes of music
that helps to cross the bridges. For me, watching the movie was especially
interesting because I recently visited Istanbul as a part of my vacation and spent
four days there. The city fascinated me by its images, colors, crowds, vibrancy and
visual beauty. Now, I can add the sounds of music to the ever-changing portrait of
Istanbul.
*SPOILERS AHEAD* Great WrestleManias were still a few years away. But
this one was certainly good, with lots of good matches, and one great match. Demolition was always at their best at WrestleMania. I'm glad their last WM
hoorah (I refuse to include the other version) was a win over the Colossal
Connection. I liked the gag of Andre never tagging in. Few fans know
that this was the first time anyone ever beat Mr. Perfect. For some reason, Brutus
Beefcake's feat was never recognized. Or the fact that he did it pretty
easily. The Hart Foundation's win over the Bolsheviks was the shortest
in WM history, including the 24/9 second match between King Kong Bundy and S.D.
Jones. I'm glad Jake and DiBiase got to fight at WrestleMania. This made
up for the fact that the feud had to be put on hold for so long. I
expected the Big Bossman-Akeem feud to heat up, but the Bossman just clobbered him.
As good as Bossman was as a heel, he was just great as a face. He was always
intense and obviously loved his job. If the Warrior just had a better
work ethic and maybe tried to learn to wrestle, he would have been a great WWF
champion. Worth a watch, especially since the boring matches are too
short to complain about. And the tag team matches are all very exciting.
There are questions that sometimes hover over us and have no answer. Two women
progressively find themselves ensnared in each other's arms (as corny as the
expression sounds, that is exactly what happens) and fins that they cannot answer
their own question as to what defines their relationship when their very own
society has no name to what they are. Deepa Mehta's somewhat mis-titled FIRE is the
first of a loosely connected trilogy, here linked by the theme of the elements, and
more symbolic than consuming. Fire as uncontrolled erotic passion does not make an
appearance here, since the women -- the older and more feminine Radha (Shabana
Azmi) and the younger, more masculine tempered Sita (Nandita Das) come to realize
they share a lot more than common ideas and affection for each other and stand for
what they believe is their passion for each other despite the opposition faced by
their very traditional husbands and families. As in WATER, FIRE is deeply
spiritual, even if it technically falls into the mode of sentimental melodrama
(where WATER, much like the weight of the word, carries a stronger meaning that
ultimately transcends its definition). Even so, it's a very beautiful picture, and
a strong voice from a strong director.
By watching this film you will not only explore the "Turkish music" but will also
explore the city of Istanbul with wonderful pictures and scenes from all over the
important regions of the city.There are lots of delightful conversations with all
sorts of musicians and their thoughts about music,culture.There is also discussions
about the mixture of east and west like Istanbul has,how they make their music, how
do they see themselves comparing to other country's musicians.It consists the music
of Ceza,Duman,Baba Zula,Aynur,Müzeyyan Senar,Orhan Gencebay..The Turkish Queen of
Music Sezen Aksu...An important work of art!
Faith Akin has made me realize once more the deepness of my passion for this city
called Istanbul. Being addressed as a city of cultural mosaics, Faith Akin has
contributed to that addressing through the mosaics of music performed in the film.
What's more, the climax of the film,in my opinion, is the scene where Muzeyyen
Senar (a Turkish music diva) sings at age 86 as well as she had done in her younger
years and rolls the raki glass in the air without pouring out one drop, which is a
traditional act in raki culture. She is just marvellous. Sezen Aksu (a Turkish pop
singer) with her mystical and meaningful looks at the end of her song which gives
the film its Turkish title makes the scene no less than a climax. Last but not
least, the wonderful scenery of Istanbul can make you feel nostalgic if you are
away. Beware!
If you're a fan of Turkish and Middle Eastern music, you're in great luck. This
film is a documentary of current music in Istanbul, spanning the traditional to the
modern. It's very good. You could not do better if you went to Istanbul yourself.
We get interviews with Orhan Gencebay, concert clips of modern musical icons, a
road show with a Romani (Gypsy) audience, Turkish Hip Hop (surprisingly very very
good), and much much more. Some of the best female vocalists I've ever heard. A
Kurdish woman singing in a hamam (steam bath) who will rip your heart out. Lots of
social and political background. If this is your thing, you'll have a grand time. I
could barely sit still in the theatre. CD soundtrack now available on
amazon. Pricey.
Like many other commentators here, I went in expecting a taste of music that would
satisfy my curiosity - and got more than I asked for. I heard and saw a powerful,
exquisite, sometimes haunting, sometimes touching, lyrical, sentimental (in the
truest way) and absolutely stunning blend of music and musicians. Reminded me a lot
of some forms of Indian music (East Indian) but at the same time was very very
different. Starting from the the first track by Baba Zula to the Kurdish
singer Aynur (what a voice) to Siyasiyabend to the jam session (or 'Jugalbandhi '
as we call it in India) in the small Turkish bar ft. Selim Seslar (Big fan
now :) ), I enjoyed every minute and wished it wouldn't end. One of the
best music commentaries I have seen and heard in a long time. I am
craving for a CD of the sound-track and hope I can find it online somewhere soon
and also for old and latest albums from Baba Zula. A day later, the
music is still etched in my brain and I don't want it to go away. Turkey and
specifically Istanbul now seem such beautiful and exciting places - and I am going
to start saving today to go take it in. Faith Akin - this is a gem.
Akin's prize-winning 2004 movie Head-On/Gegen die Wand depicted the appealingly
chaotic world of a self-destructive but dynamic Turkish-German rocker named Cahit
(Birol Ünel). This documentary is an offshoot of Head-On and explores the range of
music one might find in Istanbul today if one were as energetic and curious as
German avant-rock musician Alexander Hacke of the group Einstuerzende Neubauten
(who arranged the sound track and performed some of the music for Head-On) and had
the assistance of a film crew and Turkish speakers provided by director Akin. You
get everything from rap to the most traditional Turkish classical song, with rock,
Kurdish music, and Turkish pop in between. It's as chaotic and open-ended a world
as Cahit's, one where East is East and West is West but the twainsomehowdo
meet. Like Istanbul itself, which sits on the edge between Europe and
Asia and brings the two worlds together while remaining sui generis, this is a
mélange that includes Turkish pop, Turkish traditional songs, Kurdish laments, Roma
jazz musicians and group of street buskers (Siyasiyabend), lively and offbeat shots
of Istanbul street life, and some talk on camera about synthesis and some personal
and musical history by singers and musicians. Working out of the Grand Hotel de
Londres in Istanbul's Beyoglu quarter where Cahit stayed at the end of Head-On
while looking for his beloved, Hacke roams around the city with crew and equipment
interviewing people and recording their music. He begins with some loud
rock by the "neo-psychedelic" band Baba Zula these are musicians he bonded with
while putting together Head-On's score and he stands in here for the absent bassist
-- and by Turkish (including brave female) rappers thus causing some oldsters to
walk out of the theater early on and miss the predominantly tuneful and easy-to-
listen-to sounds that makes up the bulk of the film. (Head-On's narrative excesses
were tempered periodically by musical interludes performed by a traditional Turkish
orchestra sitting outdoors on the other side of the Bosphorus.) Hacke gives us the
opportunity to meet and hear performances by some of the best known living Turkish
singers, including Müzeyyen Senar, a lady in her late eighties whose aging, elegant
musicians remind one of the way the great Egyptian songstress Umm Kulsoum used to
perform. Hacke gets songwriter-movie star Orhan Gencebay to do a striking solo on
the long-necked oud he's written all his songs on, and persuades the now elusive
great Sezen Aksu.to do a special performance of one of her most famous songs,
"Memory of Istanbul." This is a coup, and so is the lament by a beautiful Kurdish
songstress Aynar recorded in a bath whose acoustics are spectacular, if only they
could have turned down the heat singer and musician's faces stream with sweat.
There is also a young Canadian woman, Brenna MacCrimmon, fluent in Turkish, who
sings Turkish traditional folksongs with expression and fervor. The sound mix is of
high quality throughout. One would like to see a sequel; many great exemplars of
Turkish popular and classical music have necessarily been left out. Film
released summer 2005 and shown at festivals in 2005 and 2006. Opened at the
Angelika Film Center in New York City in June 9, 2006.
It is a very great film (documentary) about Istanbul and their people and it's
music of every kind. Editing and the success of the director is very impressive.
I've been interested with Faith Akin since I saw the "Gegen die Wand" ("Head-On")
("Duvara Karsı") and I admired his work very much but this one has been the
most touching one for me so I'm here writing this. It is not just about Turks or
something like that, it is a very good biography of a city and how music stay alive
in it we can say. There are views of many people and so very variant ideas about
even life and love. I liked it very much and I thing anyone and everyone should see
it, NOT ONLY but especially the ones anyhow related with Turkey...
This is such an exciting documentary, it was by far one of the most fun films I've
ever seen. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's such a fun look at different
musical styles, exciting people at the crossroads between modern and traditional
that is Istanbul, and great cinematography that captures beautiful scenes in
Istanbul and Thrace. Watching the film made me want to book a flight for Istanbul
right away. Great footage of Ceza, a Turkish rapper. Also
his sister, Ayben rapping - she is awesome. Priceless performances by
amazing Turkish musicians Orhan Gencebay, Sezen Aksu, Muzeyyen Senar. The gorgeous voice of Aynur, singing in Kurdish. And amazing clarinet
and signing of a romany gypsy group from Thrace. Last but not least,
Istanbul bands mixing Turkish music and rock, as well as trance music -- Baba Zula,
Orient Expressions, Duman, and others...
This film offers you a fascinating trip through one of the most exiting cities of
today - Istanbul - and its musicians. Do not expect a compilation of Turkish
folklore or anything like that. Alexander Hacke, a German musician and member of
the cult band "Einstürzende Neubauten" travels to Istanbul to get to know the music
scene. His sparse voice overs of what he experiences are a guiding line through the
film. But mainly German-Turkish director Faith Akin lets various artists from
Istanbul do the talking - and of course their music. You meet a variety
of personalities, big stars and street musicians, young and old, people playing
many different musical styles. But this movie does not only introduce you to the
sound of Istanbul. It also draws a compelling picture of Istanbul today and how
Turkey has forged ahead in the last decade. The film characterises its protagonists
with subtle humour, but never without respect. All of them share a passion for
music and the belief in its power. Akin again shows his talent to
portray diversity lightheartedly when he brings you close to completely different
musical scenes. After his award winning feature film "Gegen die Wand" (Head on)
Faith Akin proves with "Crossing the Bridge" that he is equally able to touch,
entertain and guide his audience in a documentary. If you have never been in
Istanbul, you will want to go there after having seen the film.
Crossing the Bridge: the Sound of Istanbul received one of the most rapturous
applause from the audience when it ended and very deservingly so. I did not expect
too much from a musical documentary but the movie proved to be much more than that.
It was also a visual documentary of Istanbul with stark contrasts of old and new,
western and eastern, poor and rich, modern and traditional. Black and white
photographs of old Istanbul by world famous Armenian photographer Ara Guler were
exceptional. But of course main theme was music, and by God, what a variety of it!
It was in a way similar to Bueno Vistas Social Club; the love and the respect of
the interviewer -Alexander Hacke here replacing Ray Cooder- for the musicians
exuded from the screen and engulfed us all. The music was mostly very interesting.
The jazz session by a group of Romany gypsies in a small Western Turkish town was
mind blowing. I will not be surprised if the travel agents start getting group
booking requests for Kesan after the movie is released. But I most loved Muzeyyen
Senar who looked amazingly elegant in a sort of burlesque way and whilst tipping
her "Raki" declared courageously: "My voice and I are 86 years old!" Well done
Faith Akin. I bet there are many more Turkish musicians who are feeling left out:
Go for Volume II please.
This is a movie about the music that is currently being played in Istanbul.
Istanbul was the center of the two Old World superpowers, the Byzantine Empire and
the Ottoman Empire. Today, it is a megalopolis of almost 10 million. So it is to no
ones surprise that a lot of music is being played in Istanbul, with a great variety
of voices, styles, and influences from everywhere on the globe. It is Turkish
music, of course, and I was fascinated by Turkish music ever since I bought my
first record long time ago. The movie features different singers, instrumentalists
and bands. Spoken comments from the musicians nicely illustrate the music being
played, and the social context in modern Turkey. For my perspective, the most
interesting comments were from Orhan Gencebay. Furthermore, the movies shows urban
scenery mainly from Istanbul which is very pleasant to watch. "Crossing
the Bridge" is listed as a documentary and it includes music from minorities, e.g.
Kurds and Roma. Other important topics are omitted such as Turkish jazz music, or
music of the Armenians and Greeks. This movie is strongly recommended
for lovers of the music and culture of Turkey, the Balkans, the Eastern
Mediterranean, and the Middle East. It may also be worthwhile for those with a keen
interest in the global effects of musical styles such as Rock and Roll or Hip Hop.
This event defined an era of wrestling entertainment that, I believe, is not
equaled today. The colorful characters - in their stereotypical garb - brought a
certain charm to the show that has since been raped by society and overexposed.
Wrestling had a bit of an innocence back then. A kid could watch it without
watching an episode of Jerry Springer. Looking back now (I was 5 at the
time), although I loved both Warrior and Hogan, I think I enjoyed Warrior more
because of his mystique. Hogan was the branded hero who weilded an impressive
public image. The Ultimate Warrior, on the other hand, was a masked man of few
words - an out-of-the-limelight hero for a different audience. This
rivalry was so exciting as a kid because of this duality in me duking it out for
each combatant. I had a place for both of them. Because there was bloodshed too in
this long, heavy battle, the stakes were high - at least to me as a kid. On a
similar note, because of Hogan's defeat, this made him more human - I remember
feeling kind of sorry for him. All of these emotions at play in the
juvenile boy's soap opera made Wrestlemania VI such a great time to witness this
game.
A rare lengthy Kinski feature role as Crazy Johnny sex crazed outlaw who is wanted
in San Francisco. Kinski's character is obsessed with raping women a sexual
predator in the old west who has nothing more but stealing, raping, and killing on
his mind. This movie maybe a major disappointment for many Spaghetti Western fans
but not for many Klaus Kisnki fans. Overall it had two things going for it a great
performance from Klaus Kinski and a great music score by Stelvio Cipriani. Another story line which needed much more work done to it to be impactive
but still fun to watch! It would be nice to see this movie redone in the
future. Since most old movies are being re-made nowadays.
Klaus Kinski popped up in a sizable number of spaghetti Westerns throughout the
60's and early 70's; he was usually cast in secondary parts as nasty villains.
Kooky Klaus lands himself a juicy lead role as Crazy Johnny Laster, a foul,
twitchy, and deranged sex maniac who comes up with a plan to abduct a lovely
heiress in order to obtain her considerable inheritance. Johnny and his gang become
wanted fugitives after the plan goes disastrously awry. Writer/director Mario Costa
ably crafts a sordidly compelling portrait of a severely sick and twisted piece of
sniveling low-life work: the plot unfolds at a steady pace, the tone is
appropriately gritty and serious, and the exciting action scenes are staged with
real skill and brio (the shoot-outs in rock quarries are especially gripping and
thrilling). Ironically dressed in white, oozing oily charisma from every rotten
pore, and jumping on beautiful women every chance he gets, Kinski's Johnny makes
for a fascinatingly creepy and monstrous brute. Kinski is simply spectacular as
this gloriously repellent character; he receives fine support from the luscious
Gabriella Giorgelli as sweet, fiery saloon girl Juanita, Steven Tedd as the cheery
Riccardo, Giovanni Pallavicino as ruthless band gang leader Machete, Giuliano
Raffaella as smart lawyer Gary Pinkerton, and Paolo Casella as Johnny's sensible
parter Glen. Kudos are also in order for Stelvio Cipriani's moody and spirited
score. Well worth seeing for Kinski fans.
"Buffalo Bill, Hero of the Far West" director Mario Costa's unsavory Spaghetti
western "The Beast" with Klaus Kinski could only have been produced in Europe.
Hollywood would never dared to have made a western about a sexual predator on the
prowl as the protagonist of a movie. Never mind that Kinski is ideally suited to
the role of 'Crazy' Johnny. He plays an individual entirely without sympathy who is
ironically dressed from head to toe in a white suit, pants, and hat. This low-
budget oater has nothing appetizing about it. The typically breathtaking Spanish
scenery around Almeria is nowhere in evidence. Instead, Costa and his director of
photography Luciano Trasatti, who shot another Kinski western "And God Said to
Cain," lensed this horse opera in rather mundane setting around Tor Caldara, Lazio,
Italy and Monte Gelato Falls, Treja River, Lazio, Italy. Nevertheless, "The Beast"
qualifies as a Continental western because it deals with wholly unscrupulous
characters and the action could be classified as film noir because the hero and
heroine are trapped by intolerable circumstances that compel them to resort to
criminal activities. Predictably, their well-laid plans backfire owing largely to
the Kinski character. Indeed, the licentious Kinski character resembles a Wily E.
Coyote type character. Consistently, he struggles to have sex with several
beautiful women but either lawmen or outlaws frustrate each of his efforts.
Ultimately, "The Beast" amounts to a tragic character study brimming with irony.
The Stelvio Cipriani orchestral score sounds as if it were lifted by the Tony
Anthony western "The Stranger Returns." The Mario Costa screenplay takes place on
the western frontier between San Diego and Mexico that is being terrorized by a
notorious Mexican bandit called Machete (Giovanni Pallavicino of "We Still Kill the
Old Way") and his gang. They prey on the stagecoach and nobody is safe from their
depredations. The first time that we see 'Crazy' Johnny Laster he pauses to refresh
himself at a stream and spots a gorgeous looking woman washing clothes. He creeps
up behind her and attacks her, but a bigger man armed with a rifle intervenes and
he has to flee. He shows up in a nearby town and a snuff-snorting gunslinger
recruits him to help ambush a wealthy man, Mr. Powers, on the trail and rob him.
They wind up killing him and getting no money. Mr. Snuff-sniffer accidentally
leaves his snuff box at the scene of the crime and the sheriff arrests on suspicion
of murder. 'Crazy' shoots his accomplice from his hotel room so that he doesn't
have to worry about being implicated in the crime. Meanwhile, a young
couple in love are having trouble making their way in the world. Riccardo (Steven
Tedd of "Requiem for a Bounty Killer") lives a Mexican couple on their ranch and
helps them raise their real son Juan. In the village, Riccardo's lovely girlfriend
Juanita (Gabriella Giorgelli of "Stranger in Sacramento") sings and dances in the
cantina. Riccardo and Juanita plan to marry, but the last place that Juanita wants
to settle down is on a dusty ranch. She dreams of living in the city, but life in
the city requires more money than either Riccardo or she has. They team up with a
blond outlaw name Glen (Paolo Casella of "Shoot the Living and Pray for the Dead")
and they plan to kidnap Mr. Power's daughter Nancy when she comes to get her
inheritance. Glen makes the fatal mistake of enlisting 'Crazy' Johnny to help them
because Glen knows that Johnny needs the money to get women. They abduct
Powers' daughter and keep her at a remote cabin with Johnny standing guard over
her. Meantime, Juanita masquerades as Powers' daughter and shows up in town to get
the money from Powers' attorney Gary Pinkerton (Giuliano Raffaelli of "Blood and
Black Lace"), but he grows suspicious because Juanita doesn't look anything like he
remembered Nancy. Riccardo brandishes his six-gun and warns Pinkerton that they
have kidnapped Nancy. Unfortunately for Riccardo and Juanita, Pinkerton can only
lay his hands on $50-thousand because Machete has struck such fear into the hearts
of everybody that the Powers' total inheritance cannot be shipped through the
territory by stagecoach. Meanwhile, back at the cabin, horny Johnny tries to rape
Nancy, but she outsmarts him, knows him out with a chair on the pretense of needing
to be alone while she undresses. After she knocks him unconscious, she steals a
buggy and drives it back to town. Johnny recovers, pursues her and murders her
about the same time that Glen, Riccardo, Juanita, and Pinkerton meet him on the
trail. They inform Johnny about the complications created by Machete's reign of
terror and give him $12-thousand as his cut of the money. Pinkerton is aghast at
the sight of Nancy's bloodstained corpse and threatens Johnny. Naturally, Johnny
guns him down in cold blood on the spot. Things really begin to
deteriorate as the law in San Diego sets out to capture Machete. Glen, Riccardo,
and Juanita return to Mexico while Johnny attacks two women at a ranch and narrowly
escapes getting caught. He rides to Mexico, finds a cantina whore and is going down
on her when a bounty shoves a revolver in his face. Johnny confesses that he knows
where they can find more money if they will release him. Machete's men follow up on
Johnny's tip and capture Juanita. The villagers join Riccardo to attack Machete and
Johnny rescues Juanita but she dies later on after a big shoot-out. Riccardo is
left standing alone now. Machete and his men retaliated against his step parents,
not only killing them but also little Juan. Everything that Riccardo and Juanita
dreamed up having goes up in clouds of gun smoke for an unhappy ending. 'Crazy'
Johnny dies and never gets to assuage his lust. If you think about Costa's
uncompromising sagebrusher, "The Beast" emerges as an interesting character study
and an exercise in film noir in a western setting where everybody is punished.
Lloyd Hamilton was one of the most imaginative (and among the funniest) of all the
silent-film comedians. Why is he utterly forgotten? Unfortunately, the original
negatives for a large percentage of his films were lost when the Fox warehouse
burnt in the early 1930s. Hamilton was not handsome or graceful like Chaplin,
Keaton and Lloyd; nor was he dapper, like Raymond Griffith. And unlike Harry
Langdon and (again) Chaplin, Hamilton did not try for audience sympathy. However, his films were hugely popular at the time of their original
release, and they remain hilarious today. Oscar Levant once claimed that he asked
Chaplin if there was any other comedian whom he'd ever envied, and Chaplin
instantly named Lloyd Hamilton. The character most frequently portrayed by Hamilton
on screen -- a flat-capped naff, with fastidious hand gestures and a duck-like walk
-- was later adapted by vaudeville comedian Eddie Garr (Teri Garr's father), and
further adapted by Jackie Gleason as his 1950s TV character 'The Poor Soul'. 'The Movies', directed pseudonymously by Roscoe Arbuckle, is one of
Hamilton's most innovative shorts, and it's hilarious. We first see him as a
country boy, bidding farewell to his family outside their homespun cottage, on his
way to the big city. Then he steps away from the cottage, and we see that it's IN
the big city, with traffic booming all round him! Eventually, our hero
ends up at a restaurant (uncredited, but it's the Montmartre Cafe in downtown L.A.)
where all the movie actors eat between takes. There's an amusing gag when
Hamilton's bumpkin character meets three actors in costume and makeup as Presidents
Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt: this gag would have been funnier if the
impostors looked more like the originals. Finally, our lad seats himself at a
table, hoping to meet a celebrity. Sure enough, entering the restaurant and sitting
at the very next table is a big movie star ... none other than Lloyd Hamilton!
There's a very well-made double-exposure shot -- the join is nearly invisible --
when Lloyd Hamilton as himself greets Lloyd Hamilton as the country boy. Sadly, Hamilton's peak period of creativity was very brief. He began his
film career in crude slapstick films as one half of a double act (Ham and Bud,
opposite Bud Duncan), and had a brief and blazing period of stardom in shorts
during the late silent period. Sound movies were not kind to Hamilton, and he was
quickly shoved down the cast list in some crude early talkies. Then he died young.
Fortunately, 'The Movies' is quite funny, and a splendid introduction to this
unique comedians' style. I'll rate it 7 out of 10.
Yes, I know, Roscoe Arbuckle didn't like to be called 'Fatty', but I couldn't
resist the joke. This is a fine Lloyd Hamilton short from his peak
period, directed by Roscoe. The two work together with lots of good gags and
Roscoe's usual attention to the details of shooting the picture in an interesting
manner. Most comedians preferred flat lighting and a still camera to make them more
interesting. Roscoe uses a couple of long tracking shots and some nice camera
trickery to tell his story and to show Ham as a fine actor, as well as a talented
comedian. This story plays with some interesting themes, like Lloyd's
classic MOVE ALONG: here it's about perceptions of reality and the confusion that
movies make of them. Or you might choose to ignore such issues and laugh your head
off.
When I saw this movie at age 6, it was in the CHILDRENS' section at Erols Video
because it was animation. We watched it and it was a whole different ball game! A
very violent story and graphic deaths are VERY entertaining and compelling, but not
for children. Avoid for family viewing, my mom nearly had a heart attack and ripped
the video apart!
This was a great anime. True the animation is old but its still worth watching and
has a better plot than Ninja Scroll, the problem that it was kinda long. Japanese movie star Hiroyuki Sanada who played Ujio from Last Samurai
played the main character Jiro and it was directed by Rintaro who did Galaxy
Express 999 and Metropolis. The anime has some good animation for an old
anime, interesting characters like the main villain Tenkai and Ando Shouzan and of
course lets not forget the beautiful musical scores in the film. All in
all this movie is worth watching for fans of anime, animation in general, action,
and Samurai/Ninja flicks. Despite the lows in the film that didn't the film from
being a great film to watch. Don't miss this film.
This is an excellent anime movie. It is well animated, has a good intricate plot
and very good music. I understand that some may think of it as a little long, but I
think that it is a good length and the animation is good traditional anime. THREE CHARACTERS: The way they use Tenkai is masterly. For
example the body double showing up at all these locations adds to the ominous tone
of the movie. The design of Tenkai is good too, the way he looks as a monk and in
the end scene the armour he is wearing. The old man Andou is down to
earth and a very likable character. When Jiro meets him it's a turning point in the
movie. Sanpei, the Satsuma Shinobi who infiltrated Tenkais clan saves
Jiros life twice. He stays in the background most of the movie though, but he is
really one of the heroes of the movie. THE PLOT: The plot is good. It is
traditional without being unoriginal. The historical time it is acted out in is
interesting, The meiji restoration. The treasure is sought after by Tenkai to
restore the shogunate while when Jiro finds it he uses it to help the anti-
shogunate forces overthrow the shogunate. The way Tenkai tricks Jiro is
interesting and has sort of a "Hamlet" feel to it. There is also a sweet irony to
the fact that if Tenkai had not gotten Jiro to become a shinobi I don't think that
he had been able to kill him in the end(Maybe by firearm, but not hand to hand
combat weapons). The plot with all the death makes it mostly very dark,
but there's some light moments when we see some of Jiros childhood memories. All in
all it's a good, dark, intricate plot. THE MUSIC: The opening theme for
example is very good with the electric guitar and drums. They occasionally in that
piece use what I believe to be taiko drums, but i'm not sure. There is a
lot of good music. Like the one played while they are traveling to the Iga shinobi.
I believe the piece is called "Numatou" and has an incredible flute in it. The
flute might be a pan flute, but more probably a shakuhachi. The end
theme "Kamui no komoriuta" is calm and delicate. The vocals are beautiful and so is
the song in general. THE ANIMATION: The animation, while
good, is not perfect and the blood that runs down the characters do sometimes
appear to be orange. The transitions are interesting and I think some transitions
are very nice. One example of a nice transition is when Jiro and the Iga shinobi
are running, there is the sunset in the background and the music is playing. The
transition is simple, but effective and has a nice feeling too it. MY
FINAL WORDS: I think that the plot, the animation, the music and the characters
make this into one of the best anime movies I have ever seen.
I enjoyed this for a couple of reasons. The emotional tangle was at times confusing
and imperfectly resolved, but the blend of newsreel footage with the film's
narrative was often compelling. The other element that I appreciated was the
depiction of the Werewolves, the fanatical Nazis who continued the fight after the
formal surrender. I don't know of another film that deals with them. They
assassinated Burgomaster Oppenhoff of Aachen on Palm Sunday, 1945, for example, and
did create problems for the occupation. The film, then, challenges the sanitized
version of victory and occupation with some gritty realities. The "human issues"
are presented not so much through the characters here, but through the historical
reality that was gripping those who had survived Hitler -- both conquered and
victors.
Samuel Fuller knows war, and is one of the only directors in American movie history
who could accurately portray the horrific experiences of it in a form like the
motion picture. His pessimism and idealism, if that sounds a little odd to mix
together, work for him as a storyteller, and at the same time he's always out to
tell the truth, however brutal (or put into melodramatic constructs) it can get.
Verboten, however, deals with the post-war experience, as we only get in the
opening scenes the big boom of WAR- in bold for a point. The opening shot is like
one big exclamation point that seems to continue on into the rest of the scenes: a
dead soldier on the ground, the camera pans up, we see another soldier shot down in
war-torn terrain. Simple, direct language. Then Fuller punctuates the intensity
with something interesting: the title song played over the opening credits as both
irony and sincerity, and then Beethoven music over a shoot-out between Americans
and the Nazis. Sgt David Brent (James Best) is shot, the battle goes on, and then
it transitions to him being treated for his wounds. It might lead one to
believe that this will be a somewhat conventional WW2 flick (somewhat in that one
usually wouldn't find Beethoven and, later on to an extent, Wagner put into these
images), but this isn't the case. Instead, Fuller makes this a 'Coming Home' kind
of movie, though not at all in the sense that 'this soldier comes home injured and
so on and so on'. Instead of really going home, Brent stays on in Germany, as he's
fallen head over heels for the woman, Helga (Susan Cummings, pretty good at pulling
off the German accent), and wants to work in a smaller capacity in the military so
he can marry her. What he doesn't realize is that a) she wants him more for money
so she can get food for herself and brother, however this gets complex emotionally
at the point of revelation to the slightly naive but heartfelt Brent, and b)
there's an underground Hitler youth sect called the Werewolves, who want to pick
right up off where Hitler ended- starting small, despite argument within the group-
by attacking the very government that's now embedded in Germany to give them, as
Brent describes, a "blood transfusion." With this, plus footage from the Nuremburg
trials, and (as narrated, I think, by Fuller himself) a quick, no-punches-pulled
history of the Nazi war crimes piece by piece, we get a multi-faceted look at a
society in the dire straits of an immediate post-war environment. While Rossellini
handled it his own way with Germany Year Zero, Fuller tackles it with layers: first
there's the love story, or what is the tragic downfall of a man who can't see
anything past what he thinks should be reasonable, that it's his wife and a child
on the way that he can't leave, until the revelation that he's (partly) been
swindled. Baker and Cummings, along with Harold Daye as Helga's young, confused
brother, perform at with the utmost detail to emotions; these aren't very easy B-
movie parts, though they could've been that. Then another layer is the political
one, the struggle of a society to come to grips with being conquered, and a
mentality which is made sensationalized, to be sure, by Fuller, in respect to
making the Nazi's a total no-gray-area thing: they're evil, particularly when they
cancel out reason to meet their ends. And finally there's the layer of
style, which is strangely absorbing. This is probably one of Fuller's 'talkiest'
films, which isn't a bad thing considering it's one of his best written scripts, as
the characters don't talk simply or in too many platitudes (with the exception of a
small scene where two characters talk about the Hitler youth as juvenile
delinquents, which is actually, according to Fuller's autobiography, probably
another layer to consider in the subtext and the 50s period of movies). And Fuller
shoots this almost in a real European style, when he's not going for fight scenes
or battles, as the editing isn't always very fast, and sometimes a cut won't happen
for a full minute, or longer. There's an odd tension that grows out of this,
especially when there's something said by a character that gets another one wild-
eyed or suspicious; Fuller could easily go for a big close-up, but there's a more
sinister, cold quality to not moving away from two people in a conversation without
a simple over-the-shoulder deal. But when it requires it, like the big brawl
outside the American military office, or the Nuremburg footage spliced into Franz's
memories of the Werewolves, Fuller can be as stunning stylist as ever. Very hard to find, but extremely worth it if you'r either a fan of the director's
or of WW2 movies set in Germany- or even just a history-buff- Verboten! is an
intellectual experience and a strong emotional one, with a cast that is better than
expected from a B-movie, and an attitude towards the 'other' that is equally
damning and thought provoking.
In the 1980s in wrestling the world was simple. Hulk Hogan would take on Roddy
Piper, or Bobby Heenan's cronies or Ted DiBiase and come out victorious more often
than not. Occasionally he would get an ally like Randy Savage in 1988, but mostly
it was all about Hulk Hogan vs Bobby Heenan, and that's the way it should be. But on this night that was about to change, a new champion, a man who the
WWE thought would be their man for the 90s was crowned. It didn't work out. But the
WWE was right about one thing: Hulkamania was finished and a new order needed to be
established. This historic Wrestlemania, the first to be held outside
America, kicked off with Rick Martel defeating Koko B Ware. Koko never really had a
lot of luck at Wrestlemania and was taken down in short order here. Next
up the Colossal Connection Andre the Giant and Haku put their tag team titles on
the line against Demolition Ax and Smash and lost. New tag team champions
crowned. Next match saw Earthquake defeat Hercules. Hercules was another
fellow who didn't really have a lot of luck at Wrestlemania. Plenty of luck for
Brutus Beefcake as he ended Mr Perfect's undefeated streak. Well, I guess someone
had to end it. Roddy Piper and Bad News Brown fought to a double count
out in a slow but fun match, next up the Hart Foundation defeated Nikolai Volkov
and Boris Zhukov in 19 seconds. Not really a match, unfortunately. The Barbarian
then defeated Tito Santana in a short match. The American Dream Dusty
Rhodes and Saphire then defeated the Macho King Randy Savage and Queen Sherri in a
messy mixed tag match. This was the only female wrestling really going on in the
WWE at this point of time. Next up was a fun match as the Rockers Marty
Janetty and Shawn Micheals defeated The Orient Express in a fast paced encounter.
There were a lot of good tag teams at this point in time. Jim Duggan then beat Dino
Bravo in a nothing match. Next Ted DiBiase put his most cherished
possession, the Million Dollar Championship on the line against Jake Roberts.
Roberts was distracted by Virgil and counted out allowing Ted to retain his title
in an entertaining match and one of the longer matches on the show. Next
up the Twin Towers collide as the Big Bossman defeats Akeem in short order, this is
followed by Rick Rude winning a short match with Jimmy Snuka. Finally we
come to the main event with Hulk Hogan putting the WWE Title on the line against
Intercontinental Champion The Ultimate Warrior. This is an entertaining back and
forth match won by the Warrior after Hogan missed a leg drop. The crowd was
extraordinary and the match was a great spectacle. And so the torch was
passed, but would the Ultimate Warrior prove to be the Champion the WWE hoped he
would be?
One of Fuller's (a combat veteran himself) early works of average quality, but
accurately hits on the many conflicting aspects of life in postwar Germany. The
main character starts the movie in Apr'45 as a Sgt with C Co, 157th Inf, 45th Div,
which really did end the war in Munich as in the movie. (Same unit in the previous
month had fought heavily in Aschaffenburg and then liberated part of the Dachau
facility). To the uninformed the movie may seem confusing by flip flopping between
showing the good & bad of the german people. But anyone who has been there or at
least well read on it would know that most of what is portrayed in the movie are
things that really did happen in 45-47 Germany. The only inaccuracy I noticed was
minor: while on a boat cruise of the Rhine passing the remains of the Remagen
bridge he comments he crossed there. But his unit really crossed well south of
there - north of Worms Germany.
Great film about an American G.I. who quits the army to marry a German girl who
saved his life in the last days of the war. She accepts, but does she do it because
she really likes him, or because he can support her with easier access to food and
such? Meanwhile, her brother and an old friend form an anti-American terrorist
group called the Werewolves, their purpose to drive away the occupants (you might
remember the same group playing a major part in Lars von Trier's film Europa
(Zentropa)). James Best, best known for his role as Roscoe P. Coltrane in the 1980s
television show The Dukes of Hazzard, is shockingly excellent as the American. He
should have become a big movie star at this age he reminds me very much of Warren
Beatty. The other main actors are good, as well. Fuller's direction is quite good,
using a lot of long takes again (although they are not nearly as complex as they
were in Park Row; the long takes more often than not consist of long scenes with a
lot of dialogue). The only problems lie in the script, as seems to be the case with
all of the Fuller films that I've seen. It's not too badly flawed, but it ought to
have been expanded, fleshing out major characters and parts of the script. Helga,
the wife, goes through a major change, but completely off screen. Therefore, the
emotional center rests squarely on Best's shoulders. Fuller also should have killed
off the sick mother early in the film. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh! She
just doesn't really do anything throughout the film except lie in bed. She has so
few lines. But Fuller keeps bringing her up as the film goes on. I would have had
her death solidify David and Helga's relationship myself. And the film ends too
abruptly, and it lacks payoff. These aren't really the biggest flaws in the world
(the way I described them makes them sound bigger than they are). 9/10.
Just got this in the mail and I was positively surprised. As a big fan of 70's
cinema it doesn't take much to satisfy me when it comes to these kind of flicks.
Despite the obvious low budget on this movie, the acting is overall good and you
can already see why Pesci was to become on of the greatest actors ever. I'm not
sure how authentic this movie is, but it sure is a good contribution to the mob
genre.....
I don't know if it's fair for me to review this. I'm not a fan of gratuitous
violence. I've never understood the movie industry making heroes out of mob members
and cold blooded killers. When The Godfather came out, I thought they had broken
the mold, but the decades have produced a series of well-acted mob movies with
major stars and directors doing them. This one is obviously low-budget, but it is
certainly well done. At some point in all of these I feel like I want to take a
shower. If such characters actually exist, it is hard for the soul. I always
intellectualize that humankind will rise above this sort of thing. This kind of
crud has to be stopped. I hope the people that go to films like this are more
voyeuristic and less vicarious. I feel sort of the same way about slasher movies.
Why do we have a fascination with death and dismemberment? In fairness, I am
judging this on the acting and directing, and for what it is, it seems to work
pretty well.
First off let me say that this is probably in my opinion one of the 10 most
underrated movies since this came out in 72. I absolutely loved this movie, it's
very urban, gritty, no real Hollywood glam added to it.. you can actually feel for
all of the characters in here, i love the blood just splattering abound in here.
Joe Pesci was pretty good in here, but to me it seems like he was definitely
outdone by the lead character Joe Cortese, now i don't know anything about him ,
but boy can he really act.. I believe this movie is probably true, because living
in New Jersey,, living close to Philly, you here this kinda thing all the time. i
think that if the movie had a bigger budget , and say Robert deniro as jerry's boss
you would have a perfect movie, but hey who am i to argue, i was so engrossed by
this film, that it is already up there in my mind, with Mean Streets. I wish
Hollywood would go back to this urbanized, gritty display of movie making: it would
serve them very well to do so. this movie is a great drama with great actors in it.
and i highly recommend it to anyone.
Out of all the Mafia movies i have ever seen this is one of the best for many
reasons. The acting from Pesci, Cortese and Vincent. The story is one of the best
ever (In the mafia genre), as it realistic. The characters are people that lots of
other people can relate to. This movie is also great as it's dialogue is good. It
also has very realistic fights and action scenes. This movie also launched the
careers of Pesci and Vincent. If it weren't for the success of this film, Casino
and Goodfellas might not have been as good as they were. Story 10/10
Acting 9/10 Realism 10/10 OVERALL 10/10 My fave Mafia movies
are 1: Goodfellas 2: Casino 3: The Godfather Trilogy 4: Family Enforcer
(The Death Collector) 5: The Sopranos (I know it isn't a movie)
a very surprisingly underrated movie. very realistic. and authentic .with great
Dialogue. being Italian, i can definitely relate to the situations and phrases
used. I thought Joe Cortese was great. as a crazy mob cowboy type, and pesci and
Vincent were great also. I liked the actor Criscuolo who played the boss. He was
very authentic. i think the director Ralph devito was on his way to great things ,
but was cut down too early , maybe because he knew too much. i thought it was
great. it deserved more airplay and recognition. it was a sleeper movie. great.
very good. it really had good authenticity. it was well done.
THE DEATH COLLECTOR is truly a wonderful film. Labeled as a MEAN STREETS ripoff, it
has some really great stuff in it. A lot of the stuff in this movie would later be
used by Scorsese himself, including the actors - Joe Pesci, Frank Vincent, etc.
A very accurate depiction of small time mob life filmed in New Jersey. The story,
characters and script are believable but the acting drops the ball. Still, it's
worth watching, especially for the strong images, some still with me even though I
first viewed this 25 years ago. A young hood steps up and starts doing
bigger things (tries to) but these things keep going wrong, leading the local boss
to suspect that his end is being skimmed off, not a good place to be if you enjoy
your health, or life. This is the film that introduced Joe Pesce to
Martin Scorsese. Also present is that perennial screen wise guy, Frank Vincent.
Strong on characterizations and visuals. Sound muddled and much of the acting is
amateurish, but a great story.
"Let me ask you one more question" Ha ! what a great soon .. this movie was
brilliant fantastic acting, great script. The only reason no-one noticed it was
because of the low budget everyone will agree with me that its a cult just like
"Donnie Brasco" it shows a young Joe Pesci once again as a mobster, this film is up
their with the cults. its got some sopranos and some goodfellas chase got his idea
for the sopranos when he watched this and Scorsese found Joe Pesci while watching
it, that proves it must be a great am i right or am i wrong 'eh ?. I've got to
admit they showed one brilliant scene where they were throwing peanuts at a camp
piano player "Stop with the friggen peanuts".
WrestleMania 6 took place April 1, 1990 at the SkyDome in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. Match 1: Rick Martel vs. Koko B. Ware - For what it was, a very
solid opening match. Koko was always fairly popular with the fans, and at this
point Martel was still getting over as a heel talent. In the end Martel is able to
snag the win in a pretty non memorable match. Match 2: The Colossal
Connection (Andre The Giant & Haku) (c) (with Bobby 'The Brain' Heenan) vs
Demolition (Ax & Smash) for the WWF Tag Team Championship - At this point Andre's
health was really awful, so his performance was really nothing special. The crowd
is 100% pro Demolition in this match. In the end Haku is pinned and we have New Tag
Team Champions. After the match Andre lays out Haku and Heenan and turns face at
what would turn out to be his last WrestleMania. Match 3: Earthquack vs
Hercules - Very short match. Big dominant heels were really a popular thing at the
time. R.I.P. to both men in the match. John Tenta (Earthquake) passed not that long
ago and same with Hercules. In the end Earthquake pins Hercules for the win. Match 4: Mr. Perfect vs Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake - The first really
good match of the night. R.I.P. to Curt Henning (Mr. Perfect). Really solid back
and forth action from both of these talented guys. In the end Brutus gets the win
thanks to a lot of his major fan support during the match. Match 5:
'Rowdy' Roddy Piper vs Bad News Brown - Not a technical classic, but a pretty
decent brawl for WrestleMania. Piper comes out half black/half white in what is
considerably a classic moment. In the end both guys fight to a double count out
with no clear cut winner. Match 6: The Hart Foundation vs The Bolsheviks
- Complete squash match. The Hart Foundation gets an easy win. Surprising that WWE
used to have a tag team division. Match 7: The Barbarian vs Tito Santana
- Bobby Heenan's "Heenan Family" fairs better in this match as The Barbarian takes
the win against Tito Santana. Not memorable, but good to go back and watch years
later. Match 8: Randy Savage & Sensational Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes &
Sapphire - Big inter-gender tag team match. Dusty Rhodes wears the uncomfortable
polka dot outfit out to the ring. In the end Rhodes and Sapphire get the win over
"The Macho King" and Sensational Queen Sherri. Match 9: The Rockers vs
The Orient Express - Surprisingly another tag team match. Tag wrestling used to be
so much better during this time period. A young Shawn Michaels and his partner
Marty Jannetty take a loss by count out in this match to the Orient Express. Match 10: Dino Bravo vs Jim Duggan - Duggan gets a decent reaction, despite
his American Patriot gimmick. Bravo, a member of Jimmy Hart's group, comes to the
ring with Hart and Earthquake. Although he has support, Duggan takes the win. Match 11: "The Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase (c) vs Jake 'The Snake'
Roberts for the Million Dollar Championship - The first major main event of the
night. Roberts was extremely over with the fans. Match was considerably good for
what it was. DiBiase is able to pick up a count out win on Roberts. But Roberts
ends up possessing DiBiase's money and giving it away. Match 12: The Big
Boss Man vs Akeem (with Slick) - One Man Gang's sad attempt at being an African
Dream named Akeem. A really short match that needed some more time to develop
itself as a match. Boss Man wins with a slam. Match 13: Jimmy "Superfly"
Snuka vs Rick Rude - Heenan comes to the ring with Rude for this match. Snuka,
never really got it good at WrestleMania. He always seemed to be on the losing end.
After a short 5 minutes, Rude gets the win over Snuka. Match 14: WWF
Champion Hulk Hogan vs Intercontinental Champion The Ultimate Warrior - Dubbed as
"The Ultimate Challenge" we get some interesting promos from both men earlier in
the night. The match was actually very good, given that people tend to think Hogan
can't wrestle. A lot of near falls that really got the crowd and people that watch
at home into it. In the end Warrior gets the win on Hogan and wins both titles. A
stunned crowd looks on as Hulk Hogan suffers his first loss at WrestleMania.
It was an interesting and entertaining movie well worth watching. The acting was
decent but it may be out of date for some people. I was glad to see cast members of
such highly acclaimed movies as "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" in this movie A
great and dramatic ending and pretty good writing.
I agree with Vince, this movie paved the way for Goodfellas. The scene where Pesci
was throwing peanuts at the piano player reminded me of his "How am I funny?"
routine in Goodfellas. This is a highly underrated film and deserves some
attention. As with many other mob films, the theme of The Death Collector rings
true: Always respect the Don.
Surprisingly good "Mean Streets"-type crime drama. Foreshadows elements of
"Goodfellas" and "Casino". Joe Pesci's first big role. Clever dialog. I think the
Maltin guide gives this a bomb rating. I can only guess no one actually bothered to
watch it. Saw this at Tarantino's film fest and he said Scorsese used a
number of these actors in Raging Bull.
I saw a version of this in a 4 DVD Mafia collection put out by Brentwood and I have
to admit that it was a good film. The quality was a little worse for the wear, but
it was a well acted and realistic drama involving low level New Jersey gangsters.
Pesci once again though, steels the show!
Has anyone ever read or heard comments by Scorsese or David Chase ( Soprano's Exec.
Producer) about "Death Collector/Family Enforcer"? I bought the DVD after not
having seen it for a while on cable (like 20 years), but having seen "Goodfellas"
and the entire "Sopranos" run to date. In retrospect, both guys must have seen
Death Collector/Family Enforcer and absorbed the flavor ,perhaps inspiring the tone
for their masterworks, both of which the polar opposite of the romanticized
Godfather trilogy. Being a Jersey guy, it is interesting to see how the Jersey
meadowlands have evolved since the mid-70's. It is not the swampy dumping ground it
used to be although once in a while a body will turn up in a local waterway. Also,
it's a little bittersweet to seen a newly constructed World Trade Center in the
across the river in the opening and closing scene. Who could have imagined?
So ya think you've seen every Mafia movie ever made! Here's one that nobody every
heard of. It's a low-budget, quickie B-movie - shot in the swamps of Jersey. For us
mob-movie fans, it had a little bit of everything - sex, violence, cursing, and
wise guys acting like "gafones". While violence dominated the movie, I found myself
laughing at some familiar scenes I've since seen on The Sopranos and Goodfellas.
Look for a 1977 version of the "Badabing Girls" in the beginning of the movie.
 All our favorite mobster stereotypes were featured here. And, as for
realism, "fugettaboutit"! Joe Pesci was superb, portraying the classic wise-guy
character like we seen him do so many times over the years. This was probably his
first shot, and it was a gem. Pesci fans should run to the video store to check out
this flick. You have to look carefully for it since it goes by different names. My
copy called it "The Family Enforcer". Here it is known as "The Death Collector".
But whatever name it goes under, it's should be called - A Winner.
 Very good 1970s movie about mob operations in New Jersey. When a
"maverick" gangster doesn't play by the rules of the neighborhood, sooner or later,
it's time for elimination. Joe Pesci was true to his character -- smooth
and funny. He only gets better with age. His face and present day fame should not
have been used on the DVD cover to sell this "B" grade movie as he was only the
third billed star. Dated 1970's printed wide lapel shirts and lesser
quality background music make for a distraction. Nice to see the 1970's big cars.
 However, the acting is good. Nakedness on the part of Anne
Johns was not needed to make this mob story work. And, she does not show up in the
database as every acting again in any film other than this one. Too bad; she did a
good job! Moral of the story: Don't get your "Don" upset with you. If you are wanting to see something different when you wake up in the
middle of the night then check out this DVD. It was part of a three-movie-on-one
DVD $5.88 special at the local discount store. 
Not a bad MOW. I was expecting another film based on womens issues but was
pleasantly surprised at the element of suspense. Sure, parts of the plot were
pretty hokey but for the most part the movie kept me guessing. Was the nut bar
connected with the ex husband, somebody in the tavern or was it the guy (person)
that she cut off? Daniel Magder was excellent. I've seen him in Mom's on Strike and
in Guilt by Association, both MOW's and he is very creditable, especially the way
he challenges his mother the way a preteen would typically act. Laura
Leighton also played the typical mother (ex-wife) that both men and women can
relate to. She was frustrated enough to seem real. See it if you missed
it. It's worthwhile.
Pulling in 2.6 million viewers, one has to wonder what everyone's opinions on the
storyline/plot is. Reading the run down over at lifetime, I was led to
believe that this would be an edge-of-your-seat thriller about a single mother
being stalked and finally confronting the stalker. Sadly I was mistaken. While the
main plot is interesting enough - Single mother run off road one night, then is
stalked by same guy, the reasoning behind the stalking left nothing but a really
bad taste in my mouth. Laura Leighton plays the victim, and she does it
well. Whether it was all those years on Melrose Place or not, she does well in this
movie, playing a mother who would do anything to protect her son from harm, and
she's looking pretty good too these days. Leighton is really the only
good thing about this movie. I think many people will identify with the main
character, after discovering why the stalker is stalking, it will be a view-only-
once type of movie.
I agree with all the strenghts mentioned in the other reviews but there are some
beats missing here that keep it firmly inside the genre of crime drama or film noir
and limit it from being a great drama beyond the limits of the "elements" that make
up film noir--not to say that the great film noirs aren't/can't/shouldn't be also
great dramas, but this one isn't. One other note the music in the film
is used sparingly but I would say is used to accentuate the action more frequently
than the wife elements. Great set up to this film by the way with an
abrupt sort of non ending ending that is either just right or a let down
depends. Spoilers follow as to some specifics. The big turn
in the story involves the children seeing their mother die, or it should be the big
moment. But the children are never shown to react one way or the other. Neither
cries, neither asks their father what happened, the kids are good actors and the
reactions of the father are I suppose what matters but this is a big misstep. This
is the heart of the story and the kids are kept mostly blank in their reaction.
They really just have none, in the next scene they look as if nothing
happened. In like fashion there is a bond that forms between Belmondo
and Ventura's characters. Belmondo says he knew the partner who was killed--but
this is never explained and has no impact dramatically on Belmondo or anyone else.
The Belmondo romantic subplot also strains credibility though it's convincingly
acted. Ventura's character just lets Belmondo involve a total stranger in their
escape plan for no reason. He doesn't even comment or seem to notice. Another
gap. The ending to the movie, and I won't spoil it, the ending happens
off screen with a perfunctory voice over to tell you what happened. I guess this
tries to make it feel more true to life, but again like these other missteps leaves
drama off screen. What's the point of not dealing with these issues? I
don't know, other than maybe the goals of the film were limited to giving the
audience what it wants from a crime melodrama--suggest some deeper elements, then
move on to ignore them. Too bad there is much to recommend this film,
Ventura is very very good, but too bad it could have been a great drama as well as
a crime story--as with IMDb favorite movie of all time THE GODFATHER. This film had
potential. Would make for a good remake though if done in the U.S. more problems
would probably sink the film, but in the hands of the right director this would be
a good remake,though it's doubtful Ventura's performance could be topped. So worth seeing but frustrating as a whole
Wrestlemania 6, is an entertaining Wrestlemania, if not an entirely successful one.
The Ultimate Challenge, is of course worth the price of admission alone, but once
again as with a lot of the early Mania's, there's too much filler in between. The
crowd pops for almost everything, and as always, giving us the reliable announcing
team of Gorilla&The Body. Having a Face vs Face match as the main event for a
Wrestlemania, was absolutely unheard of at this time, it only made things that much
more tense. Matches. Koko B. Ware/W Frankie Vs "The Model"
Rick Martel. For a 3 or so minute match, this is as good as it gets. I wish it was
a tad longer, but what I got, was pretty damn good. Martel wins, with the Boston
Crab. 2 1/2 /5 WWF Tag Team Championship. Demolition Vs
Colossal Connection|C|/W Bobby Heean. HUGE Pop for Demolition. Match itself is
pretty dull, I often had trouble paying attention. Andre really didn't do much, so
in a way it was more like a 2 on 1. There is solid talent involved here, and it's a
shame they couldn't produce better. Demolition wins that titles, with there
Pattened maneuver off the top. Crowd blows the roof of for the finish. 1
1/2 /5 Earthquake/W Jimmy Hart. Vs Hercules I got what I expected here,
a standard boring filler match, with Earthquake doing his thing. I'm not really a
fan of either, so It didn't perk my interest much. Quake wins with his sit down
splash. 1/5 Brutus Beefcake Vs Mr.Pefect/W The Genius.
Deafening pop for Bruti. Really good match up, with sadly not enough time given to
develop even further. It really kept my interest, and remains one of my favorites
on the card. Beefcake wins with a slingshot to the post, much to the crowd's
approval. 3/5 Roddy Piper Vs Bad News Brown. HUGE pop for
Piper. Nothing more than a boring brawl, that does not know what it wants to be.
Some entertaining antics from The Hot Rod, but nothing else. Noteworthy for Roddy
painting himself half black, and calling himself "Hot Scott" 1/5 The Hart Foundation Vs The Bolsheviks. Record breaking, but other than
that, nothing to see here. Harts win with, The Hart Attack. 0/5 The Barbarian/W Bobby Heenan. Vs Tito Santana. Average for the time it got, but
watchable nonetheless. Crowd was rather dead for it, except for Heenan's
interference. Jessie's hilarious cracks, about Tito's food is more entertaining,
then the match itself. Barbarian wins with a nasty looking, flying clothesline off
the top. 2/5 Mixed Tag Match. Dusty&Sapphire/W Elizabeth. Vs
Macho King&Sherri. Big pop for Dusty, and an even bigger one for Elizabeth, who
looks absolutely stunning, might I add. I thought it was OK. It was lively at
least, if nothing that great. I'm not a fan of Dusty' so. Dusty and Sapphire win,
when She rolls up Sherri. 2/5 The Orient Express/W Fuji. Vs
The Rockers. Crowd is rather anemic for this, surprisingly. Decent no doubt, but
with these guys involved, it should have been better. The constant focus with Fuji,
kinda detracts from the match. Express wins by count out, when Janetty gets nailed
with salt. 2 1/2 /5 Jim Duggan Vs Dino Bravo/W
Earthquake&Jimmy Hart. Duggan like an idiot, brings out The American flag in
Canada. Duggan gets some solid boo's for it too, but that also may be due to
Bravo's Canadian heritage. Crappy match all around, I don't care for Duggan, but
that's not why it sucked. Too short in the end, to really matter. Duggan wins when
he whacks Bravo in the back, with the two by four. Duggan gets splashed for his
troubles. 0/5 Million Dollar Championship. Ted Dibiase|C|/W
Virgil. Vs Jake Robers/W Damien. Some slow spots, but when all was said and done, I
had a good time. Two solid wrestlers giving it there all, resulted in an
entertaining match up. Crowd noticeably gets Ancy during parts of it though, by
doing the wave. Dibiase wins by count out. Jake has the last laugh, by giving away
some of his money, much to the crowd's delight. 3/5 Big
Bossman Vs Akeem/W Slick. Nice pop for The Bossman. Too routine, and too short to
really mean anything, in the end. Akeem was a gimmick, I was never too fond of.
Bossman wins with his slam. 0/5 The Rhythm&Blues segment was
pretty much a failure. Crowd wasn't into it Rick Rude/W Bobby Heenan. Vs
Jimmy Snuka. For a filler match, before the main event, this wasn't too bad. If it
had time to get going more, it would have been excellent, for sure. Rude wins, with
the Rude Awakening. 2/5 Title For Title. Ultimate Warrior|IC
Champ| Vs Hulk Hogan|WWF Champ| This one is all about the atmosphere from the
crowd, and the split crowd reaction, for the most part. Warrior got a pretty decent
pop, but in my opinion it was a little underwhelming. Hogan dwarfs it
completely,with his. It's one of Wrestlemania's best matches in history. With two
people, who aren't really known for there wrestling, they managed to create an
amazing match up that was talked about for ages. I have seen this many times, and
my respect level grows higher for each one, for their effort, considering i'm not a
fan of either. Even die-hard fanatics who crave pure wrestling, can't bitch about
this one!. Warrior wins with his splash. 5/5 Bottom line.
Wrestlemania 6 is an entertaining entry, if nothing overly special. It's memorable
for the main event, the location, and the crowd, but it's not one of the best if
you ask me. That being said I do enjoy it, and I give it my recommendation to
fellow wrestling fans. 7/10
This is a Black and White film from France, Simple plot, gangster on the
run seeking & getting help etc. We have seen this type film many times over the
years. What makes this film different are mainly its acting & style. All the actors
perform quietly,No one yells & hardly anyone loses his temper. There are quite a
few deaths, some surprising. There are beautiful women as well, but no sex scenes.
No car chases either. JUST talking/ It is so refreshing to listen to
people talk, & here we must read subtitles as well. The acting is near
perfect by all. especially the lead played by Lino Ventura & in a
smaller BUT vital role Jean Paul Belmondo. These 2 actors were among the
best. I said above the film is flawed, There are a few script
deficiencies in few spots, They are minor,The acting is the thing in this movie.
Production is first rate as well. Ratings: *** (out of 4) 88 points (out
of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)
Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is a French gangster movie that doesn't try for
style. That's why it has style. Because the movie is so underplayed and so matter-
of-fact, it becomes more and more involving. And because Abel Davos is played by
Lino Ventura, we wind up emotionally invested in this taciturn, tough killer who
loves his wife and kids, has an encounter with customs agents on the shore near
Nice at night that neither he nor we expect, and who proves just as willing to
shoot a cop or a betrayer with as little emotion as flicking off a bit of lint. We
first meet Davos in Italy with his wife and their two small boys, one about 9 and
one 4. "This man was Abel Davos, sentenced to death in absentia," we're
told. "On the run for years, he had watched his resources dwindle, even as his
anxiety kept him on the move. With the Italian police closing in each day, France
was again his best bet. Maybe he'd been forgotten." Davos was a top
gangster in Paris who took care of his friends. That was several years ago. A heist
to give him money to return to France goes very wrong. Now he's hiding out with his
two kids. He calls his friends in Paris to help him out. He and his kids need to
get from Nice to Paris but the police are hunting him and they've set up
roadblocks. For Davos' two best friends, time has passed and they've moved on. They
don't want to put themselves at risk, and for what? Obligation gives may to
caution. So they hire a young thief, Eric Stark (Jean- Paul Belmondo), to pick up
Davos and the children in an ambulance, then to drive to Paris with Davos heavily
bandaged and the children hidden. We're on a journey where Davos' options are
increasingly limited, where he must find ways to have his children cared for, where
he realizes there are no more ties of friendship, where betrayal seems likely, and
where quite possibly his only friend left is Eric Stark. This somewhat
cynical movie works so well because it does its job without fussing about. There
are no trench coats with pulled-up collars, no toying with the melodrama of the
gangster code so many French directors have loved. Classe tous Risques gives us
Abel Davos, a man who once was somebody, who now is sliding down to be nobody, and
who reacts with violence and resignation. Lino Ventura dominates the
movie, yet when he is paired with Jean-Paul Belmondo a curious chemistry happens.
Ventura as Davos is grim and worried about caring for his sons. He is humiliated by
his situation. He is a tough man who sees killing someone, if needed, as just part
of the business he's in. Belmondo as the young thief who initially is sent to be an
expendable driver and winds up being a friend to count on, provides the brightness
that keeps the movie from being just one more ride down the elevator. Belmondo was
27 and looks younger. His unlikely star power as a lead actor -- broken nose,
under-slung jaw -- shines right off the screen. He makes Erik a match for Ventura
when they share a scene. And Belmondo's scenes with Liliane (Sandra Milo), the
young woman who becomes his girl friend, radiate charm and good-natured sex appeal.
The ending is bittersweet fate, and without a stylistic posture in sight. We hear
Davos say, "Abel's gone. There's nothing left." It would be well worth watching
Classe tous Risques to learn what he means. There are many fine French
gangster films. I'd place this one right there with Touchez Pas au Grisbi and Bob
le Flambeur. To see one of Lino Ventura's finest performances, watch Army of
Shadows.
I've only seen about a half dozen films starring Lino Ventura, but this one seems
very much like the others. He plays a laconic criminal--one who is short on words
and subdued yet occasionally explosive. Given his quiet persona in such films as
ARMY OF SHADOWS and SECOND BREATH, I've noticed that his minimalist style of acting
is extremely effective. In other words, because he is so quiet and mannered, when
he does bad things you tend to notice. And, like these other films, he also has a
very strong, though twisted, moral code. Abel Davos (Ventura) and his
partner, Lilane, are both living in Italy and are career criminals. Both grew up in
France and eventually had to flea due to their criminal activities. Now in Italy as
the film begins, they continue to live the life of thugs and the heat is on to
catch them. Oddly, instead of running to yet a third country, they decide to go
back to France--even though Davos has been tried and convicted in absentia--and if
he's caught it could mean a life in prison or the death penalty. Much of the first
third of the film concerns their covert return. Unfortunately for Davos,
the return doesn't go perfectly and now it seems as if every cop in France is
looking for him. Additionally, the reaction of his old compatriots in crime is not
at all what he'd expect. In fact, their tepid response to his return ends up
unleashing a series of terrible events towards the end of the film. Along the way, Davos meets and is taken in my a stranger, Eric Stark (Jean-Paul
Belmondo). Despite Davos seemingly having no friends, Stark and his lady friend try
their best to make his return successful. What throws another monkey wrench into
this, though, is Davos' two very young sons--what is Davos to do with them--keep
them with him in his hiding place? Overall, this is a very good crime
film--sort of like French Film Noir. Unlike American Noir, the many French versions
I have seen have a more realistic as well as bleak outlook to them. Fatalism reigns
supreme, that's for sure! The acting is first-rate (especially from Ventura and
Belmondo), the direction very sure and the writing very nice, though I am sure many
won't like the ending. It just seems to be tacked on--like an afterthought. I
understood why they did it this way, but can also see how it might leave many
unsatisfied. As for me, it did leave me a tad flat. Otherwise, an exceptional film.
"Classe tous risques" feels like the granddaddy of "The Sopranos" in mixing the
criminal and the domestic, and of the buddy film to feel as contemporary as
"Reservoir Dogs." Even as these gangsters are affectionately entangled
with wives, children, lovers and parents, they are coldly ruthless, and we are
constantly reminded they are, no matter what warm situation we also see them in.
They can tousle a kid's hair - and then shoot a threat in cold blood. The key is
loyalty, and the male camaraderie is beautifully conveyed, without ethnic or class
stereotypes, even as their web of past obligations and pay backs narrows into
suspicion and paranoia, as the old gang is in various stages of parole, retirement,
out on bail or into new, less profitable ventures. An intense accusation is of
sending a stranger to perform an old escape scenario. It is a high point of emotion
when a wife is told off that she's not the one the gangster is friends with, while
virtually the only time we hear music on the soundtrack is when he recalls his
wife. Streetscapes in Italy and France are marvelously used, in blinding
daylight to dark water and highways, from the opening set up of a pair of brazen
robbers -- who are traveling with one's wife and two kids. Rugged, craggy Lino
Ventura captures the screen immediately as the criminal dad. And the second thug is
clearly a casually avuncular presence in their lives, as they smoothly coordinate
the theft and escape, in cars, buses, on boats and motorcycles, in easy tandem.
This is not the cliché crusty old guy softened with the big-eyed orphan; these are
their jobs and their families and they intersect in horrific ways. The
film pulls no punches in unexpectedly killing off characters, directly and as
collateral damage, and challenging our sympathy for them, right through to the
unsentimental end, which is probably why there was never an American remake. It seems so fresh that it's not until Jean-Paul Belmondo enters almost a
third of the way into the film, looking so insouciant as a young punk, that one
realizes that this is from 1960. Sultry Sandra Milo has smart and terrific
chemistry with him, from an ambulance to an elevator to a hospital bed. While the Film Forum was showing a new 35 mm print with newly translated
subtitles, it was not pristine. The program notes explained that the title refers
to a kind of insurance policy and is pun on "tourist class."
Career criminal and crime boss, Abel Davos (Lino Ventura) has been on the run for
more than 10 years, hiding out in Milan, Italy. In his absence, he has been
sentenced to death in his home country of France for his crimes. Disillusioned with
his life in Italy and with the police there closing in on him, he decides to return
to his old stomping ground in Paris. Sending his wife Therese and two young sons
ahead to Nice, Abel and his next in command Raymond Naldi do one final heist, to
fund their new lives back in France. The heist proffers a meagre half million
francs, way less than their sources had suggested, despite this and with the police
in chase they both make it to Nice, where they hideout briefly. After stealing a
pleasure boat from a local, they aim to make it to San Remo a tourist spot where
they will blend in more readily, but they are stopped by armed customs officers on
a deserted beach, a shoot out ensues and Therese and Naldi are both killed. A now
wounded Davos with two kids in tow is going to be easily spotted by police, so he
calls on his old friends in Paris to send help, but they have moved on since their
old friend went into hiding and are not too inclined to take a risk themselves, so
they send small time thief, Eric Stark (Jean Paul Belmondo) to rescue him. Davos is
disgusted that such a lowly thief is sent to his aid, despite the fact he hits it
off immediately with the charming Stark, he sets out to find out why he has been
snubbed, but their betrayal doesn't stop there. Classe Tous Risques (aka
the Big Risk) was written for the screen by former death row inmate and crime
writer Jose Giovanni (Le Trou, Le Clan des Siciliens), with Ventura already on
board for the project, Giovanniwanted someone unique to direct the project, Ventura
suggested an assistant director that had caught his attention on a previous
project,one Claude Sautet, best known at the time for assisting Georges Franju on
Les Yeux sans Visage. Sautet immediately agreed and the rest as they say is
history. Sautet crafted a fine gangster film, that plays heavily on characters and
relationships. Davos constantly in hiding has plenty of time to reflect on his
life, past, present and future, his friendships that no longer seem to be what he
believed they were, his now deceased wife and what will become of his two young
sons. Ventura as a character actor has always amazed me, being both comfortable and
convincing in both the police and criminal fraternity, here his world weary
performance is sublime and powerful as his world crumbles all around him, as the
loneliness and solitude of a man on the run kicks in. Ventura's former profession
as a pro wrestler gets plenty of use as he throws parisien hoodlums around with a
consummate ease. Belmondo as Stark enlivens the other storyline within the film,
that of his budding relationship with a girl he meets on the road trip. With his
forthright charm, his coming clean to this woman in danger that he is but a
"Voleur" and that "the only good thing about me is my left" as he knocks out her
aggressor, is also a joy to behold, as she falls for him anyway. Belmondo's
performance was overlooked at the time, as Godard's A bout de Soufflé was released
only three weeks previous, Godard attaining the credit for discovering the new kid
on the block, his versatility within these two films, being there for all to see
and admire. Sautet's film is a classy affair, using plenty of attractive locations,
the film also has very sparse dialogue, Sautet preferring to let the actors do the
work with the merest of looks or glances sufficing to further the story, needles to
say this Noir fan will be checking out more of Sautet's work in the future.
Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is repeatedly recommended every time I look up a
Jean-Pierre Melville film that I had to give it a watch as soon as possible. Since
I've been discovering Melville and seemingly working backwards through his
filmography, it would be easy for me to mistake this as one of his films, but it
was made in 1960, by Claude Sautet, before Melville would come and stake his claim
on french neo-noir. Classe Tous Risques has two of the best lead men of
the time, Lino Ventura and Jean-Paul Belmondo. Ventura plays Abel, a gangster
exiled in Italy with his wife and two kids, who wants to come back to Paris because
the police are closing in on him. After a roaring and fast paced opening with a big
surprise, Abel eventually gets hooked up with Eric Stark (Belmondo) who wants to
get into the criminal underworld. Stark becomes Abel's chauffeur and eventual only
friend in an underworld that turns it's back on Abel after everything he's done and
been through. The film shows the the duality of the two men, the older Abel at the
end of his time after tragedy strikes him, and the younger Eric starting off the
same way Abel did, falling in love with a beautiful woman who sticks with her man
despite the world they are a part of. It never ends pretty for them, or their loved
ones. Its one thing to see a individual criminal come to his demise, its different
when he has loved ones he risks taking down with him. Much like
Melville's film, the seemingly simple story gets more subtlety complicated as it
goes along. As usual, as what I feel with Melville's films, it left my head
spinning (in a good way) and dying to re watch it again to pick up what I missed
the first time. Classe Tous Risques is a definite keeper.
"Classes tous risques" is one of the best "gangsters" films noirs France has ever
produced.Perfect cast :Lino Ventura,a young Jean -Paul Belmondo (who made "a bout
de souffle",Godard's thing, the same year),Marcel Dalio and a fine supporting
cast ;brilliant script by José Giovanni -who also wrote "le trou" Becker's
masterpièce the same year!What a year for him!;wonderful black and white
cinematography by Ghislain Cloquet.And taut action,first-class directing by Claude
Sautet,who surpasses Jean-Pierre Melville .Whereas the latter films gangsters movie
with metaphysical pretensions,which sometimes lasts more than two hours,Claude
Sautet directs men of flesh and blood,and the presence of the two children adds
moments of extraordinary poignancy which Melville has never been able to
generate .And Sautet avoids pathos,excessive sentimentality:the last time Ventura
sees his children,coming down in the metro (subway)is a peak of restrained
emotion. Ventura portrays a gangster whose die is cast when the movie
begins.He thinks that he can rely on his former acquaintances ,but they are all
cowards -we are far from manly friendship dear to Jacques Becker ("touchez pas au
grisbi" ) which Melville was to continue throughout the sixties-sometimes abetted
by mean women (the film noir misogyny par excellence),living in a rotten
microcosm,ready to inform on -we are far from Jean Seberg's simplistic behavior in
Godard's "opus"-. Cloquet works wonders with the picture:the scene on
the beach in a starless night when the two children see their mother die after the
shoot-out with the customs officers is absolutely mind-boggling. There's
a good use of voice-over,which Sautet only uses when necessary;thus ,the last lines
make the ending even stronger than if we have attended the scenes. Claude Sautet had found a good niche ,and he followed the "classes tous risques"
rules quite well with his follow-up "l'arme à gauche" (1965) which featured Ventura
again and made a good use of a desert island and a ship.Had he continued in that
vein,France would have had a Howard Hawks.In his subsequent works ,only "Max et les
ferrailleurs " (1971) showed something of the brilliance he displayed in the first
half of the sixties.He had become ,from "les choses de la vie" onwards,the cinema
de qualité director who used to focus on tender-hearted bourgeois in such works as
"Cesar et Rosalie" (1972),"Vincent François ,Paul et les autres" (1974) or "Mado"
(1976)
I saw this film at Telluride Film Festival in 1997, where one of the screenwriters,
José Giovanni, was being honored. It ranks highly as a great noir-crime-drama,
incredible performances by Belmondo and Lino Ventura. The attention given to every
character, and complex psychological portrayals, detailing loyalty, treachery,
love, and hope, are tremendous. It is an excellent drama, an excellent thriller,
and an excellent film. Up there with the best of Melville. (The title in English
'Class all risk,' in French 'Classe tous risques' is word-play on 'Classe
Touriste,' meaning 'Tourist Class'.
The film Classe tous risques directed by Claude Sautet was not a film, to be
honest, I had ever really heard of until the Film Forum in NYC said that they would
have a 2-week screening of the film, with new English subtitles. When I also read
that it was in the vein of the classic French crime films ala Jean Pierre Melville,
I jumped at the chance to check it out (at best it would rank up with his great
works, and at worst I would get some good popcorn in a great theater). It was well
worth the admission, as Classe tous risques is one of those kinds of French films
that is just waiting to be re-discovered (or discovered for the first time). With
terrific, tense diligence, Sautet keeps the suspense at a tight pitch for the first
forty minutes of the film, keeping a good (if not great) middle section, and then
ending it up with what is always expected with these films, but with fascinating
motivations by way of the characters. With a film in the vein of this sort, you
know how it will end, but it's the cool, observant journey that counts. The film features a performance with some real truth and honesty, amid the "old-
school" criminal's code, by Lino Ventura as Aldo, who at the start of the film (one
of the best beginnings to a film in this genre and country) steals a hefty amount
of money with his partner in crime). When there is a sudden, ugly twist of fate on
a beach late one night, Aldo is again on the run with two little kids. He gets the
aid of Eric Stark (Jean-Paul Belmondo, a role in tune with Le Doulos only with a
smidgen more humanity and charisma), who is also a thief and drives him into Paris.
But there are some problems with some of Aldo's old business partner's, and one old
score may be just the right ticket. A couple of times the plot may seem to be
leisurely, but it isn't. Like Melville, Sautet doesn't allow any fat to his story,
and it's a very tightly structured film, with some good doses of humor here and
there (I was sometimes grinning at the audacity of the criminals in the beginning
chase sequence, and also with a particular woman who had a finicky thing with her
cat and a fish). Along with a fine score by the great George Delerue,
exceptional cinematography, and a mood that is seldom met let alone matched now
adays, Classe tous risques is a reminder of that bridge between the real old-school
film-noir, and the latter day crime films. Gangsters in these new sort of "thug-
life" movies have a 1000th of the class and honor of the thieves in this film, and
is a second banana to the works of Melville and Jules Dassin (a compliment I assure
you). That it has a good realistic, moral edge helps as well.
Odd one should be able to stumble into "Classe Tous Risques" only by chance; it
should be on any "best of film-noir" list, including IMDb's. Lino
Ventura is as good as ever; knowing of his dire, delicate family situation gives
extra weight to his almost expressionless face and brief dialogues. Belmondo's
restrained performance under Sautet's firm direction only shows what a wonderful
actor he could - and should -have been. "Classe Tous Risques" is utterly
mininal, dry and cold, without Melville's artistic scenery, pretty faces and fancy
cars. It is almost film-noir meet neo-realism. Davos' few, hard words to his
children describing their life of secrecy from there on get a hold on your throat
to the end of the film. The final sentence of the film - a voice-over
telling of Davos' end in no more than ten dry, sombre words - leaves you with a
hard punch in the stomach. A true jewel in the great crown of French
film-noir.
This was a very good PPV, but like Wrestlemania XX some 14 years later, the WWE
crammed so many matches on it, some of the matches were useless. I'm not going to
go through every match on the card because it would take forever to do. However major highlights included the HUGE pop for Demolition winning the tag
team belts from Haku and Andre the Giant, The first ever mixed tag match featuring
Randy Savage and Sensational Queen Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes and the late Sapphire and
the first ever clash between The Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan. Some
matches were a complete waste of time. Like The Bolsheviks vs The Hart Foundation
was only about 40 seconds long, Koko B Ware vs Rick Martel was short and Big
Bossman vs Akeem was too short. Mr Perfect vs Brutus Beefcake and Ted
DiBiase vs Jake 'the snake' Roberts were very good indeed. Overall Grade
- B
This movie is simply one of the best movies I have the privilage of owning. It took
me years to come up with this movie and it was well worth it. The movie is meant to
be anti-drug propaganda but turns itself into the opposite while not even halfway
through the movie. The relished look on the faces of the players as they receive
their bounty of drugs is pleasing to all those who observe. Untill the final phase
pf their drug induced lives, heroin comes for its say. YIKES! This is the anti-drug
message that was so fabulously sought. The soundtrack for this movie kicks butt! By
far it is one of Pink Floyds best albums ever! If ever the chance, take a look,
listen, and moment to witness a spectacularly made movie.
if you get the slight enjoyment out of pink Floyd's music you will love this movie.
the score is completely pink Floyd and of course the drug element plays a major
part in this movie giving you the doubts about life within the weakest moments.
this movie also touches the heart with the story about love and the people around
you ... there is also a huge connection with the world around you with the
environment of a personal island.this thing tell me i need ten lines to sum up a
movie but i am done that is all you get that is why this movie is a 6.1 which is a
major upset to any movie with a score like this. take a look at requiem for a dream
and the fountain .... equally good scores for our generation but overestimated
I have become a big fan of the work of Barbet Schroeder, so maybe I am already a
little biased by now, but I think this movie is great, although there may be a few
lengths. It is a romantic unromantic view of the Great Liberation in the later
sixties, stylistically amazingly polished (great set design!) and in my opinion
still very watchable. Basically this is an ironic re-telling of the
story of Adam and Eve who are driven from paradise after having tasted the
forbidden fruit" which has turned from an apple into a hypodermic filled with
heroine. The woman seduces a man into using it thus accelerating his doom. I say
accelerating as the guy seems to be doomed and bound for an intensive life and an
early grave right from the great title sequence onwards. There is no place for any
hope. Although the story is rather sad, I was captured by the beauty
both of the beautiful location Ibiza and Mimsy Farmer. I found her character was at
once shallow, enigmatic, endearing, annoying, interesting and boring. Somehow she
represents what men see in women in a basic, unoffensive way. Architecture and
built artifacts in general are put to very good use which seems to be a Schroeder
trademark of sorts. There is even some humor, mainly delivered by
Stefan, the German main character and his accent. His main nemesis is not a snake
but an older German of dubious reputation and provider of the heroine - called
Wolf. Although it is a German name and Stefan is German, he pronounces it verrry
English and in fits of jealousy spits the name out at his girlfriend in regular
intervals becoming a boy who cries ... At times Stefan has to work in order to
earn a cellery". At one time the guy goes snorkeling and afterward awkwardly
clambers up a rock with his rubber flippers never has male frontal nudity been
funnier in movie history.
17/02/09 "More" (1969) Dir: Barbet Schroeder For a film that most
viewers have agreed is pretty average, I'm impressed by quite how many differing
interpretations have been offered of it. I've only scoured the web quite briefly
and I've already been informed that "More" is: a 19th Century-style romance, an
allusion to the story of Icarus, a plain film full of dull people, and of interest
only to Pink Floyd completists. It's fair to say, then, that critical reception is
mixed. I would argue that these wildly disparate readings of Barbet Schroeder's
1969 directorial debut are proof enough that "More" is anything but a pretty
average film. Neither is it a masterpiece, of course. I approached
"More" as I did "Easy Rider" and Antonioni's "Blowup" - as a 'time-capsule' film, a
snapshot of an era - despite the differences in pace, style and content between
these movies. They all have similar flaws - either vague or downright unlikeable
characters, acting that seems slightly adrift from reality, relaxed editing, and
abrupt endings that have left viewers indignant. These movies never try to be
persuasive or meet the audience half way - they are what they are, man. This in
itself is not a problem as long as we are left with a souvenir of the experience.
Thankfully, "More" offers several truly memorable images, sounds and suggestions to
the viewer, and this is what saves it. Stefan is a young man who arrives
in Paris fresh from his studies in Germany. The first part of the film follows him
as he falls in with a group of French hipsters, accompanies them to devastatingly
cool and self-conscious parties and bars before meeting Estelle. The two characters
become sexually and romantically involved and he promises to follow her to Ibiza,
against the advice of his friend Charlie. This is where the Icarus thing comes into
play - she is the Sun, he is pursuing her. You may now be able to guess how this
all ends. Ibiza is an idyll so far away from the bustling urgency of the
over-populated Paris that the naive Stefan knows he must be on to a good thing.
Estelle remains elusive and erratic, and the island has a less desirable
underbelly. Up until now I had cared little for either of these characters and
their unfocused pursuit of somewhere to be really free, but once the action is
pared down to just these two the film becomes poignant quite suddenly. During just
one single wistful exchange of dialogue in the remote villa they inhabit, the place
where their volatile love crystallises, I went from watching with a fading optimism
to being utterly enraptured. I can't think of many other films that have done
this. The relationship between Stefan and Estelle is real and human in
that we can see it go from life-defining intimacy to disillusionment and cruel
coldness. They take a lot of drugs and cavort naked on the terraces, the rocks and
beaches. Their lives revolve around nothing but each other and the beautiful
Mediterranean surroundings. For a while, their situation is the very essence of
freedom, emotional openness and experience for its own sake. But Stefan is not in
control, and this is the downfall of more than just his future on Ibiza. Pink Floyd's score is a perfect fit for the exoticism, the intimacy, and
the foreboding of "More". It is one of the most memorable inclusions, along with
the mosquito netting around Estelle's bed, and their hallucinogenic exuberance
around the windmill (which appears on the soundtrack album's front cover). A scene
in which they take acid to escape from heroin withdrawal is illustrative of the
fundamental flaws of the couple - they cannot 'land' without a crash. Maybe they've
come too close to what they wanted. Stefan never makes contact with any
family or friends from before his arrival in Paris. We are left to presume they
have no idea where he is. While other 1960s Counterculture movies dwell on
debauchery, excess, the media and voyeurism, Schroeder has instead presented us
with a story focused upon one man, who backs himself into a little corner somewhere
in the world and quietly disappears.
I would be interested to hear from the director, Barbet Schroeder, as to why he
decided to make More his first film, and more specifically what his interest in
hippies- or rather this form of the Euro-hippie paradise- and about their demise.
The film is, at least, true enough to keep one interested, but in its own kind of
truth it's strange, biased. It's a given heroin (aka, "Horse") is awful stuff,
rotten, the conclusion for many a dumb-headed drug user that sees that as the be-
all-end-all, because it basically is: after that everything else stops, that
becomes the life, and it's either a continuous run for more of the same or death.
More starts off as something concerning a romance between a New York girl and a
German man, but it becomes something else, for better or worse (sometimes both in
the same scene). It's basically about two "young" people, Estelle and
Stefan, who meet in a city where Stefan has come as a sort of wanderer away from
his home country. She's wandering too, sort of, and is maybe too friendly with a
big-time pusher named Wolf. They end up on a remote island somewhere nearby and,
after a somewhat daring grab for some "horse" by Estelle, they also find a pad in
the form of a seemingly remoter house along the seashore. Schroeder's comment on
youth and sex and drugs isn't too simplistic, which makes the film actually lucid
and intelligent so many years later. It's both direct and subtle, more about the
characters and then about the fact that what he's depicting could in other hands
just be a propagandistic hippie-exploitation picture. Perhaps most pleasantly, and
this is just a guess, Schroeder uses as inspiration the sort of long sequence from
Bergman's Summer with Monika: two kids in an inexorable connection, some good some
definitely not so good, set against (too?) perfectly shot landscapes. On
the one hand, I should mention that there are problems, some big ones in fact. The
performances aren't very convincing throughout; a few scenes strike some power or
have the actors in a good connection with one another, but Klaus Grumberg overplays
himself even if he is an ornery German by nature (in that case I would've preferred
Klaus Kinski in the part to make it crazier but deep enough for the subject matter)
as does Farmer to her own degree. And there's gaps of naiveté in the screenplay
that keep it from being as deep as it really thinks it is. On the other hand, there
are two big things going for it: Nestor Almendros, the great cinematographer (i.e.
Days of Heaven) is DP and is a big boost for a first time director like Schroeder.
Nearly every image is seen with an awesome purpose or artistry, be it a shot of the
cliffs by the sea or sun or something as simple as the seemingly natural light of a
room. The other thing is Pink Floyd, probably the main reason I and many
others have heard of the film in the first place (years before I knew really who
Schroeder was I saw the "More" soundtrack whenever I looked up Pink Floyd albums).
It's very good music throughout, occasionally the mind-blowing variety that gives
them the reputation they deserve. Some of it, too, is a little tedious, even as it
is a movie that concerns free love and lots of drugs and sometimes both at the same
time. I wouldn't rank it anywhere near as high as a Meddle or Animals, certainly
not Dark Side, but it too helps to elevate the subject matter another notch,
particularly when one least expects it or in low tones or floating in and out of
buildings as Stefan or other walks on the streets. It's almost better atmosphere
than the movie itself deserves, but overall More is still worth watching as a
period piece- dated, but potent, like a less ambitious but more substantial
Zabriskie Point.
A German freshman, Stefan hitch hikes to Paris during summer break were he falls
for a mysterious young woman he meets in the Paris freak scene. He then follows her
in the famous isle of Ibiza, the hippie joint were meets Wolf, a man who throws
Hitler-Jugend knives, owns bars and hotels and keeps Estelle under his thumb with
dope. The couple tries to escape Wolf, Stefan gets hooked with dope and jealousy
for Estelle, who's groovy and a free spirit. Great photography and music, plot is
quite usual for the period but it's not an exploitation kind of movie, cold and
dramatic. The moral is quite strong (he was looking for the sun...) but I would not
say it's a film against drugs even it puts enphasy on drug use.
"More", maybe, is mostly remembered for the excellent soundtrack composed by Pink
Floyd -in 1969 they weren't superstars yet. Actually they made an album with the
film music, no fan can miss it! But this is also the first film of
German-French director Barbet Schroeder: it's a cult movie. When it was released,
censorship everywhere cut several scenes of sex and drugs. It is also one of the
first films to treat explicitly the theme of drug slavery. A German boy
travels to Paris and meets an American girl: they fall in love. Together they
search for sun and exoticism. But it's a too high price love: she initiates him
into drugs. In the Sixties anti-drug campaigns were not like today,
there wasn't much information. On the contrary, in many milieus taking drugs was a
sort of spiritual experience... So it's quite surprising to see a film of that
period which describes a nightmarish heroin experience. The film is
simple, not vulgar at all and shot in a "cinema-verité" style. Actors Mimsy Farmer
and Klaus Grünberg are very convincing. "More" is a document of the end of the
Sixties -and a document of the end of the hippies illusions as well.
Like most people, I was interested in "More" solely because of the Pink Floyd
soundtrack, which has turned out to be the only Pink Floyd album that I still
listen to after all these years. It was quite a surprise to run across the film in
a local video store, in a digitally remastered version. It was an even bigger
surprise to find that it is a pretty good movie. Visually it is quite
beautiful, especially when the two main characters are cavorting on the rocks on
the Spanish island of Ibiza. And the use of the soundtrack music, which as far as I
can tell is exclusively by Pink Floyd, is excellent. It was a joy to watch the film
with my copy of the album alongside me, mentally ticking off each track as it was
used in the film. Dave Gilmour's brief "A Spanish Piece" was the only one I didn't
hear, and several tracks are used quite prominently, especially "Cymbaline," "Main
Theme," and "Quicksilver." That latter track is tedious on the soundtrack album but
works very well during the title sequence of the film, resurfacing at least once
later on. Maybe now I can appreciate it on the album, now that I have some visuals
to accompany it in my mind. The plot of "More" is a little hard to take
at times, especially in the early going, when the film appears to be merely a
vehicle to demonstrate the hipness of those involved in making it. But eventually
the film proves that it has much more than that to offer, as the plot becomes more
focused. Why does Stefan take heroin? Why does ANYBODY take heroin, fully knowing
the possible consequences? The film does not attempt to answer that question
directly, but Stefan's heroin use seems a logical extension of his single-minded
pursuit of pure pleasure. I strongly recommend this film to any Pink
Floyd fan who has an appreciation of the vastly underrated "More" soundtrack. I
also recommend it to anyone who has an interest in sixties counterculture and how
it was portrayed in the media. I have no idea how realistic this movie is, since I
am too young to have experienced the sixties firsthand, but it does seem to capture
the spirit of the times in a way that no other movie does.
Has there ever been an Angel of Death like MIMSY FARMER in Barbet Schroeder's 1960s
heroin opus? Sort of Jean Seberg with a hypodermic. Pink Floyd score. Despite some
ultimately insignificant weaknesses, a classic, shamelessly ripped off by Erich
Segal/Noel Black for their inept JENNIFER ON MY MIND (1971), although Tippy Walker,
playing a similar character, is herself very junkie-appealing in the latter mess.
MORE, though, is terrific, a great 60s drug movie and, simply, an important
document of its time. Very much a cult film so join the cult. No
American movie then, as far as I can remember, charts the same territory. MIMSY's
an astonishing archetype, elevating this into mythic realms. Not for the faint-
hearted. Great sex scenes too.
There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight,
which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on
this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case
against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq.
Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World
War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and
having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly
mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of
which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it
does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two
documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that
mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are
skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store,
I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose
Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series. Rarely has something
free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound
quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of
Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the
classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong
with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945,
are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain,
The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America. Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious
reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for
terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular,
or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the
center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past
standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign
entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early
against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has
fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters
on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic
value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth
from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the
first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last.
This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think
it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie
Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly
seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in
my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie
once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an
amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting,
and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and
timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go.
With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening.
With all of mainland Europe under his control Hitler prepares for the last obstacle
in his way before heading for North America, Great Britain. With an overwhelming
edge in aircraft Goering's Luftwaffe looks unstoppable on paper. Once in the air
however the RAF tenaciously disrupts the paradigm by blowing the enemy out of sky
air at a seven to one rate. The Battle of Britain rages on for a over a year as the
Island nation is bloodied but unbowed providing crucial time for their American
allies to produce more arms for the inevitable struggle. Using more
staged footage than the three previous documentaries in the Why We Fight series the
Battle of Britain has a more propaganda like feel to it with the dramatized (some
with unmistakable Warners music score ) scenes glaringly obvious to newsreel. In an
ironic twist amid the devastation caused by German air attacks Beethoven's Seventh
Symphony is employed to underscore the visual suffering. The story itself is one of
remarkable courage by a defiant nation who refused to buckle under to the
devastating attacks inflicted upon it by up until that point an invincible war
machine. It is the 20th century version of the 300 Spartans. There have
been more exhaustively researched and better looking commercial efforts done on
this battle since this film but the immediacy and motivation The Battle of Britain
provided then will always make it a more valuable document of England during its
"Finest Hour".
Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, but by then, almost all of
Europe had fallen under the advance of the Nazi war machine. Entering the war,
Britain virtually started from scratch, with scarce supplies and with an air force
that was outnumbered by Germany ten to one. But the will of the Brits was firm,
emboldened by their new Prime Minister Winston Churchill who declared - "We shall
never go under". On August 8, 1940, the Battle for Britain was on.
However for the first time since Hitler's declared stance to conquer the world, he
hit a wall. Though massively outnumbered, the British Royal Air Force went on the
offensive, and in the span of twenty eight days in September and October of 1940,
German Luftwaffe casualties climbed to two thousand three hundred seventy five lost
planes and crew. Hitler's rage was seething, but he had to call a momentary time
out. Responding later in the year, Hitler launched a massive fire bombing of London
on Christmas Day of 1940. When I say that there has never been a disaster movie to
rival the real live footage of London in flames during this assault would be an
understatement. Perhaps the most surreal effect of this chapter in the "Why We
Fight" series would be seeing British citizens emerge from their underground
shelters following the bombing raids to resume what was left of their life above
ground. Even as you watch, there is no way to comprehend the living horror these
people must have gone through, as the city of London was left in virtual
ruin. Yet the Nazis were stunned and stymied as well. Everything Hitler
wanted to believe about freedom and democracy was now turned on it's head. Instead
of being weak willed and complacent like the French, the British were not going to
give up without a fight. And fight they did, taking the air battle to Germany and
responding in kind with attacks on the German homeland. It was a turning point,
forcing Hitler to rethink his strategy.
The Frozen Limits is a big screen vehicle for the artists known as The Crazy Gang.
They were a group of British entertainers who formed in the early 1930s. In the
main the group's six men were Bud Flanagan, Chesney Allen, Jimmy Nervo, Teddy Knox,
Charlie Naughton and Jimmy Gold. Hugely popular in the variety halls the group were
also darlings of the then Royal Family. The plot here sees them as the Wonder Boys
troupe who set off to seek their fortunes in Alaska after reading about a gold rush
in the newspaper. Only problem is is that when they finally get to Red Gulch it
turns out they are 40 years too late! I often cringe when I see the
statement "it's very British" because it implies that those not of the British
Isles may struggle to get it. The reason it bothers me is because in this
www/internet age I have garnered a ream of non British film loving friends who have
been known to split their sides at the best of Ealing, Will Hay and the imperious
Terry-Thomas. So, then, is it true that something such as The Frozen Limits is
unlikely to be appreciated by a non British audience? Well yes it's true, so much
here is topically British, but really it has to be said that the classic movie fan
is pretty well versed in history, and when all is said and done the visual mirth
here is universal. With the anarchic "not" so wild west make over an absolute
winner. A winner that has every chance of being more appreciated by an American
audience now than it will be by a British audience. Not all the comedy works, and
in truth the "big 6" are trumped big time by a film stealing Moore Marriott. But
there are skits and parodies here that deserve respect and a nod of approval from
more illustrious comedy acts. You are unlikely to nearly fall off your chair like I
did because of an Ovaltine gag, but if you be a classic comedy film fan? I feel
sure that you will at the worst acknowledge there's some very talented people at
work here. Now then, dose the Mounties always get their man? 8/10
After getting thrown out of their last job and finding employment scarce in the
United Kingdom, the six members of the Wonder Boys, better known as The Crazy Gang
see an advertisement for employment in the gold strike town of Red Gulch in the
Yukon Territory. It's from a newspaper clipping and on the back there's a story
about Chamberlain saying the country better be prepared for war. Off they go to the
Yukon and The Frozen Limits. By the way, it's case of misplaced
Chamberlains. The clipping is forty years old and it refers to Joe Chamberlain and
the Boer War rather than Neville in the current crisis. But that's typical of how
things go for this crew. I can see Stan Laurel making the same mistake. Of course when they get there it's a ghost town inhabited only by young Jean Kent
and her grandfather Moore Marriott. He's getting on in years and is a bit touched
in the head. Marriott's got a gold mine that he's misplaced somewhere that he goes
to in his sleep, that is when he's sleepwalking. The Gang better help him find that
mine or otherwise pretty Ms. Kent won't marry stalwart trapper Anthony Hulme, but
rather saloon owner Bernard Lee, a fate worse than death. This was my
first exposure to the Crazy Gang and I can see both why they were so acclaimed in
the UK and why they never made any impact across the pond. The jokes come fast and
furious and then were a number of things that the Code in the USA just wouldn't
allow. The jokes are also strictly topical British and a lot just wouldn't be
gotten over here. The sight gags are universal, the final chase scene is
worthy of anything that the Marx Brothers did in America. My suggestion is that if
you watch The Frozen Limits, tape it if you have a working familiarity with British
history and run it two or three times just to make sure you pick up everything. It
will be worth it.
I had never read much about (or even seen stills of) the six-man British comedy
group The Crazy Gang, but my positive experiences with their contemporaries Will
Hay and Arthur Askey – and especially Graham Greene’s high praise of THE FROZEN
LIMITS itself (“The funniest English picture yet produced…it can bear comparison
with SAFETY LAST and THE GENERAL”) – made me take the plunge with the bare-bones R2
DVDs from Network of this and their subsequent film GASBAGS (1941; see below), both
of which were released earlier this year with virtually no fanfare. A
British-made Western is a rarity, but a British Western spoof is rarer still (CARRY
ON COWBOY [1965] was still some 25 years away). Incidentally, going back to the
Silent classics mentioned by Greene, the film seems to me to be more obviously
indebted to THE GOLD RUSH (1925) and WAY OUT WEST (1937). Besides, it also plays
like a variation on the “Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs” fairy-tale (which had
just been immortalized on the screen via Walt Disney’s animated masterwork) and
where the seventh member is played by ancient comic and frequent Will Hay foil
Moore Marriott; the Gang actually call pretty heroine Eileen Bell by that name
throughout, and there’s even an amusing sequence with the six of them preparing to
go to bed and whistling the dwarfs’ song from the Disney film! Six
comedians (three sets of comedy duos: Flanagan & Allen, Nervo & Knox and Naughton &
Gold) may be the largest such grouping on film – though not all of their
personalities emerge here: my favorites were big Bud Flanagan (looking a bit like
Jim Backus), straight man Chesney Allen and moustached, squeaky-voiced Teddy Knox;
however, bald Charlie Naughton often took the limelight – since he’s the one on
which the others always seemed to pick on. Still, it’s Marriott who steals the film
from his very first scene – where he contrives to impersonate every official in the
dilapidated theater of a ghost town!; a very young Bernard Lee is also notable as
the villain of the piece. The Ore routine between Flanagan and Allen
actually anticipates Abbott and Costello’s famous “Who’s On First?” (the film, in
fact, hinges on a lot of wordplay for its humor – which doesn’t necessarily travel,
especially at this juncture). Nevertheless, there are several hilarious sequences
throughout – a few of which even brought tears to my eyes: the opening scene where
the Gang are defrocked by a band of angry creditors; their dressing up as Indians
once they hit the Yukon; the Gang’s ruse to make everybody rich with the same piece
of gold; they all impersonate the sleepwalking Marriott to confuse the villains (a
gag which may owe its origin to the Marx Bros.’ hilarious mirror sequence in DUCK
SOUP [1933]); the spot-on theater sketch which pokes fun at hoary melodramas; the
surreal moment when, pursued by the villains, one of the Gang climbs a staircase
that is part of the painted scenery in the theater; and especially towards the end,
when a group of singing Mounted Police gallop ever so slowly to the Gang’s rescue
(despite being egged on by the increasingly impatient Ranger hero). The
thinny soundtrack and the frantic nature of the gags themselves made it hard for me
to get all the jokes sometimes – subtitles would certainly have been welcome in
this case. The Crazy Gang only made five films – with the first two also being
well-regarded, OKAY FOR SOUND (1937) and ALF’S BUTTON AFLOAT (1938), and a much
later reunion (though Allen had, by this time, bowed out due to ill-health and been
replaced by Eddie Gray) called LIFE IS A CIRCUS (1960; directed by Val Guest who,
incidentally, co-wrote both Gang films I purchased as well as some of the afore-
mentioned Hay and Askey vehicles!).
After 10 viewings in 20 years I too think this was the Crazy Gang's best effort on
film, with more cohesion in the plot than their next best, "Alf's Button Afloat".
They were indeed a crazy trio of double acts thrown together mainly on stage,
sometimes in front of royalty, until Chesney Allen retired in the '40's through
"ill-health". He outlived them all by years. Apparently they were just as mad
outside "work", regularly playing practical jokes on one another. The
Six Wonder Boys troupe head for I'll-Get-Her-To-Tell-Me (Alaska) to dig for the
gold that was being found there. It seemed a better idea than going to
Mansfield ... because they'd been there. When they get to Red Gulch they find their
information was a mere 40 years out of date - they thought that the chips that were
in the guilty newspaper they'd read tasted funny. But by then it doesn't matter as
they've all fallen in love with Snow White and want to help her grandad find his
long lost stash of gold. Baddie Bill "M" McGrew wants it himself however. The number of verbal and visual puns is astonishing, but most of them will
probably only make sense(?) to Brits and ex-pats interested in seeing '30's British
b&w comedies. Imho nearly all of the gags and routines work, including the Gold If
patter between Bud & Chesney and the "Whistle While You Work" pastiche - even the
"Always Getting Our Man" Mountie inserts. A marvellous little film, in a rather
tired looking condition but utterly recommended.
This little short absolutely fascinates me. The only thing I've seen
thus far like it is some of the work by Sam Brakhage, the creator of Dog Star Man.
However, where Brakhage is trying to unnerve by "making us learn how to see again"
and provide us with an affront of head-ache inducing bright colors and flashes
(which I still totally dig and embrace as high art...), this film I would
characterize as very relaxing and hypnotizing. Man Ray's general use of spinning
objects/camera does not create so much of a dizzy feeling but a warm flow of
senses, intermingling and going along with the gravity of the moving world around
us. An interesting conceit of this very short work is that as it goes
along, objects become more and more recognizable until we end on a nude torso (of
which I feel is the least feminine well-rounded breasts I've ever seen). The
circles and spirals of shadow and light over the torso make it an object of
surrealistic beauty, something that you could hang on your wall and delve over
forever. It's because of this and other images in this film that I had to watch it
again and again (eventually a total seven times) just because it utterly fascinates
me. --PolarisDiB
This trio of 30-minute short films on gay-related themes are all quite respectably
executed. Each coming-of-age story is played out with pleasant charm and
naturalness. This film deserves to be widely distributed and easily obtainable.
However, it isn't. I had to order my video copy; none of the local video stores or
even the libraries had it in stock.
It's quite an accomplishment that three stories filmed by three very different
filmmakers could be simultaneously so insightful about gay & bi-sexual
relationships, and their struggles! "Pool Days" is about the
awkwardness of adolescence, and the mutual attraction between an older man and a
younger one. A story about experience and vulnerability! "A Friend Of
Dorothy" portrays a common dilemma many gay and bi-sexual people experience at some
point in their life: the intense attraction towards someone whom is heterosexual.
Sensitively examined, this story truly left me feeling moved! "The Disco
Years" shows another version of a no-win situation: getting involved with someone
who is not only confused about their sexual orientation, but is also terrified of
being exposed as anything other than straight! A very empowering story for those of
us who have experienced betrayal at the hands of a sexually confused and frightened
person! While these three stories will appeal to anyone who has an iota
of empathy towards others, they will psychologically empower those who consider
themselves gay, bi-sexual or searching. Each story is uplifting in its own unique
way!
The trio are a pleasant, nostalgic journey to that first hint of desire--when it
was still about simple exploration of the unknown--before we "grew up" and added
those complexities of HIV status, emotional baggage and gotta-run-my-pager-just-
went-off into the emotional mix. The angst portrayed is pure adolescent
angst, but it rings true in all three stories. Their sweetness and positivity make
you feel good that you are gay. And those kinds of films are few and far
between. Good news! Both Boys Life and Boys Life 2 are now readily
available on DVD as of September 1999.
THE HAND OF DEATH most definitely rates a ten on a scale of one to- due, in no
small part, to John Woo's masterful direction, coupled with Kat's superb
cinematography: some of the leisurely tracking shots alone are worth the price of a
rental; there are moments when this one borders on becoming an art-house film. Both
James Tien and Sammo Hung make for the kind of villains you can't help but love to
hate. Tien is particularly good as the baddest of the bad. It's a role reversal the
likes of which I don't think I've ever seen before (Tien normally played a hero
and, in fact, with his moustache, I didn't even recognize him at first). Sammo's
goofy "buck teeth" only make an already unsavory character seem even more flawed;
that he also happens to be a skilled martial artist makes him even less likable- in
a villain you love to hate kind of way. His choreography of the fight scenes
throughout is fantastic. Jackie Chan appears briefly (early on and late in the
going) as a blacksmith, and I believe I actually glimpsed Yuen Biao somewhere along
the way. Tan as the lead is nothing less than magnificent.
These three directors are off to Good Beginnings. The three stories are remarkably
well-done for independent productions and capture those traumatic feelings of
"coming out" when you aren't really sure it's a good idea. I laughed at those
veiled glances around the dressing room in "Pool Days"; I smiled at the notion that
fans of Bette Midler, Judy Garland, and Barbra Streisand are assumed to be gay in
"A Friend of Dorothy"(ie. browsing through the CD music racks); and I cringed over
the "jock" in "The Disco Years" whose memory of sweet sex was now "blurred" by
liquor. It all seemed so real. I look forward to more offerings from this trio of
directors.
I gave 9 of 10 points. I was sitting in tears nearly the whole movie, because I had
to laugh! The story of course wasn't excellent, but it also wasn't
boring. Erkan & Stefan are assigned to become bodyguards for the beautiful Nina.
While doing this job they come between the "front-lines" of BND and CIA. Of course
the two are neither born bodyguards nor gentlemen, so they run from one disaster
into another; and they do this in such a funny way, that when you watch some scenes
you won't be able to stop the tears! As actors those two "dumbly grinning"
characters do quite well, better than some so called professional. You
think, the speech of the two heroes is curios or "pseudo-foreign"? Well, if you
hear quite a lot Turkish-German people in Munich speaking exactly like them, you
will remember Erkan & Stefan. And maybe, in 10 years it might have become the
common speech of the youth. (God forbid!) So, if you like to laugh,
watch this movie!
First of all, i am from munich, where this movie takes place, and believe it or
not, there are guys like Erkan and Stefan, including the silly dialect! I know
their comedy show from the beginning and my main fear was, that the movie is just
an assembling of their already known jokes, but it is not! The jokes are evolved
through the story, and make, in their own special way, sense. But if you absolutely
dislike Erkan und Stefan, hands of this movie. Everyone else - it's worth viewing!
Great movie. I was laughing all time through. Why? Well, I am from Austria, I can
get along with the German (Bavarian) kind of humor. So I guess this movie makes
only sense watching when you are German native speaker. Stefan and Erkan both are
talking in a new kind of turkish-german accent, which became really popular in our
Countries (GER & AUT). But of course they are very stupid. As in every comedy your
personal humor will decide, whether thumb up or down.
Those two main characters Erkan and Stefan are a munich comedy act. I was wondering
if this is one of these typical slapstick movies where the story is either not
important or simply not existing. But when I saw this movie I was very happy that
there is a cool story and the main characters really fit in it. All in
all very amusing and not a common german movie.
I enjoyed Erkan & Stefan a cool and fast story which didn't get bogged down in
detail. Those two guys are great to see and are able to come up with new ideas all
the time. The high quality of picture and cut support the movie a lot. Erkan & Stefan show that the German film industry is capable of transferring
successful Hollywood concepts with local `satire' into our cinemas.
I was looking in the TV Guide for movies that come from Germany and I found one
called The Bunnyguards, so I watched it and I laughed myself silly! I wanted the
DVD but its not available here (I could order it from Germany but it doesn't have
subtitles) It was played again so I taped it and watch it from time to time. Anyway, I looked for info on it and found out its real name is Erkan &
Stefan, but I know it by its Australian title: The Bunnyguards. Some
people who I know from Germany do not like Erkan & Stefan because of their accents,
but not being German myself, I didn't notice anything. The jokes are good, but some
Germans might find their accents off-putting. I think this movie is
funny and if the DVD had English subtitles on all the extras (having a 2 disk
edition with only the feature having subtitles would be bad) I would buy it up in a
snap! I recommend it to anyone looking for a laugh and a pretty good
story.
Aaliyah blows all the female cast members out of the water, including the official
love interest Marguerite Moreau. I would have loved to see this movie
play out as Akasha's power trip. Aaliyah is simply electrifying whenever she is on
the screen. She does sensual, beautiful and menacing to the power of 10. Watching
her take on a bar full of vampires is a sight to behold. Lena Olin is
cast in the ungrateful role of "the older woman", which is hugely unjustified. She
looks fantastic and at 46 (according to the IMDb) still looks stunning. The story unfortunately is very limited plot wise, we've seen it all before,
etc. The most heart wrenching is Akasha's death scene, especially
keeping in mind what happened to Aaliyah after filming. All in all, a
remarkable vampire movie.
I haven't read the Anne Rice novel that this movie was based on, but who knows,
maybe reading the book is cheaper than renting QUEEN OF THE DAMNED and is probably
better for your health. It isn't that this movie is necessarily bad for your
health, but a book can be very relaxing and certainly exercises the active part of
your brain more so than this movie. You can count the number of pages by Anne Rice
that I've read on one hand, but after seeing this movie and Interview with a
Vampire, I get the feeling that she writes really good novels. The plots for both
movies hint at a whole sea of deep and interwoven vampire history. Still, Stuart Townsend's voice-over narration gets a heck of a lot more annoying
than Brad Pitt's vampire narrative ever did, and you can tell that QUEEN OF THE
DAMNED's limited production resources barely give enough flesh to the Anne Rice
storyline. While Interview decided to go with lace and elegance, QUEEN relies on
low budget special effects that try really hard to be taken seriously. One can see
that the original novel had potential as a movie and that the production team
focused its attention in the wrong places. The costumes and rock & roll stage could
have been replaced with more blood and an eerier soundtrack. However,
I'll give credit where credit is due. The soundtrack is excellent. Korn and
Disturbed had me down with the sickness bobbing my noggin like Butthead. The film opens with a very cool Goth-rock zoom & splice montage, but after
the first ten minutes or so, the directing degenerates quickly. It's as if the
movie was so long that the director realized that there wasn't enough time and
enough money to do an Anne Rice novel justice. What results are some mediocre
vampire scenes and plenty of cheesy special effects. Unfortunately, QUEEN OF THE
DAMNED fails to do the genre justice just as its John Carpenter counterparts fail
to impress. Where are the yellow contacts? Where's the pale blue make-up? Scene
after scene, I shook my head reminiscing about the days of Salem's Lot and Fright
Night when low budget was done right. There are redeeming qualities
though that save this movie from being garbage. Props to Aaliyah, and may her soul
forever rest in peace. She might have become a renowned actress, had her life not
been taken from us so prematurely, for she did give this movie a decent performance
with plenty of nice belly dancing. Did I mention that the soundtrack was good?
Let's see, what else can I say? It wasn't too long. The Anne Rice novel could have
easily been a three hour movie if an ambitious director like Francis Ford Coppola
got his hands on it. There are a few twists and turns here and there in the plot.
But all in all it was a legitimate rock and roll addition to the slew of second-
rate vampire movies out there. The director of this movie went on to direct a new
Battlestar Galactica mini series if that tells you anything. JY Jimboduck-dot-com
quite good, don't expect anything high culture.......the acting is bad, the
storyline fails, but it is still a fairly nice movie to watch. why? because it's
dark, a little bit stupid, like unpredictable and just entertaining and fun to
watch. do not expect anything, like i said, just see it for yourself and you know
what i mean. it is a movie, without a plot or memorable acting, but
there are enough scenes that will make you laugh, cry or at least make you feel
compelled to watch it to the end... this is all i wanted to
say.... 7 / 10
The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work
by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie
Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people
believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a
Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie
gives one of his best (most serious) early performances. The Hand of
Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to
assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a
revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young
woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as
"the wanderer." Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take
revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the
revolutionary to safety. The martial arts action is above average under
the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very
effectively as the "Northern eighteen styles kicks" along with some "Southern five
styles boxing." Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts
performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade
screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem
over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very
good. Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character
development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat
is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's
music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's "Shaft" style orchestral pieces is
kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu
comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story. Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old
school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a
preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great
choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early
charisma and talent can be clearly seen. Hand of Death is a solid,
stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John
Woo. Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5/10 Wanderer to Tan (referring
to his new weapon): "The Little Eagle Wing God Lance." Tan: "Just a
knickknack."
In Queen of The Damned,Akasha(Aaliyah) was more sexy and had a bigger,demanding
presence, she just caught your eye and attention. now the movie did have faults,
like the lack of explaining Akasha's past. What i also Did not like was the that
the movie didn't really explain or show more of what the relationship between
Lestat and Akasha was/ or was like.Akasha's (Aaliyah's) role was sort of limited in
the movie and she didn't appear until the 2nd half of the movie and then to top it
off, her(Akasha's) death came 2 quickly.But i liked how Akasha fought back when the
ancients tried to kill her, because in the book the last fight between Akasha and
The ancients was rather boring (they killed Akasha in like 2 secs).Akasha's head
got knocked off in 1 sec and Lestat turned into the biggest punk in the
world. Aaliyah played Akasha very well and Stuart was perfect as Lestat,
they could not have picked a better Akasha or Lestat. "REST IN PEACE AALIYAH"
I quite this Anne Rice book adaption. While most of the film is filmed here in
Australia it offers a great amount of scenery and a fantastic area to shoot in.
Lestat (Stuart Townsend) has recently woke up from a long period time of sleep and
has decided to betray his vampire oath by revealing himself to a band. When he
becomes a popular movie icon his fellow vampires, understadebly, go mad and plot
his death. Meanwhile Jesse (Marguerite Moreau) a orphaned member of the
supernatural studies, who has an ancient vampire family tree, has become deeply
obsessed with Lestat. Her boss David (Paul McGann) understands her obsession and
revaeals his obsession with the vampire Marius, (Vincent Perez)who is an ancient
vampire and the man who made Lestat a vampire too. Jesse is given Lestats diary and
reads of his first killing and an encounter with the Queen of the Damned- Akasha
(Aaliyah). When Lestat holds a concert in Death Valley he receives news that not
only will angry vampires be there Akasha may come as well. Meanwhile Akasha has
other plans. She goes to a vampire coven, a bar, and kills everyone in her path.
With Lestat tempted with royality and loving care by Akasha the ancient vampires
consisting of Marius and Jesses Aunt Maharet (Lena Olin) plot against them. Join
Her Or Die? I thought the film was fantastic, it had great fight scenes,
great music and great locations. Aaliyah sadly passed away in a plane crash shortly
before the films premiere, but she looked stunning on the set and off the
sets. I gave this film 10/10 because it was a fantastic film and I urge
you to see it!
Personally, I LOVED TRIS MOVIE! My best friend told me about it so i rented it out
a watched it. It's amazing! The music, the acting, the story lines the emotion,
everything...... well except for one minor fact. Absolutely no loyalty to the books
at all. I saw this movie before Interview with the Vampire and before i even knew
the books existed, so i was shocked to find how many people actually hated the
movie. I picked up quickly that the book fans weren't at all happy with the
unfaithfulness, not wanting to be hypocritical (I hate the Harry Potter movies due
to lack of book loyalty)i stayed silent. Eventually i picked up "The Vampire
Lestat" and understood immediately why everyone hated it. It is completely
different (The movie Queen of the damned is a combination of "The Vampire Lestat"
and "The Queen of the Damned"). But i still loved the movie from when i saw it
before reading any of the books. So if you haven't seen this movie or read the book
watch the movie first or you'll hate it. If you have read the book then you have
every right to hate this movie.
***May Contain Spoilers*** OK, it wasn't exactly as good as expected in fact it was
a lot different than I had thought it would be but it still turned out to be a
pretty good movie. I usually don't care too much for that type of music
but in this movie it worked perfectly (I mean duh he's a rock star) but anyway I
loved Stuart Townsend in this, and Aaliyah, although she had a small part in the
movie was amazing. And even though Tom Cruise played Lestat in the
Interview with a Vampire, I have to admit that I am glad he turned down the role
even though I normally hate when they use different people to play the same
characters in like sequels and stuff. Overall, the movie was great and I
enjoyed watching it, even if there were parts that could have been better. Great
vampire movie.
I have to say this movie is absolutely amazing. I don't understand why it got such
a low rating. It has romance, music, darkness and vampires. Also Stuart Townsend
did a great job of being Lestat, the acting was great. Also, normally I am not into
that music, well sometimes. But I have to say in this movie the music fit it
perfectly. If you like dark movies about vampires this is definitely for you or
even if you don't there is a love story to this.But,all I can say is one word:
Amazing! My Rating is defiantly: 10 out of 10. Anyway, I seriously suggest you
watch it. I remember not seeing this for years, I watched it again about a year ago
and im addicted to it again. lol. Great movie!!!
okay... first to Anne rice BOOK fans.... sure lestat's eyes are not
blue...sure he isn't blond in this movie... but even though Marius is not lestat's
maker...even though they COMPLETELY altered the story..... how can u say
its not a good movie.. this movie...is the BEST vampire movie i ever
saw...and lestat is pictured perfectly in it....maybe not his features...but i
don't think one can find a better lestat....the way he speaks...and the way he
looks at mere mortals...his arrogance..and sheer love for fame is pictured
flawlessly. if u for once...consider it just a movie..and not try and
relate every scene to the book...u will love the movie as much as i do. now...to the non readers.. be prepared to fall absolutely in love with
this movie....it has every thing....and the goth music...is like an added treat...
the dialogues...are beautiful...and catching...and even though its a vampire
movie..u will find yourself smiling...at the wit of the characters...and u will
find yourself sympathizing with the vampires.. overall...one of my fav
movies...!!10/10
I remember disliking this movie the 1st time I saw it, but it has grown on me. I
love the costumes and poses the actors make, the humor, the cinematography, the
soundtrack. The scenes are very rich, and it moves very quickly. Every time I watch
it, there is something new that catches my eye. Aaliyah as Akasha is probably the
only thing that ruins it, but not enough. Also, the Lestat in this movie
IS different, it is not the same character. You can see that the character Armand
has been given Lestat-like qualities because I'm assuming Anne wanted it in. But
there is no reason to trash this movie just because it's not like books, it's a
fascinating by itself.
This has been one of the best vampire movies that I have seen in a long time. It
was very seductive and alluring, I liked that it did not have the usual gore and
carnage that comes along with most vampire movies. The music was excellent. It
would be great if there was a sequel.
"Queen of the Damned" is one of the best vampire movies I had ever seen! The movie
had suspense, action, and gore. The combination of the fierce demanding attitude of
the Queen and the rock mood of our star, very well acted by Stuart Townsend, makes
a wonderfully done movie that only this combination can create. I'm always the one
to give advice to my friends and family members on which movies are worthy of
renting and when they ask me if "Queen of the Damned" is worthy, I tell them it's
worthy of buying. This movie is most for sure a must-have in all horror movie
lovers' homes!
After going to sleep out of sheer loneliness, Lestat wakes from a 100-year sleep to
the sounds of a new music he wants to be a part of and the band "The Vampire
Lestat" is born. His longing to end his loneliness and his "living in the light"
attitude along with his music, anger his fellow vampires and awaken an evil that
has been slumbering for thousands of years. This film is not for those
looking for a true book-to-film adaptation. Those who have read the books and
expect to see it on the screen are in for a huge disappointment. This film will
appeal to those who really enjoyed the "Interview With the Vampire" film. There are a few plot holes and incongruencies, but as a whole, this film
was satisfying. Stuart Townsend portrays Lestat with a sensuality and sexiness
lacking in the previous film. The relationships portrayed in the film were very
sexy and sizzling. As a film, the story compels you and draws you in.
Casting is wonderful. Loved this story and film. If you like simmering sensuality
and sexual tension you'll love this film!
My friends and I saw this at the San Diego Black Film Festival. It was great.
Stormy is a strong black woman and Nana reminds me of my grandmother. Rene is FINE!!! Seeing him take off his clothes was definitely worth the price of
admission. Can someone forward me his contact info? My friend thinks
Flex is the finer of the two. She's been a Flex fan for years though so she might
be a little biased. The cousins were funny and just as trifling as Nana described
them. LOL. I am looking forward to seeing this movie again when it comes
to theaters.
I thought that this was actually the best vampire movie that I've ever seen. I've
seen a lot too. The effects were great, and the casting was brilliant. It was an
all around good movie. The makeup and costumes were great too. I would recommend
it, but not for kids. It's not a children's movie.
The movie, although not faithful to the original novels, succeeds in creating
modern gothic vampire vision. Somebody tried to insult QotD calling it a 1,5h music
video clip. Actually it is a complement. The everpresent gothic music combined with
the music-video-like shots made the movie so moody - and "Queen of the Damned" is a
mood-driven story. I do not understand the die hard fans who complain on
the modifications of the story. The plot has been modified to be less confusing for
viewers who do not know the novels. The number of characters had been lessened and
I have no problems with changing Lestat's maker or skipping Mekare's character. The
biggest change - the romance of Lestat and Jesse - seemed a very nice addition to
me. Actually, I think that a faithful adaptation would be a complete
failure. The slow and gloomy mood, that was perfect to XIXth century New Orlean and
Louis's angst, wouldn't fit Lestat's rebellion and his music. And while the book
can be slow, descriptive and combining multiple elements yet conveying them well,
the movie simply cannot do it without turning chaotic. "Vampire Lestat" and "Queen
of the Damned" can be split into at least three movies - the creators had to choose
something. Some of the special effects, like the flying or walking out
of the flames were the only thing I actually didn't like in this movie. But
Akasha's death was very nice. The cast was good, Stuard Townsend was convincing as
Lestat, especially on the concert, but I preferred Banderas as Armand. I loved
Jesse, Maharet and Marius though. And of course Aaliyah was perfect with her quasi-
ancient-Egyptian accent. So if you are into gothic music and vampiric
dillemas of loneliness and eternity (and you don't consider books to be movie
scenarios) "Queen of the Damned" is one of the few movies which show vampires as
something more than blood sucking monsters. But please do not compare it to the
"Interview" movie. It has a completely different style, precisely as much different
as different were Louis and Lestat. Personally I find it thrilling first to watch a
vampire's existence from Louis' "bottled hunger" point of view, and then switching
to one devoid of all morals but surprisingly outgoing for a vampire, Lestat. I'd give "Queen" 8 of 10 as it had some technical flaws, but I decided to
give it 9 as it's vastly underrated by people who hate it simply because it didn't
match their vision of the books, which can be clearly seen by looking at the votes
breakdown.
Despite the pans of reviewers, I liked this movie. In fact, I liked it better than
Interview With a Vampire and I liked this Lestat (Stuart Townsend) better than
Cruise's attempt. All the major players from the series were present: Talbot,
Lestat, Armand, Maharet, Khayman, Pandora, Mael, Marius and a half-dozen more
(albeit most of them in cameo). Marius, Lestat and Akasha were the main players
(and Jesse of the Talamasca). Also, despite other reviews, I think this movie and
the music was faithful to Anne Rice's portrayal and ethos, at least as I perceive
it. Aailiyah was pretty good as Akasha, in places compelling (her first entrance
and mini dance scene). The movie didn't capture the breadth of the books series but
I thought it was a nice supplement. I'm a big fan of this series mostly
due to Anne Rice's style, sensitivities and treatments. And I found this movie a
faithful and often superlative representation of the author's vision.
It has very little to do with the books: half of the characters have been
eliminated, the plot has been greatly altered, people's parents are changed for
different characters . . . However, if you watch it as an independent
piece (try and forget you ever read the books) the movie is very well put together,
everyone is very good looking, and there is even a sweet ending...
I've seen this movie countes times now and still can't get sick of it. It's like a
frickin' drug. I know a lot of people don't like it but there's something about it
that just draws me in. Every single performance is spectacular, but Aaliyah is the
one who steals the show. She not only played the role of Akasha she became it. Her
body movement and beauty was captured exceptionally well. It's also nice to see
that a black girl was chosen for the role of an Egyptian Queen (No, I'm not
predjudice against white people, I am one). True it's not known what color the
ancient Egyptians really were but this was a nice change. Stuart Townsend
completely made me forget about Tom Cruise's portrayel of Lestat and Marguerite was
striking once again. All in all it was a good time at the movies. For those who
haven't seen it, be sure to watch it with an open mind and not take it too
seriously. I mean, it's a movie about a vampire who becomes a rock star. Take it as
that.
Although this movie doesn't have the darkness of the books, it is in my opinion a
great movie. It's great campy fun with the beautiful Stuart Townsend as Lestat. He
may not have the blond hair and blue eyes that are so vividly described in the
book, but to be fair, he would not look good with blond hair, and Lestat is most
definitely about looking good. He moves like the predator I always imagined Lestat
would have. The visual effects are pretty good, and the soundtrack is
absolutely amazing. It's not Interview with the Vampire, so don't try to compare
the two. Interview is Louis' story. This is a cut and paste version of Lestat's. In
any case, I highly recommend.
Despite a few acceptable adaptations of the books' main themes, QUEEN OF THE
DAMNED/THE VAMPIRE LESTAT did not stay true to Anne Rices's complicated story
telling. The deep layers that build up all the characters were shredded apart to
only their surface, if not a completely different identity. The chronological order
of the major events in the movie seemed warped and uneven. However,
there were quite a few things the movie did to deserve my rating of 7. One was that
the film strongly captured the affect that Lestat (among other vampires)had to the
public, especially young girls. The movie also did a fairly good job focusing on
the importance of heredity and history that the vampires took pride in. The scenes
of sensuality were also atmospherically satisfying. The acting in QUEEN
OF THE DAMNED was moderate, if disappointing. Stuart Townsend and Aaliyah have a
surprising chemistry, though it only shows when the acting is at its best (not very
often). The characters are nothing compared to the ones established in INTERVIEW
WITH A VAMPIRE. It also lacks the emotional intelligence of THE FEAST OF ALL
SAINTS, which is a shame because Rice's Queen of the Damned book had that, and
more. This movie doesn't give all that it appears to be. The effects are
dull and very disappointing. The extravagance needed in many scenes is not given,
and the dialog is tiring. The settings for many scenes are not how I pictured them
in the book, and I think that many of them weren't even taken from the story. There
are only a few areas of incoherence near the beginning and middle of the movie, but
it wraps itself up fairly neatly, giving the viewer a full story (if they had not
read the book). Somethings that I feel the movie needed include a good
original score (Howard Shore or Elmer Bernstein), instead of the mix of rock music;
though I had no problem with some of the songs. Another thing that would have made
the movie better is better set direction. The scenery was boring as well as
unclear, which is important in a story that moves around quite frequently. Overall, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was an unevenly disappointing yet somewhat
satisfying adaption of the important novel. With a few simple changes, it may have
been a very successful piece of film work. I'd recommend this movie for people who
has seen INTERVIEW or have read the books, so that they can make their own opinion
on the adaption.
If vampire tales are your cup of blood, then this Goth-fest based on the Anne Rice
Vampire Chronicles should prove to be a satisfying experience. A veritable
consortium of the undead in a contemporary setting, `Queen of the Damned,' directed
by Michael Rymer, is a story of shadows and darkness, and of the unfortunate souls
who dwell therein for eternity. The vampire Lestat (Stuart
Townsend), bored with a world that no longer excites him, has been àsleep' for
many years; but suddenly, the sounds of that world he hears from his extended
slumber change, and liking what he hears, he ventures forth to investigate. What he
finds is a world filled with new sounds, a new kind of music-- driving and
penetrating-- sounds that assault the senses and make him feel alive and welcome.
And he knows that at long last his time has come, that it is time for him and those
like him to come out into the open and face the world on their terms. Toward that
end he becomes the front man for a band-- a singer and performer unlike any the
world has ever known. He presents himself as a vampire, and very quickly amasses a
following that extends far beyond London (where it all begins), and will ultimately
take him to Death Valley, California, where he plans to give a concert that
promises to be beyond anything anyone has ever seen or experienced. 
Lestat is powerful, without question, but there are those of his kind who do
not take favorably to the fact that he has revealed them, one of whom is Marius
(Vincent Perez), a vampire powerful in his own right-- the vampire, in fact, who
`made' Lestat so many years before-- and they are gathering, coming together and
making their plans to meet Lestat at the concert. And they are not going for the
music. But there is something else, as well: At one point Lestat has inadvertently
awakened the `Mother' of them all, the most powerful of all the vampires, Akasha
(Aaliyah), who is about to make her presence known to all, and especially to the
one she has chosen to rule by her side as her King: Lestat. And at the concert,
rest assured, Akasha will be in attendance, without fail. Make no
mistake, this is Lestat's story, and Rymer presents it amid a setting rich with
atmosphere and with some exquisite moments, though his film has less bite to it
than say, Ìnterview With the Vampire,' or `Bram Stoker's Dracula.' He sets a good
pace, and there are some scenes that provide some real thrills, but overall the
film isn't as soaked in menace as it could be, or as much as one might expect. In
the final tally, in fact, the amount of flesh that is incinerated wins out over
actual blood-letting, though there is more than a taste of gore, and more than a
fair share of lips and mouths dripping with the red stuff. There's some good F/X on
hand, too, especially in the sequences that accentuate the speed of the vampires,
as they move and hurtle through the air faster than the naked eye can discern. It's
a decent job by Rymer, but he could have put more teeth into it had he played up
the alienation hinted at by Lestat; as it is, you get a sense of his detachment,
but not enough to get you totally involved. In Ìnterview With the
Vampire,' Tom Cruise brought some charismatic star power to the role of Lestat, but
Townsend is even more effective, with a look and an attitude that captures Lestat
perfectly. He plays him with a sense of acceptance, and under closer scrutiny you
may even find a hint of remorse and longing. It's a good performance, and one that
sells his character convincingly. As Marius, Vincent Perez does a
nice job, too-- he is, in fact, one of the strengths of the film-- though his
character is a bit ambiguous; that, however, has more to do with the way he was
written than with Perez's performance, which is quite good. 
Turning in noteworthy performances, as well, are Marguerite Moreau, as Jesse,
a young woman too curious for her own good; and the gorgeous Lena Olin as Maharet,
Jesse's Aunt, who ultimately plays a pivotal role in the outcome of the drama
involving Lestat and Akasha. And as Akasha, Aaliyah is an absolutely
riveting presence. What more can one say about her other than she is a gifted
performer, with tremendous talent and beauty. And, tragically, she has left us much
too soon. The supporting cast includes Paul McGann (David), Christian
Manon (Mael), Claudia Black (Pandora), Bruce Spence (Khayman), Matthew Newton
(Armand), Tiriel Mora (Roger) and Megan Dorman (Maudy). With a much stronger story
than the usual offerings of this particular genre, Anne Rice fans, especially, will
be pleased with `Queen of the Damned,' a film nicely crafted and delivered by
director Rymer and his engaging cast. By focusing attention on the drama of the
story-- and the way it's presented-- rather than concentrating on merely providing
some cheap thrills, Rymer has succeeded in turning out a true horror film that is
definitely a cut above, and one that just may whet your appetite for more of the
same. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 7/10. 
Surface is one of the greatest t.v. series I have seen. The acting is great and the
storyline enthralling. Each episode left me barely able to wait to watch the next.
I especially thought Carter Jenkins who played Miles Bennett did a superb job...he
is a very talented actor and I look forward to seeing more of his work. I can't believe Surface only made one season...once again the public has
let me down. It is hard to fathom that a great shows like this one would get
canceled, while crap reality shows continue on year after year. Whoever made the
decision to cancel this show really dropped the ball on this one.
Once again, there's dastardly government agencies stopping at nothing to prevent
public knowledge of some momentous events. In this case, the discovery of a new
underwater species that could threaten the planet's ecology. Although the creature
is no E.T. he does seem to befriend one youngster, who protects it at all costs,
not realising it is but an infant of the species and is going to get a lot bigger
and badder This 2005 series had a lot going for it. It is family drama, sci-fi,
thriller with more than a few comedic moments. The characters are believable, well
acted and well photographed. The show holds the attention. Of course, as with any
sci-fi show, suspension of disbelief has to be achieved. And I think it is here.
Alas, the series crashed after season one, so we never get a resolution.
Infuriating.. There is a general comment I feel worth making here. Many TV networks
and/or film distribution companies cancel, quite arbitrarily, seemingly excellent
TV series particularly intelligent sci-fi ones. Now there may be some very good
reasons for this, although the audiences are treated with utmost disdain and rarely
told the reasons. This in itself is annoying. What really gets my goat is that,
having cancelled the series, they then issue the thing as far as it's got, on DVD,
in an obvious attempt to milk the cash cow as far as possible. For previous viewers
of the series that's OK, they know what they're in for but many of these
unfinished series end on a cliffhanger. Two that come to mind immediately are
"Surface", and "Odyssey 5". If you've heard good things about the series and not
seen it you go and buy the blasted DVD and end up with an unresolved plot issue
it makes me very angry!! I enjoyed "Surface" immensely and didn't realise the poor
characters would end up in a situation that looked totally untenable and we'll
never know what happened next. I believe that there should be a prominent notice on
all such DVD issues, to the effect that the story is unfinished. Nowadays I check
on TV series purchases (IMDB is an obvious excellent starting point) to find out
whether a 'complete' series is really complete or not. Buyer beware.
True Love, I truly enjoyed and LOVED this movie. It was fun, funny and
inspirational. I just saw it on DVD. How did I miss this one it's a winner! I mean
Flex was "That Guy". I wanted to marry him. This was my 1st time seeing him as a
straight leading man and he pulls it off. I thought Tangi Miller was the best ever
and I was a Felicity head too. A fearless woman who only fears her Nana. Thank You
for giving women of color range in your work and she looks great! Tasha Smith was a
Blast! Aloma Wright was priceless as Nana. This cute romantic comedy is "A Must
See". Oh and the new comer Marcus Patrick is worth the surprise ladies...True Love.
Karen
Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all
Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy
that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some
time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because
the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had
a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are
seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture
will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some
truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it
debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie,
most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled
into the plight of the ladies in this film. Although I am a male, am not
rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and
it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and "man haters". In
fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but
instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the
only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word
"wicked" and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely
selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional
societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional
existence. One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of
family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the
beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he
sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to
have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did
nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was
purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her
sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less. Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly,
after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without
any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an
ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to
gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he
was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married,
this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no
sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him
sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself
to "overcome the desires of the flesh". This must have brought nothing but
frustration to her. So, you've got two neglected and normal women living
in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for
their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at
first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it
got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and
even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation. Late in the
film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a
not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's "enlightened" husband--a man who seeks
religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and
growth is impossible. This is a very challenging and adult film. While
there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a
film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who
masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let
your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly
erotic film that will get you to think. The film features good acting,
complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might
annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame
on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is
because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and
it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst
part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western
audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a
newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't. By the
way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other
wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her
films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and
Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this
West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman
to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets
Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN.
Surface was one of the few truly unique shows on TV last season. I can honestly say
I modified my schedule so I could be home to watch every episode. Tons of action,
suspense, science fiction, etc. Story was of a boy who found an egg that
hatched into a sea creature. The same sea creature that had killed the main
character's brother and the woman character (oceanographer) had seen. Most people
think it is a deadly killing machine but the one raised from the egg was very
friendly. Only problem is NBC canceled it so now we'll never know what
happens... Hopefully Sci-Fi or some other channel will pick it up.
i have now seen the whole of season one and can say i have not enjoyed a show of
this standard in a long time it great to see a show like this in the pipeline and
hope that there are many on the way the season final was the best bar none cant
wait for season 2 as far as i am conserned things can only get better like how will
milles continu to change will rick get his family back and how will they get off
the church roof with acting of this level it is easy to see why the show is such a
big hit with people as long as people as making shows like this i will keep
watching i think its hard now to come up with an original idea as so many shows
have coverd a large range of subjects so to see one as original as this is
refreshing
I thought this was a very good TV series and I would like to see it continue. It
really got interesting there at the end and I really want to see where it is going
from there. Some times we are to quick to kill a series without giving it a chance.
I think this one needs a chance to go on, and I will definitely be waiting for it.
The ocean is one of the places that man knows so little about and I think that is a
mystery in itself. What is waiting for us beneath the waters of the world. It is
even said that man maybe crawled out or slivered out of the waters many millennium
ago. Is this a new evolution coming about? Are we going to move down the food chain
or fight for our position?
A new and innovative show with a great cast that keeps you on the edge of your
seat. Lake Bell is wonderful..it is to bad that her other show "Miss Match" was
canceled. I am just glad she came back on "Surface". I can't wait for the return of
"Surface". This show is really something unique to watch. With an eerie underwater
world that is akin to Jurassic Park, this show keeps you wondering what is next.
Nim is adorable even if he is going to turn into something larger and much more
ominous. There are so many generic shows out there that just seem to rehash the
same old subjects. When something like "Surface" comes along you just have to say
"THANK YOU!".
This is the first sci fi series that I have seriously become hooked on since Star
Trek, (and I haven't watched Trek in years). It takes the invasion theme in
somewhat different directions, but has done it in a very exciting way. It also
borrows from soap opera format, where it continues the arc throughout the entire
year run of the series. The CGI definitely doesn't overcome the plot or the
characters, except for Nim, the fledgling creature who is a pet with definite
attitude. (Anything that would show what he really thought about the neighbor's
yippy dog is A-1 in my book.) He was a stroke of genius. I am left at
the end of the finale asking questions (intelligent ones, I hope) and crossing my
fingers and toes that NBC or someone else (Sci Fi, maybe) will continue to run the
series and answer those questions. A really great, classy show.
I am sorry to see that SURFACE has not been picked up for the NBC 2006-2007 season.
I guess market demand for inane game and reality shows on broadcast television, a
reflection on our sense of culture, has conquered a good story. I hope and pray
that some network picks it up so it will continue on as does STARGATE and it's
spin-offs. I also hope the producers find a venue where they can produce
the level of Post Production they wished for in a TV Guide interview. Right now the
reruns on Sci-Fi, marathons, will have to do. I for one would love to see where the
story goes after the tsunami that ended Episode 15. I would like to find out the
mastermind of the efficient effort to obfuscate the real identity of the
creatures. FYC Morningbear
Surface was awesome, I don't know how many Mondays I survived at school just by
thinking about the new episode of surface. I loved it, sometimes I had to call home
and tell my mom to tape it for me. I was pretty upset when I heard it was
cancelled, I mean jeez way to let us hang. So,they can have their new Tina fay
comedy(you couldn't pay me to watch that, I think seeing the commercials made me
dumber). I'm gonna miss my Monday night fix of Surface, even if my sister did make
fun of me. although,kidnapped does look good and, they still have L&O: SVU (i
think, i still have to check) (i only wrote the 2 lines above, because they said i
needed ten lines).
Surface, from the day its teaser first showed in the summer of 2005, was a tossup.
On one hand, it seemed so high-concept and plot driven that to the passerby it felt
like it would work out better as a motion picture (or several). Plus, it felt like
it was NBC's attempt at a "Lost-killer". On the other hand, one may have realized
that the story was too expansive to tell in a movie or two, and fans of Lost seemed
intrigued. So, after one (and possibly only) season on NBC, the show is
on an indefinite hiatus that could either put it in the vault, on Sci-fi, or
filling a gap in NBC's lineup in the summer or fall of 2007 or beyond. Its ratings
were some of the better on the network (which isn't saying much), but the show has
been taken off the air with no real official announcement of its future. So, is it worthwhile? Yes. Surface follows a continuing story
format, driven by plot with next to no filler episodes. Almost everything that
happens on the show is important to the plot, much like a motion picture. No filler
episodes, which put a pain in your side when you missed an episode. Yet, the show's
double-edge helped made up for that; Big things seem to happen every episode, but
since it feels like a movie you end every episode feeling like little happened and
you're left wanting more! That trait of the show, though shows how great it is. The
cast is solid; the three main leads, including the beautiful Lake Bell as Laura
Daughtery, put in a solid performance every episode, each driven by their own
reasons for finding/studying the creatures. The supporting cast, including Ian
Anthony Dale and the brief performance by Rade Serbedzija fill out the cast well.
The story is slow to start (my one regret; it doesn't really pick up until a 3-4
episodes in to the short 15-episode season), but the latter half of the season
makes up for it. The visual effects are stunning (one's jaw will drop when you see
an overhead view of one of the creatures 'attack' a ship), as well. Many
of the show's problems can be remedied by purchasing the complete first season and
not having to wait a week (or three) to watch the next episode. In
short, if you've missed the first season and you're curious, go back and watch it.
It's no Twin Peaks in terms of quirkiness, but the high-concept nature of it puts
in in league with that, Lost, and other similar shows, with a flair for action and
adventure. Enjoy it.
All I can say after watching the DVDs of the first season is that I can not believe
NBC "green-lighted" this show. It's so different than what's currently in vogue
save for Lost. Those who miss the X-Files just may have a worthy successor. Not as
mysterious or intense as Lost, I find it to be overall more entertaining. This kind of extended story is hard to make. I mean it could degenerate
into childish dribble if most of the elements do not cohere together. But cohere
they do and I think the cast is excellent, the writing sharp, the location and
props first rate, and the special effects very good for a television budget. Sure
it pushes what is plausible, but as it does it never gets so silly as to insult
your intelligence. Bottomline is that this is great Sci-Fi drama for the
entire family. I doubt it will be a classic with a long run like X-Files, but in
the meantime I recommend getting the DVD if you missed it like I did the first time
around. This fall my must see shows has just increased by one more series! PS: I just heard it got axed from NBC...Here's hoping Sci-Fi picks it up.
This show has an amazing plot with good and recognizable actors (like the girl from
Boston Legal and Boris the Butcher from Snatch). Even the extras and the kid, whom
i thought from the commercial might be a weak link, surprised me with his skill.
It's just the little things that the director needs to tweak. Like the guy who does
the recap of the last episode at the beginning of each new episode needs to be
fired. Having a narrator tell you what happened kind of ruins the story. The only
other small problem I had was that sometimes they take too long to do things, but
no where near as long as some shows like Prison Break. Anyone know when they will
resume the season??
Cute Movie feel good movie I had never heard of this movie but ran across it while
looking for something to rent. I had high hopes for this movie based purely on Flex
being in this movie. I have never seen him in anything not worth while. True to
form this movie delivered for me. I enjoyed the story. The movie is full of great
actors and actresses. The hilarious Tasha Smith, Essence Atkins and of course Tangi
Miller. I really liked this movie a lot. I didn't give it five stars because it did
not discuss certain issues that I thought the movie should have detailed. The issue
was apparently resolved but I would have appreciated a discussion resolving the
issues. I liked the movie so much that I am now buying the movie after I've already
rented and watched it.
I am new at this, so bear with me please. I am a big fan of Surface. I thought the
script and the computer graphics were exceptional, as good as any Sci Fi flick I've
seen at the theater. In February the TV guide said Season Finale, the announcer for
the show said something to the effect of, "...and now for the season finale of
Surface." Season Finale, not series finale! I couldn't wait for fall to get here,
to see was going to happen next. So fall gets here and it's nowhere to be found! If
NBC isn't going to pick it up, what about Sci Fi or USA? It seems to me that Bay
Watch didn't last long on ABC & then USA picked it up, and it went gang busters! (I
bet ABC was chocking) Ha! If not a series, then at least a mini series, to give all
us loyal fans closure. What happened to our guy's trapped in the church steeple?
Was the creature in the chaple Nim? Did he have a grouth spert? Does the cloned guy
come over to our side? There are so many unanswered questions. Thank's for
listening to me babble!
I would like if they brought back surface. I really enjoyed the show along with my
family. I felt the plot development and storyline were first rate. Like the other
person said, it seems that everything gets reduced to the lowest common
denominator. Nothing but bland, politically correct junk survives. Just look at the
internet to see how many people were watching the show. Also it is not nice to
leave us hanging as to what happened the all of the characters on the show. This is
the same thing that happened to the time travel show I think was called 8 days but
should have been called backstep. Did the Olympics kill surface? I know the writers
strike killed another one of my favorite shows years ago called greatest American
hero.
When i started watching "Surface"for the first time i was hooked.It had everything
i wanted in a show suspense,action,mystery,great plot,and a great cast of
characters.My whole family loved to watch the show.It seems when there's a great
show on TV the network usually cancels it like they seemed to do with this
show.They go by the Nielson rating system which i think is stupid because there is
a lot of junk that they seem to watch which the networks keep on the air.If only
there was a way for everyone to vote on a show then maybe the good shows won't get
canceled.When i watch TV now i only watch good shows so right now thats not
watching a whole lot of TV.I hope that the network brings the show back but when
they make up there mind with a dumb decision they seem to stick to it.I hope
there's a lot of people out there that feel the same way.
I enjoy the show Surface very much. The show is very entertaining and it's a clean
show. A Show like surface is interesting. It keeps my attention. It has compassion
and suspense. I love all the cast members that are on the show. They are all very
good choices. i think it is very important to have the right cast of Any show
because thats what makes any show a success and of course the scenes and the show
itself. Television has changed so much over the years. It has changed in good ways
and in bad. I love to watch some comedy,action, suspense and romance. And scifi.
But Surface is a show that I hope comes back for many seasons because it is a great
show and its something that families can watch. My children are grown, but my
husband and I enjoy watching these types of shows. I appreciate your time and
letting me comment my opinion. Thanks. Paulette Blackwell
i don't believe it sixty percent of voters voted this show as ten now how the hell
is the rating a five point eight it impossible i don't get it, its totally pathetic
i mean how. anyway the show is great the story is great and the characters are
interesting, definitely a ten out of ten from me i think the creatures are cool
they look great and i wish i had a nimrod great show great cgi hope there's a
second series as a lot went unanswered in the first season and when is nimrod gonna
get any bigger as the rest of the creatures are huge, again why is the rating so
low when the votes were so high 10/10
Someone asked why it was canceled I tell you why Because "reality" makes money. the
show surface was canceled so that they could replace it with a "reality" show, this
will haunt NBC, I and about half of my high school, about 1000 people total have
vowed to boycott NBC, until they bring this show back. in my area (I don't know
about other places) but they had a great thing going with the Sci-Fi channel where
the Sci-Fi channel would show last weeks episode at 7:00 and then NBC would show
the week's new episode at 8:00 this was great because it gave you a little
refresher as to what happened in the last episode. I was so angry when I learned
that the show was canceled and they were going to just leave them on top of the
church like that!
Surface is one of the best shows that I have ever seen. NBC is so stupid for
canceling a great show like this and worse of all only leaving it half complete.
NBC or someone else should give Surface at least one more season just so it can be
completed. It's as if NBC gave you a book to read and half way through it they
decide to take it away from you and then you can never find out the ending. I just
want to see what happens to everyone and most importantly see what happens to Nim.
I think I can say this safely about most Surface fans is that we want to save Nim!
Nim has taken all of our hearts away and then NBC just cuts them in two. Come on
NBC, just give Surface one more season!
It's not often that a TV series grabs me right off the bat; a recent chance
download of the pilot for Surface had me glued to my seat for the entirety of the
episode, after which I immediately set out on a fevered search to learn everything
I could about this wonderful series. To my chagrin, I found out it had been
canceled after a mere 15 episodes, despite its strong ratings and extremely
favorable reviews. Such a shame. Since then, I've acquired the remaining
episodes, and found the first 5 or 6 to be among the best television I've EVER
watched. Just fantastic from start to finish, and as another reviewer commented, I
LOVED how they ended every episode with a huge finish. I imagine watching it each
week I would've been screaming with tension and just captivated, desperately
waiting for the next episode to be released. Growing up, I always heard that was
how early serial movies used to do it, ending with a huge cliffhanger to get the
crowds back into the theater for the next episode. Well, it seems for
some reason or another the suits decided to kill this off, and apparently the
people behind the show must've seen the writing on the wall, because after episode
6 things definitely take a turn for the worse. I wouldn't say the episodes actually
become BORING but a lot of the plot elements become a bit more clichéd, and I've
got to say, the final episode really left me feeling cheated. I just wish the
show's creators were given a fair chance. The *ONLY* other show that left me
feeling like that was the first season of Stargate SG-1, which just resonated
tremendously, feeling very "true", soulful and made from the heart. Surface was a
great series, and maybe one day, some well-heeled TV lover will see all the
outpouring of emotion about the show's cancellation, and bring back this show. One
can hope, at least. :)
***SPOILERS*** Whatever else can (or can't) be said about it, SURFACE is superbly
crafted. The cinematography is simply stunning (to say the least) and the fx are
nothing if not state-of-the-art. Conceptually, the show offers a little bit of
everything- and for just about everybody (parents, kids, fantasy and/or fx fans).
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND by way of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON with a
bit of JAWS and GODZILLA thrown in for good measure, say. And there wasn't a single
sour note struck acting-wise, either; some surprisingly solid casting, here. This
series SURFACEd, seemingly, from out of nowhere and, by sheer dint of its
straightforward storytelling, carried the viewer along for the better part of an
entire season. All things considered, a job very well done. I only hope it
reSURFACEs next season...
What can I say? I got up this morning and turned on sci-fi and watched half of the
first season and figured it all out. Strange, unusual, and brilliant. It gives all
potential, and to think at first I said this looks stupid. This has got to be the
next best thing since X-Files, but as always nothing will ever take down that show
in my opinion. I am telling you, it's scary and then suspenseful and then mellow.
Towards the end you have Miles as a love puppy with a weird pet that is a new
species. You have two people on the run from authorities. And a killer tsunami
about to strike! Wow! And did I mention Miles pet is a potential killer(well the
rest of his species is). Surface is a brilliant show with spins and twists that
delivers it all.
This film was great!Tangi Miller and Flex did a great job. They both look good
together and they both pulled it off.Tasha Smith was so funny as the cousin,and she
couldn't stay out of her business.Essence held it down for her girl, when she
needed her. Aloma was sweet and played a dear Grandmother she really reminded me of
my grandmother.And Oh,I can't forget about the stripper, he was so find, and I
didn't know if I should cover my eyes or smile while I watch him reveal his
sexiness on the big screen.Damn! he was fine! Tangi looked flawless, and sexy, and
she stepped up a notch since Felicity. Over all the movie had a lot "A" List Actors
and Actress. It was funny, sexy, crazy, touching,loving, emotional and wonderful.
This movie is a must see! Go it get on DVD now if don't have it!
The problem with TV today is that people have been spoiled by "lite" TV viewing.
This type of television show is the equivalent of elevator music or "easy
listening" jazz. The typical viewers idea of "continuity" is remembering who got
voted off the island last week and wondering who will be the next to go. Show them
a program like surface, Firefly, Dr. Who, or anything with a plot arc of more than
three episodes and...well, they'll just flip back to Survivor. 95% of
the sheep watching TV don't want to rack their brains. They want excuses to not
think. They want to make sure the "boob tube" lives up to its name...and they don't
want shows that try and go any other route. Because of this, Surface and many other
high-quality shows that should have lasted far longer have gotten the axe. TV viewers don't want stories, or morals, or philosophy, or anything over a third
grade vocabulary level. They want people eating earthworms, or over-dramatized
"real life" series (no such thing! You cannot observe something without changing
the very nature of what you observe) or hormonal shows involving groups of people
having trysts and then bragging about it to their friends. Today's
television is nothing but a wasteland, and the few diamonds you can pick out of the
dust are just tossed out because no one even knows what a diamond is anymore.
Surface was one of those diamonds.
I have bought the complete season of Surface. watched it in 3 days! I was so
captured by the the plot, theories and basically everything about this show. The
actor who plays Miles is great. Mile's sister, mother and father acted like real
life family would. You could connect on so many levels it's fascinating. I find animals are so wonderful, you can almost connect with them as a
parent is to a child. It would be something if a creature of this sort of nature
truly exists. Am sadden, that Surface is not having a second season or
at least four more shows. I have so many questions that need to be answered and
hopefully maybe they will create more or maybe in a book. Love the show
very much. For those who haven't watched Surface, if you like sci-fi you need to
watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This DVD set is the complete widescreen 15-episode run of "Surface", a television
show made by Universal in 2006. The full running time is 10 hours and 34 minutes
plus a few bonus features (deleted scenes, cast interviews, special effects
featurette). This was a relatively high budget show and much of the budget makes it
to the screen in the form of quality production design and special effects. Unfortunately 10+ hours is a lot of time and as typically happens with this
type of stuff, the overall quality begins to fall off in the later episodes. I
found the first 7 episodes (Discs 1 and 2) extremely engaging and the remainder a
disappointment. "Surface" was produced, written and directed by Josh and Jonas
Pate; and it appears that they were surprised by the success of the series and
unable to cobble together enough good subsequent material as they rushed to fill
the order for additional episodes. It even looks like additional writers were
brought in for the later episodes because the characters (who were already the
weakest part of the series) lack consistency with the way they were played in the
early episodes. The series was canceled and although the last episode provides a
conclusion of sorts there are still a lot of things left hanging. It is
basically a science fiction story about genetically created dragons; sort of a
television blend of "Jurassic Park" and "ET". The story begins as a puzzle as a
crew-less Navy sub is found adrift at sea, boaters on a Texas lake are sucked into
whirlpool, a lighthouse in Africa is destroyed by a huge monster, etc. etc. And as
long as things stay this vague there is a fair amount of tension and suspense. A
human element is introduced in the form of three American families, one on each
coast and one on the Gulf of Mexico. Laura Daughterty (Lake Bell) is a California
marine biologist who discovers a strange creature rising from an undersea thermal
vent on the ocean floor. Rich Connelly (Jay R. Ferguson) is diving with his younger
brother in the gulf when a similar creature drags his brother away (never to be
seen again). Miles Bennett (Carter Jenkins) is a Wilmington teenager
who finds some strange eggs floating in the ocean. He takes one home where it
hatches into an "ET" type dragon. He will spend the rest of the series trying to
hide his strange pet from his family and from the local authorities. These dragons
may look like lizards but they are more like indestructible electric eels, firing
electromagnetic pulses, causing lightning strikes, emptying the sea of fish, and
reproducing like a bunch of randy rabbits when they find an undersea thermal vent
of boiling water. As long as it's uncertain whether or not they're intelligent,
extraterrestrial, or harmless the premise is interesting. Once you begin to suspect
their origin it all gets very tired and predictable. Jay R. Ferguson (a
staggeringly bad actor in the tradition of David Hasselhoff) essentially plays the
Richard Dreyfuss character from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", so you know
that with a better actor and a better director it could have been an interesting
character. You will grow to hate this character more with each episode.
Unfortunately what starts out as three parallel story lines is soon condensed into
two as Ferguson and Bell (a low-budget version of Sandra Bullock) are soon paired
up and involved in a series of moronic adventures almost as improbable as the stuff
"Jason Bourne" gets himself into. You expect plot holes and the need to suspend
disbelief in this type of show (that can even be part of the fun) but their
adventures are not just totally implausible, they are utterly and completely
boring. There are three consecutive episodes that feature Ferguson and Bell
together in a submersible that will have you longing for the excitement of an all-
day actuarial conference. Jenkins (Miles) is the strongest member of
the cast and the segments with his pet dragon (Nimrod) are inter-cut often enough
with the boring Ferguson-Bell stuff to keep you watching. And these segments
benefit from the presence of gorgeous Leighton Meester (of recent "Gossip Girl"
fame) as his sister Savannah. Apparently the producers picked up on the importance
of this to their "teenage boy" target audience and the one positive thing they did
with the later episodes of the series was to introduce Linsey Godrey (Caitlin) as a
"first love" interest for Miles. So as Savannah's screen time decreases Catlin is
gradually phased in. In retrospect they needed a third storyline to
keep viewers sufficiently engaged and it would have been better to limit the adult
melodrama in favor of a second group of young actors. Then again, what
do I know? I'm only a child.
I like the show, but come-on writers, get some action in it! Quit dragging it on
and on. You have a great concept and it could be a whole lot more. Miles (Jenkins)
is great and performs as a kid that age should act in the situation he finds
himself in. Hey, get creative with the creatures, they may have telepathic
capabilities or other out-worldly powers. The kid actors in the series are very
good and convincing. The parents of Miles do appear to be a little too out-of-sense
as to what is going on, but develop this, come on! you have a great seed here and
there can be a whole new twist to next season with a lot of new characters and
creatures and all kinds of neat sci-fi stuff. If they could make a series on a
witch, then you should be able to make one on these creatures and kids.
I am continuously amazed at the US networks. What is the matter with them? Yet
another very very promising series axed after just 15 episodes and we are left not
knowing what the hell happens to everyone. I really thoroughly enjoyed this show
and am so annoyed that we will never find out what happens to the characters and
the 'monsters' from the deep. This show had everything. Humour, suspense, action.
What more could you want. Why oh why did the pull the plug on this? It just doesn't
make sense. Buffy went on for 7 series as did Charmed and enjoyable as they were,
Surface, Invasion and Dead Like Me were even better. Just because a show does not
get terribly high ratings doesn't mean it's rubbish and if they gave it a bit
longer probably more people would catch on to it and they would end up with a big
hit on their hands. One season just does not give it enough time to catch on and
the networks are far to eager to pull the plug. They should learn that like fine
wines and cheeses, they take time to mature. Bring Surface and Invasion
back - P L E A S E !!!!!!!
I love this show. It's truly unique. I was under the impression it was going to
have more seasons. In anticipation of series 2, recently I purchased series 1 to
re-watch it in order to be refreshed when part 2 started. Now after watching it I
was excited and craving more, so I came to the site to see the schedule for the
continuation. I am really disappointed to see there no longer are plans for a
second series as I was eagerly looking forward to watching more of this story. I
think they really dropped the ball on this one. There was plenty of story line left
to build on and lots of unanswered questions. I'm now a very unhappy view and I
hope that they would reconsider their decision and pick up the story where it left
off.
This is one of the better sci-fi series. It involves character development, a few
really tensionate moments and reasonable episode scripts. As one other commentator
said here, it looked as if it were a mini series, not a full blown series with
filler episodes and low budgets. The problem with the show, which in
short is a Godzilla series, is that it started too big, with incredible monsters,
fantastic science, then it all boiled down to local Americans doing stuff. Then,
the show ended too soon, since the Olympics were coming and hey! a sci-fi show is a
sci-fi show, but half naked athletic people running around aimlessly is much more
important. So they only did 15 episodes instead of the expected 22. The audience
was small, too, as people didn't really caught it on at 20:00. In the end the suits
did it. Trust a marketing plan to destroy anything that looks remotely original and
promising. Conclusion: you have a show with good special effects, stuff
like huge monsters killing people or destroying boats, then going into genetic
engineering, transforming people, human clones, end of the world, tsunamis. Also,
the only fillers are scenes with aggressive rednecks or other annoying people being
killed for their stupidity. The down-side is that after 15 episodes that prepare
something huge, the show ends. No real ending, no closure, just a bitter taste of
cloth in one's mouth, as if you just swallowed a piece of suit.
There is no denying it. Sci-fi on TV is difficult. There are so many problems that
the genre brings with it. Like the need for a good budget, solid writing, decent
acting. Perhaps the budget and the script writing is the departments where i feel
most attempts have failed. So does "Surface" succeed? Not completely, but more so
than most. The way i see it, a good sci-fi show doesn't really need a
lot of CGI to work, nor does it need a ton of money. What it needs is the capacity
to create a larger-than-life feeling. The feeling that there is more than meets the
eye, something to make me curious and willing to try and figure out how it's going
to end. Adding the pieces of the puzzle and sometimes saying "Aha!" is what makes
or breaks a show like this one. "Surface" had a couple of flaws. First
of all it's basic premise is not as exciting as it could have been, nor is the
revealed story as exciting (or daring) as i hoped in the beginning. Also the TV-
feeling is very present much of the time. All the way from the crappy CGI (that
ranges from decent to awful) to the rather shifting quality in the acting
department. Also it feels sometimes a bit too family-oriented in that it takes the
edge of sometimes and becomes almost cutesy. But aside from these flaws it's an
enjoyable show. Maybe not as spectacular as some of the other sci-fi shows out
there. But it manages to keep me interested the whole season and it offers a couple
of nice cliffhangers between shows as well. The ending for me is not that
appealing. I don't like shows that end without ending so to speak, leaving the
story unresolved. It's especially unfortunate in this case since the show seems to
be canceled after the first season (it is as of yet undecided). HBO is
to me the benchmark for quality television. Their series have the best actors, the
best production values and above all the most solid writing. This is not HBO-
quality, but it's good for what it is. Good enough to want another season without a
doubt.
I came across this movie while channel surfing one day; and decided to give it a
chance. To my surprise I enjoyed this darkhorse movie. I felt some genuine
chemistry between Challen Cates and Malcolm-Jamal Warner. It was such a
lighthearted and warm movie that when it was over I felt upbeat. Sure, this movie
was predictable from the very beginning, but I give it high marks for the way that
it made me feel when it was over. I must admit that I have never seen Challen Cates
before, but I feel that she can definitely act. When you combine her good acting
with her cute face and attractive figure. She has the makings of at least becoming
a well-known star.
A tender movie that represents how our daily life is a catalyst that causes us to
change our thoughts, behaviors and emotions into people we're not. This story is a
love story where true emotions arise. I credit Malcolm Jamal Warner (Win) and
Challen Cates for outstanding performances . A movie definitely worth seeing, a
holiday roadtrip that turns into an emotional turn-a-round. I suggest seeing it.
Watching the preview of Armored I thought the movie was either going to be a very
bad or a very good film. Thankfully, the movie was entertaining, suspenseful, and
realistic. There never is the perfect crime, and Armored showed why. The movie show
perfectly when people get into stressful situation they behave like animals. The
last hour of the film is very entertaining. Matt Dillon is still a very good actor.
Hard to believe Dillon is 50 years of age. I would buy this movie. I give Armored
eight out of ten. Not a Christmas movie. Did I write ten lines yet? Nope! Anyways,
there is not to many action films. Armored has a lot of excitement in it, which
gives the movie goer a choice over another comedy.
"A Fare to Remember" is a totally derivative, almost ridiculous movie, but has a
warmth about it that makes it a very effective and upbeat holiday movie. It stars a
pretty newcomer, Challen Kates, as a high-powered ad executive who, right before
her wedding, has to rush from L.A. to Seattle to keep a client who has rejected
every other presentation. She has transportation difficulties from the beginning
and seemingly no money. This is the first dumb thing - were there no ATMs anywhere?
She must make a fortune. At any rate, she meets a cab driver (Warner) who looks
like a homeless man, and he drives her to her presentation and when she emerges
with a huge box of beef jerky (the client's product), he's there to take her to the
airport. All flights are canceled, so in order to get to L.A. for her wedding, she
hires him to take her there. Along the way, they bond and learn from
each other. It's a very sweet movie though there is absolutely nothing new in it -
it combines "Six Days and Seven Nights" and a few other films. But the chemistry
between the stars is good, they're likable, and the acting is good. Look for Jerry
Springer as the head of the beef jerky company and a cameo by Karl Malden. This is a nice film to take in over the holiday season. It's on Lifetime.
Most Christmas movies have a "redemption" theme but most are a variation on a very
similar plot. This movie is wacky and has an unusual plot. You may need to hang in
there for the first half where events may seem hard to believe for a movie (but not
as unbelievable as real life - Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, says he's never
made up anything in any of his cartoons - they're all based on real life stories
told to him by his fans). The second half starts to fit the plot together. I
enjoyed it. BTW, one reviewer noted that the idea of someone not having
cash available is not credible in these days of ATMs, but it's perfectly credible
if you've lost your wallet - who carries ATM cards anywhere else while on a
business trip?
This movie was a suprise for me while I was surfing from channel to channel... I
don't know why but it filled in me with warmth and happiness. This is what a high
budget movie can not do mostly. I liked it, this is "a must see" one... 
Challen Cates does a wonderful job depicting a conflicted bride, torn between the
challenges that await her professionally, the memories of the freedom she thought
she would have when in college (inspired by a famous author) and the safety of her
pending marriage to a man she really doesn't love. This movie is definitely worth
seeing--- as predictable as it may be, the acting is inspiring and real chemistry
exists between Challen Cates and Malcolm Jamaal Warner.
Now I like Victor Herbert. And I like Mary Martin and Allan Jones. But it would
have been nice to see a real biography of Victor Herbert. Walter Connolly as
Herbert does have a decent resemblance to him in his latter years Jones
and Martin sing beautifully though. The Herbert music is just there to adorn the
plot line concerning these two musical performers. Jones's John Ramsay is a frail
character, very similar to Gaylord Ravenal in Showboat who Jones also played. As for Mary Martin, it's a mystery why she never had a good Hollywood
career. She did films with Bing Crosby and Dick Powell as well as this one. She
performed well, but movie audiences didn't take to her. The best musical moment in
the film is Jones and Martin in a duet of Thine Alone. The recordings I have of the
song are individual and it was written as a duet. There's also a pleasant scene
with Jones and Martin riding bicycles swapping Herbert songs as they ride. The real Victor Herbert with his womanizing and his Irish patriot background and
his musical training in Germany where he developed a love for all things German
would have been a fascinating study. He was also a cello virtuoso before he turned
full time to composing. I have to take strong exception to the reviewer who said
Cuddles Sakall would have been a good Victor Herbert. Sakall as Irish, HELLO. Nice movie, but the real Vic would have been so much better.
I cannot argue with other comments that the story line focuses more on the romance
between the Mary Martin and Allan Jones characters, much in the manner of
"Showboat", than on the life of Victor Herbert. But in the 1930's, would that have
been a box office draw? Instead of the Life of VH, perhaps it should have been the
Music of VH. There is an abundance of this. For me, the thrill of the
movie came near the end of the movie when Susanna Foster sings "Land of Romance".
It has been over a decade since I caught this movie for a second time at a local
'old movies' theater. At first the audience was stunned; then it burst into
spontaneous applause. I remember the shivers running up and down my spine. My
trivia memory recalled the information provided to an inquiring public by a local
journalist when the movie first came out back in the late 1930's. 'That note hit by
Miss Foster was a far F above high C.' She may not have had four octaves
a la Yma Sumac but the then teen-ager certainly had a range!
In the changing world of CG and what-not of cartoon animations etc. etc., Faeries
was a warm welcome at least by me. I think it's important to show these sort of
films once in a while, to preserve them and help remind us of where the originality
and fun of cartoons actually came from. People were talking about how it is boring
because of the graphics and stuff but hey! think about the films that will be
considered boring if every film looked like the new state of the art ones everybody
and their mother is making these days. Call me old-fashioned but I liked it. It's a
wonderful story about supernatural beings and human beings and all it really needs
from its audience is their imagination.
I think that this is a fabulous movie... I watched it constantly from the time I
was 4 to about the time I was 8... However, watching it resulted in many
nightmares. I particularly got them because of the guy that was always like "the
otherworld" and his friends. I am 12, and I still get nightmares about it to this
day. I can't fall asleep right now because I am thinking about it. I love this
movie, but it is so scary! I definitely love this movie though, I have very good
memories from it. Kate is very good at acting in this movie. Amazingly, I never
realized that it was her! I also think that the graphics were very high quality,
contrary to what some other people think
Basically an endearingly chintzy and moronic $1.50 version of the nifty early 80's
subterranean creature feature favorite "The Boogens," this entertainingly schlocky
cheapie centers on a nasty, squirmy, wriggling monster who makes an instant meal
out of any unfortunate souls foolhardy enough to go poking around the notoriously
off limits Gold Spike Mine. Your standard-issue motley assortment of intrepid
boneheads -- hectoring hard-nosed mine boss, cute, but insipid blonde babe, feisty
lady geologist, boozy, inexplicably Aussie-accented (!) seasoned old mine hand,
charmless doofus, hunky, jolly guy, and, arguably the most annoying character of
the uniformly irritating bunch, a nerdy bespectacled aspiring writer dweeb who's
prone to speaking in flowery, melodramatic utterances -- trek into the dark,
uninviting cave in search of gold. Naturally, these intensely insufferable
imbeciles discover that the allegedly abandoned mine is the home of a deadly, ugly,
multi-tentacled beast who in time honored hoary B-flick fashion proceeds to
gruesomely bag the group one at a time. Directed, co-written, co-produced and co-
edited with dumbfounding maladroitness by Melanie Anne Phillips, acted with
dismaying flatness by a rank no-name cast, further marred by lethargic pacing, a
drably meandering narrative, murky, under-lit, eye-straining cinematography, a
shivery, redundantly thudding pseudo-John Carpenter synthesizer score, and a
cruddy, herky-jerky stop motion animation wormoid thingie that's only quickly
glimpsed at the very end of the movie, this extremely clunky, amateurish and hence
quite delectably dreadful would-be scarefest commits all the necessary bad film
missteps to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie.
Early 80's creature feature concerns a long abandoned gold mine that some intrepid
miners are determined to check out. Naturally, they find no gold down there but one
very hungry monster that slithers along in search of prey. While I have
to be honest and admit I found it dull at first (I personally prefer the
thematically similar "The Boogens"), it actually grew on me as it went along. Now,
the characters aren't too interesting nor the actors either. The closest to an
interesting character is Morgan, played by Keith Hurt. In any event, female lead
Terri Berland is quite good looking and Rolf Theison makes his domineering jerk an
easy person to hate. The writer played by effects man Mark Sawicki wears thin
quickly. It begins in a comfortably predictable enough way, with a
nighttime set piece in which two victims are claimed to get things off to an
acceptable start. The monster itself is intriguing for its design (as you can
imagine, it gets revealed a bit at a time until late in the game) and for being the
product of stop motion animation when this process was no longer used very much.
Director Melanie Anne Phillips (directing under the pseudonym of David Michael
Hillman) and crew deserve some credit for their creation of atmosphere. They manage
to make the film look quite claustrophobic and gloomy, and their use of lighting
works well. The film does build in intensity towards a pretty good ending. Suffice
it to say, they do the best they can on their low budget. An obscure
little item worth looking into for die-hard horror buffs. 7/10
Well unlike most people.... I went into this movie expecting it to not be that good
and it turned out to be an awesome film. Pretty cool plot I love the idea of it but
what really made this movie was the actors. they all did an incredible job and it
was pretty cool to see fishburn and dillon work together. It's a movie where you go
in thinking right away you will be able to predict whats going to happen but it
doesen't quite turn out how you predicted. I don't want to give away anything about
the story so I wont... but I suggest giving this one a chance. If you saw the movie
Money Train and enjoyed that you would love this movie. Maybe everything Lawrence
Fishburn touches is gold?
I was completely drawn into the story, but I wonder if perhaps I shouldn't have
been so sympathetic to the Hurt character's plight for respect. Because when it
boils down, I really think that glam reporters such as Barbara Walters is the
devil. ...or maybe the filmmakers were telling us that we're all unknowing
supporters of fluff news stories.
Or maybe not. Whatever anyone thinks of "Broadcast News," good or bad, almost all
the credit for that "thinking" belongs to writer-producer-director James L. Brooks.
As a screenwriter (of which he has long been one of the best), it is not easy to
savage an entire business -- in this case, the "business" being television news --
but to do it with a smile, a wink, a knowing nod and a laugh practically every step
of the way. To do all that takes real talent, something Mr. J. Brooks has in
abundance. One user on this website, in his summary, asked the musical
question -- "Did Walter Cronkite act like this?" Answerve: No! Of course not! And
the reason for that is in Walter's -- uh, Mr. Cronkite's -- day, the only thing
that mattered was bringing the news to the people. Same goes for John Chancellor
and Chet and David and Douglas Edwards and Howard K. Smith. Sure, they had to pay
lip-service attention to their ratings, if only to please their bosses. But all
they REALLY cared about was THE NEWS ITSELF. Now, of course, all that
has changed. For the last 25-30 years in the network news business, the only thing
that has really mattered is ratings, ratings, ratings. The bottom line. How many
bucks will our news division deliver for the network? Don't believe that? Let's consider "The Big Three": Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings
(aka "Stanley Stunning"). All three have now been on the job at their respective
anchor desks for the last 15-20 years (Peter actually got his first shot at the
national anchor desk way back in the 1960s but was totally unprepared for the job).
Of the three, Dan is the one with the greatest in-the-field training as a reporter.
Personally, I think all three do terrific jobs as news anchors and are deserving of
their positions. All of which has nothing to do with why all three are actually IN
those jobs. All three are now in their 60's (Dan is pushing the big 7-0) and all
three are still very good looking. And if you think they're still good looking now,
imagine how good looking they were in their 40's, when all three were hired for
(let's say, "put in") their current jobs. But do you honestly believe that any one
of these three would have been "put in" had he looked like, let's say, Fred Gwynne
("Herman Munster"). Or like -- heaven forfend -- ME!!! Not only that, if Dan were
retiring tomorrow, a younger (than he is today) Walter Cronkite would not be able
to get his old job back. Why? Not pretty enough. And it would matter not a whit
that he is, or once was, "the most trusted man in America." And this is
what "Broadcast News" is all about. Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), the next pretty-
boy-national-news-anchor-to-be who has trouble with a few minor things, such as
thinking for himself, being able to write and knowing stuff. Jane Craig (Holly
Hunter), the brilliant news producer with news business standards and ethics, all
of which get thrown to the wind when even she falls for pretty-boy-Tom. And Aaron
Altman (Albert Brooks, no relation to James L.), a top-notch newswriter and field
reporter who has no hope for a national job because he "flop-sweats" behind the
anchor desk. And many other such flawed characters whom you KNOW really do exist in
the news divisions of the various networks. "Network" blazed the trail.
Eleven years later, "Broadcast News" carried the torch as a worthy successor. In
the new millennium, what will be the next movie to savage the business of network
"news you can use" ..... maybe. Or maybe not.
Spoiler Alert I have never seen comments on a movie, that I disagree
with more then the comments people made on this. One could learn from critical
viewings of this movie. As an educational film, I rate it highly because it teaches
"how to succeed"! We do not watch movies to learn; we generally watch for
entertainment. As entertainment, I rate it low: the ending is downbeat and
cerebral/intellectual. This conflict results in my eight star rating. The movie
follows Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), a television news producer. The network
executive introduces Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), to study for the on air news
anchor position. Tom immediately charms people with humbleness. Another potential
news anchor has been waiting for years for his on air opportunity, Aaron Altman
(Albert Brooks). Altman knows all news stories, inside and out. The
Network executive wants Grunnick on the air and Jane argues, saying Grunnick is not
ready, he doesn't know the news. They do not listen to her. Forced to place
Grunnick on the air, Jane contacts Altman to get information on the news story and
relays Altman's comments through an earpiece to Grunnick while Grunnick speaks. We
watch the sharp contrast between Altman's/Jane Craig's words and Grunnick's, as
Grunnick skillfully rewords everything Altman and Jane Craig say in his ear, in
order to make it understandable, likable and entertaining the audience. Altman gets
a chance on air and the network execs require him to seek coaching from Grunnick,
the new guy. This new (news ingnorant) guy coaching him? This is something Altman
does not see justified, but agrees reluctantly. Grunnick coaches Altman
and gets excited noting hundreds of Altman's shortcomings in appearance, audio and
vocabulary. Altman never considered these things before, when he became an expert
on the news itself. The complexity of understanding what Grunnick taught him,
causes Altman to have a panicked sweating attack ("Flop Sweat") when he is on the
air. Grunnick eventually becomes the top network anchor and Altman resigns prior to
being fired. But Grunnick fails in his attempt for a romance with Jane Craig,
because she finds out from Altman, that Grunnick sometimes fakes circumstances in
order to make people like him. This turns her off of him. This sends the message
that in relationships, we want people who are genuine and not trying to make us
like them. This movie sends the message that getting people to like you
is the most important skill in a job, but it is especially true in Broadcast News.
There are many people commenting on how this is the dumbing down of TV News and how
Grunnick represents a good looking, but dumb guy or all style, but no substance.
The opposite is true, Grunnick possessed skills and very complex intellect, to get
people to like him, including the presence of mind to know exactly how he appears
and sounds, when he is on camera (He coaches Altman to Punch a word in every
sentence). Grunnick's flaw that costs him the relationship with Jane Craig, is that
he is too driven to be likable and will fake a situation. Many people are calling
Altman very intelligent or brilliant. Altman played by Brookes is not as
intelligent as Grunnick and the "Flop Sweat" scene shows that his mind could not
handle the complexity that Grunnick handles when on the air. Altman is angered by
this fact that he knew the news and Grunnick suceeded more by getting people to
like him. There are also people commenting that these things are exclusive to the
TV News industry. The concept that winning friends is the most important skill in a
job, is obviously, not popular, but my experience indicates it is true in most
jobs. As an education on how to succeed, this movie is fantastic, albeit unpopular.
Educational, yes, but it does not have an uplifting ending.
This movie has everything going for it: Fully developed characters, a realistic
portrayal of working Washington, bathed in warmth and humor that is uniquely Albert
Brooks. The dumbing down of network news is even more of an issue now than it was
in 1987. Remember, this was pre-cable! So satisfying to care about complex people
attempting to achieve complex goals -- and it all moves along with lightning speed.
Such a true to life depiction of friendships that teeter toward romance. See if you
can spot John Cusack as the angry messenger! And do you recognize Peter Hackes from
real life Broadcast News? Finally, if you're from DC, see if you agree with Holly
Hunter's directions to cab drivers!
I loved this movie the first time I saw it. It gives such detail of what executives
involved in the news industry will do just to get a story on the air: notably Jane
Craig rushing Kenny to finish editing the piece to get it off, and then Joan Cusack
struggling to get it in, and William Hurt, who according to Jane commits an
incredible breach of ethics, fakes his tears during his date rape interview, a flaw
that is pointed out by Aaron. Another high point is when Tom uses Jane for his own
benefits, and then turns around and sleeps with Jennifer. The script is brilliant,
and the directing is almost as good. All three main actors were great in the
portrayals of their characters, Especially Holly Hunter, and Albert Brooks, whom is
the funniest in the film. William Hurt is also very good. This deserved at least
three Oscars, best actress(holly hunter), best supporting actor (Albert Brooks),
and best picture. I liked the last parts of the film where it shows them reuniting
7 years later. 8/10
A truly terrific, touching film. Female melodrama at its finest, with a lot of
comedy: great dialogue, characters and writing. Any woman can relate to the story
because it's a classic: you're in love with "Mr. Right" but he has no interest in
you until some guy who seems completely wrong comes along and you fall head-over-
heels in love. But of course, it's not that simplistic. The characters are real and
all of the performances are perfect. The movie is hilarious as well, every scene
skewers society. I'd recommend this film to anyone who loves a well-written
screenplay of humor and melodrama. You can relate to every character and the plot
moves in unexpected directions. A great, underrated movie.
Movie watchers often say great movies must have 3 memorable scenes to be
considered truly great. Broadcast news doesn't have three, it has twice
that. This movie is extremely well written by James Brooks. Holly Hunter
and Albert Brooks have never been better. I love this movie for many
reasons. It is great because it makes you laugh and it makes you cry.
Albert Brooks has several great lines and many unforgettable scenes: #
1(laughed) "I can sing and read, I am singing while I read," with
Midnight Train to Georgia playing in the background. # 2(laughed)
Telling the William Hurt character that "You really blew the lid off of
nookie," after watching Hurt's report on date-rape. #3 (Cried) When
Aaron (A. Brooks) finally tells Jayne (Hunter) that he loves her and
she can't end up with Hurt's character because he represents everything about journalism Jayne finds dispicable. Finally, #4 (laughed) who can
forget the scene where Aaron anchors the weekend news....hilarious. This
movie should have won an Oscar! It has everything I love in movies,
great acting, intelligent script, and even a Jack Nicholson cameo!
Typically, I'm a comedy guy. I rented this at the video store under comedy, and
thought "Albert Brooks! Awesome!" and rented it. It seemed like the romantic
comedy, and I remembered I hated those, and had the full mindset of hating this
movie. Boy, was I wrong. While this is a romantic comedy,
it's acted by an amazing lead & supporting cast (Brooks, Hunter, Cusack, and
Nicholson), and everything works well within itself. The script sounds real and not
forced, like this could be happening in the news station you're watching at night.
It takes your emotions and makes you enjoy Hunter and Brooks and loathe Hurt, which
makes the ending a bit unenjoyable and fruitless, but it shows how you don't need a
happy ending to end a movie, you just need a truthful ending, which is what
everyone got. Not everybody's life ends well, and it shows in Broadcast News. Maybe
people don't like the ending because it's not your typical happy ending associated
with romantic comedies... but it works, it's real, and it's genius. Broadcast News
is a classic in it's time, and a fine romance movie up there with "Casablanca".
Well, maybe not that high, but it's the only other romance I can think of that I
like. Broadcast News: 9/10.
I didn't like "As Good as it Gets" very much, but I am a big fan of William Hurt
and Holly Hunter's work, so I decided to watch this movie. And the most surprising
thing for me was the superb work of Albert Brooks. Here, in Spain, he's little-
known, and only as a 2nd division version of Woody Allen in the West Coast. He
played a great part, but Hunter and Hurt were good too, specially Hurt, in an
relatively unusual role for him. Hunter played the role that reminds me a bit of
her part in "Once Around" (Lasse Hallstrom, 1991). Finally, the rest of
the cast is great, too. Robert Prosky, one of these familiar faces of the american
cinema, the ex-bond girl Lois Chiles, pretty good placed on that role, I think, the
always perfect Joan Cusack in her early years; and specially the brief appereance
of Jack Nicholson. Maybe he doesn't have any good scene, but it's Jack Nicholson,
anyway... The Best movie by James L.Brooks, great story (well resolved), and superb
cast for one of the, surely, best movies of the 80's
I haven't actually seen a lot of movies with Holly Hunter, but seeing her in
Broadcast News was a pleasant surprise. She is a hard-nosed journalist, Jane Craig,
who has devoted all of her time to TV news show. Her colleague Aaron Altman has
carried her torch for a long time without saying anything. The love triangle is
completed by Tom Grunnick. He is the slightly aloof ex-sportscaster who is the new
reporter. To Jane, he symbolizes everything she doesn't like about news reporting -
turning it into edutainment, not serious business. Much to her surprise, Jane finds
herself attracted to Tom. Holly Hunter is doing a great performance as
the perky journalist. But I don't quite see what she finds so charming about her
new colleague, Tom. It's something with them that prevents us from getting up close
and personal with him. Almost as impressive is Albert Brooks, who gives his all in
the role of a professional who gives more than 100 percent for his job but doesn't
get quite as much in return. Actually, for a while I thought he was Steve
Guttenberg from Police Academy (1984). He has a few funny lines and if this was a
Meg Ryan-picture, they'd call it a romantic comedy. Running over two
hours, a few scenes could have been edited or left out completely, eg. Jane's and
Aaron's trip to Central America. Also, I'm a sucker for happy endings and had
preferred a different ending than just a reunion between the three of them seven
years later.
This is a decent movie. Although little bit short in time for me, it packs a lot of
action, grit, commonsense and emotions in that time frame. Matt Dillon and the
other main character does a great job in this movie. The emotions and intensity
were convincing and tense throughout the movie. It is not typical fancy expensive
Hollywood CGI action movie, but it was a very satisfying movie indeed for the
price. My evening was great because of this movie. This movie is straight
traditional action movie with great acting, story and directing. I would recommend
this movie. The character development of the characters were good and makes you
believe that were are actually seeing a real event taking place. Because this movie
I believe was made with cheaper budget, the acting and quality were much higher.
Not only do I think this was the best film of 1987, it's probably in my own
amorphous list as one of the 10-20 best films I've ever seen. For whatever reason,
I really connected with this movie, and it is one of the most personal films I had
seen at that point in my life (I was 26). For better or worse, I strongly
identified with the Holly Hunter character (and I'm a guy!). She plays an extremely
bright, loyal and intense woman who couldn't figure out romantic relationships.
There were so many things that she said in this movie that were things that I would
say or have said to others in similar circumstances. And the ending of the movie I
find to be so very, very sad. Obviously, this role was the big break for
Holly Hunter. Clearly, I was not the only one to think so highly of it.
This is a love story set against the back drop of television news. The three main
stars, William Hurt,Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks create a love triangle whilst
working at the Washington bureau of a TV network. Tom Grunick(Hurt)is
the handsome reporter who is being groomed to be a star.Jane (Hunter)is the
producer who recognises that Tom lacks the intellectual gravitas to be a real
journalist, but falls for him anyway.Aaron Altman(Brooks)is the man who shares her
beliefs in journalistic standards is also the man who truly loves her. Holly Hunter was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award ,but lost out to
Cher(Moonstruck!).She was robbed! This is Hunter's film.Her character Jane is
smart,ruthless and totally driven. She is also hilariously neurotic. Her
performance is perfect.Just watch her face when she watches the tape of Tom's
interview of a rape victim. The scales literally fall from her eyes. Wiliam Hurt's performance is less showy.He plays a man who is well aware that he
is a himbo and a fraud,but is smart enough to know that his rise will be
facilitated by people like Jane.He gives little hints of a man who is extremely
calculating. The film comments on celebrity, journalism,integrity and
the commercial pressures on news in a medium that is focused on the bottom line. It
predicted that news would be dumbed down, that standards would slowly be lowered
due to commercial pressures. Think about this:this film was released
before the end of the Cold War and before rise of reality TV.Yet, it predicted the
dumbing down of the news.Paris Hilton's release from jail was treated like a major
news story! To see how prophetic this film is,just watch your evening news and note
the set, the graphics and the presenters.Tom Grunick and his clones are well and
truly alive!
i thought it was terrific! very realistic and funny dialogue, and realistic action
in a newsroom. i didn't like how the jennifer storyline is not really concluded or
how the ending doesn't give us closure. holly hunter fit the part perfectly...she's
one crazy actress. this movie is well worth seeing.
TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming
news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her
room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own
words, "no good at what I'm being a success at", and Jane realises he personifies
everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals
he is about to join her news bureau in Washington. Jane and Tom's
initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put
aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and
should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague
and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks
the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success
that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He
is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite
her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own
romantic feelings for her. This central romantic plot is set within the
trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and
ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are
becoming more prevalent and important. This is where most of the bite
comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene
where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack
Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a
film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about
these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands. The
dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever
likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion
of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are
incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move
through a crowded room, should be listened to. Hunter is a tour-de-force
in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and
for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't
mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong
performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com. Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-
for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman. Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and
providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that
he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He
displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent
limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off.
Apart from when he tells us he "stinks" or "doesn't get it", Hurt comes across as a
bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where
his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter
slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say
about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better,
or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in
this movie. Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky,
Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian
Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's
brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see. James L Brooks has
provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there
with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven
nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a
star.
I don't really know when it was that TV stations began preferring to have handsome
men as their reporters - regardless of the mens' IQs - but it was clearly a problem
by the time that "Broadcast News" came out, and the movie does a really good job
looking at it. Portraying a love triangle between pretty boy air-head reporter Tom
Grunick (William Hurt), intelligent but nervous reporter Aaron Altman (Albert
Brooks) and producer Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the movie pulls no punches.
Probably the best line in the movie is when Tom says something like: "I don't
really understand any of what I'm reporting." And in the era of FOX News and such
things, a movie like this becomes even more important. All in all,
definitely a movie that I recommend. Also starring Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles, Joan
Cusack, and Jack Nicholson in a supporting role as the anchorman.
If you have not seen this late 80s film about the the Washington Bureau of a
Network News station than I highly recommend it. It is a sad commentary on the
direction of news reporting in this country but tells the story with wit. The
characters are well developed and Albert Brooks performance is fabulous. He
delivers all his lines with entertaining understated comedy. I am not an Albert
Brooks fan at all so this was a welcome surprise. I have a friend who works as a
producer for a local news station and he advised that this is close to reality so
kudos to the films writer and director for doing their research. Fun
movie with a lot of insight into the World of Network News. It is not nearly as
dark as another movie I also recommend in the same genre 'Network'.
...there was "Broadcast News," and what a good thing it was. This one just plain
stands up and sounds its barbaric yawp in a manner that resonates two decades
later. There are moments -- especially with respect to the cutesy score
-- when this film becomes a bit too eighties, or a bit too "Sleepless in Seattle."
Fortunately, they're few and far between. One-third social satire, one-
third romantic comedy, one-third drama, with three flawed but endearing people at
its core, it's smart and moving and almost impossibly funny. Holly Hunter in
particular may never have been more fun to watch in a comedic role. (And yes, I'm
including "Raising Arizona," her other star turn from that era, in this
assessment.) A legitimate classic.
Good drama/comedy, with two good performances from Hunter & Hurt, but Albert Brooks
steals every scene he is in. With a great script, this movie soars and gives
everyone a chance to show their acting talent. And although Joan Cusack is not in
this much, but she has one if not the funniest scene in the movie. The highlight of
the movie for me, was Albert Brooks speech on the devil. Only one draw back is the
fact it goes little slow in places. And I only got totally interested in Brooks
role, not so much in Hunter's or Hurt's. I give this a 7 out of 10.
Broadcast News {dir. James L. Brooks, 1987} ****/**** Although it lacks the emotional punch of Brooks's debut feature, (Terms of
Endearment) Broadcast News is a superlative film, with exceptional performances
from each of the three leads and a script that feels as genuine and well-researched
as a hard-hitting news report. Let it be known, this is a character film first and
foremost and a satire second. In my mind it succeeds on both levels on its own
terms. The film's characters are given surprising depth and dimension , while the
satire remains sly and never bitter. Comparisons to Network are unnecessary because
the films have two completely separate goals and attitudes. While also a great
film, Network is a cynical and weary work; in other words, its mad as hell and fed
up with the state of television. Network's style of satire feels more extreme and
guerrilla. In contrast, the characters populating the news rooms of Broadcast News
love and live for their jobs (sometimes to the detriment of their love lives.) They
derive pleasure from the stresses and satisfactions of news reporting, just as the
audience derives pleasure from watching this sweet and romantically realistic
masterpiece.
Spunky journalist Holly Hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news
network. She's a motor-mouthed maverick, dazzlingly good at her job and with little
time for romantic relationships. Enter William Hurt and Albert Brooks, two men who
vie for her love. Brooks is an old school journalist who adores Holly
because she represents everything good about journalism. They both believe that the
media exists to test the Gods, educate the public and fight for truth. Children of
the sixties, they embody hippie values. They're defenders of the public good.
Knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera. William Hurt, in
contrast, is a far more complex character. Initially awkward, clumsy and self-
depreciating, he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high
achiever, skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. Unlike Holly and Brooks, he's
symbolic of modern media values: news as spectacle, journalism as entertainment,
news anchor as celebrity, truth as subject to editing board. We want to despise him
and his blip-time junk food journalism, but we just can't quite manage it. He's
playing the game by its own rules. Do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone?
Do we condemn the game? Can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed? How have
these rules evolved? This isn't Lumet's and Chayefsky's "Network", and
so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. Content to keep
things on the level of light comedy, it ends with Hurt being promoted to London
Division and Brooks being booted to a tiny community network. Holly, having
rejected both men, remains caught between them. The last bastion of media
integrity, this spunky reporter remembers her roots, mourns the loss of Brooks and
warns herself to be on the guard of future William Hurts. It's a cute
ending, but compared to "Network" the film seems positively trite. Chayefsky's
vision is one in which global media, despite its ubiquity, offers less meaningful
information. He foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures,
information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies
control all international news. This is a world in which the truth is subject to
shareholder meetings and economic interests. A world in which viewer ratings
determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories. Perhaps this
is why "Broadcast News", which longs for the glory days of journalism, ends on such
a bittersweet note. It knows what the future holds. Made in 1987, its been living
it for at least a decade. But today, in the digital age, things are even
worse. Mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms
dominating the communication landscape. With this has come the hyper-commercialism
of content, the barrier between the creative/editorial side and the commercial side
all but collapsed. Today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website,
but these are grass roots affairs. As the communication reach of the individual
increases (due to technological progress - email, internet, electricity, air mail
etc) the size of the individual's world increases likewise. He must project his
voice both further and louder, futilely battling that deafening white noise, the
incessant verbal static that is the global community. So ultimately you
need two things according to democratic theory. Firstly, you need a rigorous coming
of people in power and people who want to be in power, both in the private and
public sector. Secondly, you need a wide range of informed opinions on all
important issues of the day. In a democratic society the media system as a whole
should produce this sort of culture. Unfortunately, the structure we currently have
in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and
a democratic society. 8/10 This is lightweight stuff, but a witty
script, some funny moments and a brief cameo by Jack Nicholson, elevate it above
most other films about journalism. Interestingly, unlike most films about the
media, it never dips into satire, and instead plays things as a straight love
triangle. Worth one viewing.
New guy at an armored car company gets talked into becoming involved in an armored
car heist by his fellow drivers in order to score some quick cash. The problem is
that they really don't have much of a plan and when complications arise things turn
deadly. Fast moving popcorn action film has a great deal going with it.
First off the film is under 90 minutes so the film doesn't really have the time to
bog down in plot. It cranks everything up and just goes. Next the film has some
great action sequences so one moves towards the edge of ones seat. Lastly the film
has a stellar cast that include Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Lawrence Fishburne. Its
a first rate cast that sells and covers over the stories short comings. This isn't brain surgery its a popcorn movie and on that level it scores highly.
Worth a look.
BROADCAST NEWS opens with a series of brief vignettes that are a clever way of
starting a story about TV anchors who have no clue as to what they're reporting
about. At a speech before a group of would-be reporters, all of whom are
bored by her presentation, most of them leave. When the last one exits, the co-host
of the event says quietly to HOLLY HUNTER: "I don't think there will be any Q&A."
Subtle line in a brilliantly written low-key comedy, a farce about the show biz
aspect of TV anchoring. WILLIAM HURT is the inept news anchor who finds
himself working with HOLLY HUNTER as the network anchorman. Hurt badly needs help
in remedial reporting and Holly refuses to take the bait--at first. He knows he's
only capable of looking good, but is not a reporter. He proves to be a quick study
as long as his earpiece is working and he's getting all the straight info from
executive producer Hunter. Holly's other anchor friend (ALBERT BROOKS)
helps by feeding her information she passes on to Hurt. Of course she becomes
conflicted about her feelings for ace reporter Brooks and equally strong attraction
to the pretty-boy anchorman Hurt, who's having his own dalliance with a pretty
staff member. You have to wait until twenty minutes before the film ends
to find out which man she'll end up with. Brooks tells her that Hurt is the wrong
one because he represents everything she's against. In this unpredictable comedy,
there's no telling who Hunter (the neurotic heroine) will end up with. Fittingly, HOLLY HUNTER, WILLIAM HURT and ALBERT BROOKS were all nominated for
Oscars (Brooks in supporting role), as was the film itself and director/writer
James L. Brooks. All in all, seven well deserved Oscar nominations. The
script doesn't opt for a conventional happy ending--and, in this case, that's the
only flaw for the brilliant screenplay. I felt cheated and somewhat let down by the
wistful conclusion.
From producer/writer/Golden Globe nominated director James L. Brooks (Terms of
Endearment, As Good as It Gets) this is a really good satirical comedy film showing
behind the scenes in the life of a news reporter/anchor/journalist or producer
might be like. Basically Jane Craig (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Holly Hunter)
falls for new reporter Tom Grunick (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated William Hurt),
but correspondent Aaron Altman (Oscar nominated Albert Brooks) also has strong
feelings for her. The network prepares for big changes, and sparks will fly with
all members of the studio. Also starring Jack Nicholson as anchor Bill Rorich,
Moonraker's Lois Chiles as Jennifer Mack, Mrs. Doubtfire's Robert Prosky as Ernie
Merriman, School of Rock's Joan Cusack as Blair Litton, Peter Hackes as Paul Moore,
Christian Clemenson as Bobby, Robert Katims as Martin Klein, Ed Wheeler as George
Wein and Stephen Mendillo as Gerald Grunick. The comedy is subtle but strong, the
romance has it's moments, and it is certainly a believable situation film. It was
nominated the Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Writing,
Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen and Best Picture, and it was nominated
the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay -
Motion Picture. It was number 64 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!
"Broadcast News" is directed by James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It
Gets) and has a great cast, including William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly
Hunter. Everyone gives a good performance, but they're all too unlikable to really
care about them. Some parts of the film are really brilliant, such as
the prologue, and the short scenes with Jack Nicholson. The main reason it doesn't
entirely work, is it's a film that relies on the characters being amusing rather
than amusing things happening to them. You could consider it nothing
more than a drama, but it's often too silly to be successful there as well. Still,
the script makes it worth a watch. Certainly not for everyone. 7.0 out
of 10
I say sadly because if you see this movie now, you realize how low our media has
sunk- all the warning signs are in this movie. It's a great film, I
think the last great James Brooks film, but others may disagree. It has rich
characters (who are believable as well), great acting, great writing, and although
the music got a little cheesy, I even liked that. William Hurt has never
been better. Holly Hunter is stunning. And Albert Brooks walks away with every
scene he's in- this triangle of people is beautifully drawn and compelling and made
the whole movie soar above it's vital and important topic of the News, and how it's
slowly being compromised in our nation. Watch this with NETWORK for a
truly fun and frightening evening.
James L. Brook is one of those directors who always seems to take a quirky look at
life. He isn't only the producer for "The Simpsons," he has some classic comedies
under his belt -- "Broadcast News" is one of them. Although it doesn't
match his later effort "As Good As It Gets," "Broadcast News" is still a very
clever, funny and witty movie about a television broadcasting station and all the
problems they suffer. There's a great comedic sequence of physical humor where Joan
Cusack is running around the building trying to rush a news tape to the editing
room in a matter of mere minutes before it is to be broadcast live on TV. This isn't only very truthful in terms of how hectic broadcasting stations
are operated, but also a skillful and honest portrayal of human beings. A low-key, subtle movie with good acting (especially from Hurt, who I don't
always like so much) and apt direction.
I'm sitting around going through movie listings and not really seeing anything I
want to see. My appetite keeps saying, "Something like BROADCAST NEWS." That's what
I want. Something smart and funny, with adult ideas and great acting and writing,
and a directorial style that doesn't call attention to itself. This may well be
Hurt's best performance (is this or THE BIG CHILL, to my mind): however eccentric,
Hurt is smart, and to play an unintelligent person without making sure -- wink wink
-- the audience knows -- wink wink -- hey, I'M not stupid... well, that's fine
acting right there. Hunter is note-perfect, and Albert Brooks is a revelation. (And
he can read and sing at the same time!) Great, great work. 
Essential viewing for anyone who watches TV news as it may help to become a little
more sceptical, or even cynical. On a personal note I recall taking a course some
years ago about being interviewed for TV - what to do, what not to do. The course
instructors impressed on us that TV news was a "branch of show-biz". That
depressing view, which is probably even more valid today than when it was made, is
reinforced by this film. Never mind journalistic integrity, what counts is the
ability to look good and smile nicely. And make sure you don't sweat on
camera. The interactions between the three main characters form the
centre-piece, each with his or her own ambitions, capabilities and beliefs. Brooks
takes these differences and sets them into the volatile setting of a TV news
studio, and adds more than a pinch of love interest to the mixture. The result is a
complex, if somewhat overlong, portrayal of how we compromise every day in order to
meet our ambitions and take others with us. It is always entertaining, although the
final scene was, perhaps, unnecessary given everything that had gone before.
Excellent movie about a big media firm and the goings on both on and off camera.
Covering several years, the film centers on 3 upwardly mobile, young hopefuls, all
striving for their place within the corporation. Well written dialogue, flawless
acting, and a riveting story made for 2 hours of solid entertainment.
This movie is one of my favorite comedies of all time. The dialog is crisp, the
pace is fast. Not only is this a clever comedy, this is an interesting look at what
goes on behind the scenes in the television news business. There are so
many funny lines...a couple of my favorites: Ernie Merriman:
(sarcastically) It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think
you're the smartest person in the room. Jane: (seriously) NO, it's not, it's
awful!! Aaron: He must be good looking Jane: How do you know that?
Aaron: No one invites a bad looking idiot to their room! The
performances of Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks, and William Hurt were absolutely
brilliant! Even years later, I remember this movie well. Often forgotten is the
wonderfully funny Joan Cusack! I love the scene where the newsroom personnel are
racing to beat a deadline. There are so many funny scenes that it's hard to pick a
favorite. I highly recommend this film.
For me this wonderful rollercoaster of a film bears repeated pleasurable viewings.
Its about the tangled lives of three very different people. Holly Hunter is the
obsessive workaholic producer. Albert Brookes plays the unprepossessing but
brilliant journalist. William Hurt is the affable but dumb new kid on the block,
news anchor. The classical love triangle emerges with the stunningly
witty and self deprecating Brookes in love with Hunter but she of course is
attracted to Hurt. This film works on many levels. At the very least it
is a brilliant comedy with the one liners flying so thick and fast that each
viewing bears a new harvest of ones that you may have missed last time. Its also a
film about attraction and unfulfilled romance. But perhaps most
importantly the film examines the modern obsession with physical appearance and its
ultimate triumph over intellect as a valued human attribute. This is personified by
the meteoric career success of the Hurt character in contrast to Brookes relative
decline. Despite being fifteen years old the film has some startingly
relevant messages about modern news values and the continuing decline in
journalistic standards. This film is a classic in every sense and it is
difficult to understand why it has been so neglected
This movie is about six men who are assigned to transport money from bank to
businesses. Ty Hackett (Columbus Short) was in Iraq for the war serving his country
and now just is being helped out making a living by his friend Mike Cochrone (Matt
Dillon) making sure he does not loose his house. Mike tells him that this wasn't
the life his parents were expecting for him and he should be living a better life
than he is now with his brother Jimmy Hackett (Andre Kinney). Telling Ty that him
and Jimmy have always been family to him and would do anything to help them out,
Mike tells Ty about a plan to make a heist. The money would be around 43 million
split six ways among the other transport men too, although Ty does not like the
idea he tells his friend Mike as long as no one gets hurt he would be in. The last
night Ty was forced to talk to a welfare lady about putting up his brother in
foster care giving him a dilemma to lose what matters most in his life. Although
the plan sounds safe at first, greed isn't everything when it comes to taking
lives. When it comes to heists, your either in or your out, so when you
don't go with a plan its hard to play the hero and stop greed driven people when it
comes to having large sums of money. This movie comes with a star studded cast to
keep you interested starring Jean Reno, Laurence Fishburne, Amaury Nolasco, Fred
Ward, Skeet Ulrich, and Milo Ventimiglia. Short I have recently only remembered him
in "Stomp the Yard" which was about a kid who lost his brother and lives his dream
to go to college. This was probably one of his best movies I have seen him in and
this one he fits the character so well it's great to see him on the big screen
again in action.
This was a really nice surprise. I was up late last night and couldn't fall asleep.
Not really thinking twice, I turned on my TV and HBO was on, and this film was just
beginning. Luckily I saw the whole thing, and I am very happy I did. Because this
film was very good. The actors were well-cast, and they did a surprisingly good
job. Kris Kristofferson delivered a solid performance, there was a lot of substance
behind his lines. This film made me realize he's a good actor. Brian Keith was
great as his father, as was Trey Wilson playing the Colonel (this was Trey Wilson's
final role before his untimely death. Too bad, he was a quality actor and seemed
like a nice guy). Jobeth Williams also did a nice job as Kristofferson's American
wife. As far as the direction, I had no idea Franklin J. Schaffner was the director
until I read the review in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide(this was the last film he
ever made). Now I understand why this movie was so good. Schaffner also directed
Patton, a truly great movie(I haven't seen his other great film, Papillon). While I
was watching "Welcome Home", I said to myself, "this director really knows what
he's doing," not knowing that Schaffner had directed it. There's one really
beautiful scene in a Thai orphan refuge, enough to bring tears to my eyes. Not only
was this sensitively directed, but it was also directed in a very economical and
taut way. There is nothing wasted in Schaffner's effort. The script was one reason
this film is so good. The writer doesn't weigh the actors down with too many lines.
It was written very simply but very effectively. It just shows you that a lot can
be said with few words. This film also made me proud to be an American, at the same
time that it showed you how beautiful ALL people are.
Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know
who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home. It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone
help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie
buffs lets see if you know your stuff Hi I have been looking 4 the
soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I
think it was called welcome home or coming home. It is played throughout
the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or
title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your
stuff
This film is good,but not Schaffner`s best. My favourite is Papillon and Patton,but
this is a sad and very nice film. Kris Kristoffersen is good in this movie and
really makes a difference. I am going to miss Schaffner and this is his last
film. A good film by a great director! 7,5/10
"Zen and the Art of Lanscaping", written and directed by David Kartch is a short
film about a young man named David (his friends call him Zen) and what transpires
in one strange day of his life. Zen works as a lanscaper for an upper-middle class
family. The lady of the house tries to get Zen to help her cheat on her husband.
Unfortunately, her son walks in on them instead of her husband. From this point on
the movie starts to speed through many revelations between the characters along
with the eventual involvement of the man of the house. "Zen and the Art of
Landscaping" is witty, smart and overall very well written. The comedic timing of
the actors is also very strong. It's a fun, light movie that I would strongly
recommend.
Screening as part of a series of funny shorts at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi
Gras film festival, this film was definitely a highlight. The script is great and
the direction and acting was terrific. As another posting said, the actors' comedic
timing really made this film. Lots of fun.
When Jean seduces the young gardener for the sole purpose of annoying her husband
little does she realise the explosive drama that is to follow. The short
scenario does not waste a word or a frame in this brief interlude in the day of a
dysfunctional family. The lives of the father, mother and son are all linked in
some way with the gardener. It's this fact that makes the script so
intriguing. For such a short film the production is every bit as
professional as any major work and the casting is ideal. A wonderful
little film that can guarantee a few laughs from beginning to end.
Great little short film that aired a while ago on SBS here in Aus. Get a copy if
you can - probably only good for a few viewings, as you'll end up remembering the
script - and it's the twists that make this film so funny. Well directed, and
intriguingly scripted, it's an example of just how good low-budget short films can
be.
You gotta love the spaghetti western universe. The vision of a west where good guys
get shot point blank with no warning, cartoonish villains chew the scenery in
extreme close-ups, and the anti-hero walks away from the girl in the end. A lot of
people call Corbucci's films 'depressing'. I find that a bit dodgy as far as
descriptions go. I think bleak and unforgiving are more apt mostly because
'depressing' suggests a level of sentimentality almost every Eurowestern director
ignored in favour of painting characters in broad strokes. GLI
SPECIALISTI must be seen in all its widescreen glory before it can take its proper
place in the Sergio Corbucci canon. It's a beautiful movie. And it makes sense that
Corbucci wanted to blow off some steam with COMPANEROS after the unremitting one
two punch of THE GREAT SILENCE and this (although he would later revert back to his
usual tricks with the foulmouthed SONNY AND JED). There's still a certain amount of
caricature that detracts from the overall grimness of the movie, imo it hurts more
than does any good to have a needless inclusion of three kids dressed like hippies
skulking around town in search of gold and trouble. And it hurts to have Mario
Adorf playing Mexican one-handed bandit El Diablo as over the top as he always
plays his characters. Those minor gripes aside there's more than enough
here to wet the palate of the spaghetti aficionado. Shootouts galore, the
population of an entire town reduced to crawling naked in the dirt, the typical
iconic badassitude of the laconic antihero (played by Johnny Halliday), the moral
bankruptcy of almost every character in the movie. Corbucci might never receive the
acclaim of the more famous Sergio or the American patriarchs of the genre but you
and I know that's a gross injustice for a very talented director. His dynamic shot
selection, in depth staging with objects sticking close to the camera and receding
in the background, his flair for quick pacing and feverish energy in moving a story
that wasn't always all that along, the way he photographs open spaces, everything
in his work makes me sure that if Corbucci was American and had emerged 15 years
later along with Mann and Hawks, the Cahiers du Cinema critics would have lauded
him as an auteur worthy of serious critical consideration.
Cult film-maker Corbucci's rarest of his thirteen Spaghetti Westerns (of which I'm
only left with WHAT AM I DOING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REVOLUTION [1972] to catch) is
one I only became aware of fairly recently via Marco Giusti's "Stracult" guide;
it's an atypically bleak genre gem in the style of the director's own masterpiece,
THE GREAT SILENCE (1968), complete with desolate snowy landscapes. Johnny Hallyday, the French Elvis Presley, whom I first saw in Jean-Luc Godard's
DETECTIVE (1985) is a curious but highly effective choice to play the loner anti-
hero Hud (who, like Clint Eastwood's The Man With No Name from Sergio Leone's
celebrated "Dollars Trilogy", is fitted with a steel-plate armor for protection);
incidentally, I had 'met' Hallyday's stunning daughter Laura Smet at the 2004
Venice Film Festival but was distracted by the presence of her esteemed director,
Claude Chabrol! Gastone Moschin is another curious addition to the fold (serving
pretty much the same function that Frank Wolff did in THE GREAT SILENCE) but
acquits himself well and is amusingly clumsy in the presence of a bathing Francoise
Fabian; the latter, then, plays a greedy nymphomaniac of a banker's widow who
seduces all and sundry in the pursuit of her goals. Sylvie Fennec has the other
major female role as a farm girl looked after by Hallyday and who, at one point, is
entreated into Free Love by 'hippie' Apache Gabriella Tavernese (with this is mind,
it's worth noting that the movie features surprising but welcome bouts of nudity
from both Fabian and Tavernese)! Incidentally, the anachronistic addition of a
bunch of long-haired youths (who also engage in dope-smoking and revolutionary
talk) is a somewhat half-baked attempt at contemporary relevance but it all
eventually adds to the fun (besides, even the black barmaid sports an Afro
hairdo!). Mario Adorf, too, enjoys himself tremendously with the
smallish role of a larger-than-life Mexican bandit nicknamed "El Diablo" who
keeps a youthful biographer constantly by his side (an element which may have
influenced Clint Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN [1992]) and, at one point, challenges the
captive Moschin to a head-butting duel! Having mentioned this, the film also
contains one very unusual 'weapon of death' as Hallyday disposes of an adversary
by kicking the cash-register of the saloon into his face! As always, the enjoyably
fake fistfights are accompanied by over-emphatic sound effects; equally typically
for the genre, however, the wistful score by Angelo Francesco Lavagnino emerges a
most significant asset. Actually, the ambiguous ending is entirely in keeping with
the film's generally somber tone after Fabian's comeuppance at the hands of the
locals, the hippies (who had previously idolized Hud) suddenly turn against him
when wounded and terrorize the town (forcing everyone on the street and unclothed)
but the unflappable gunman manages to lift himself up to meet their challenge
(they, however, scurry away at the prospect of facing him!) and then rides out of
town, leaving Fennec behind. In conclusion, I acquired this via a good-
quality Widescreen print in Italian albeit with French credits and the occasional
lapse about one minute of screen-time in all into the French language (where,
apparently, the original soundtrack wasn't available).
In the late sixties director Sergio Corbucci made four spaghetti westerns in a
row--the classics THE MERCENARY, THE GREAT SILENCE, THE SPECIALISTS, and
COMPANEROS. Three of these, all except THE SPECIALISTS, are constantly turning up
on ten best lists when spaghetti westerns are rated. Until recently all I had seen
was a very poor quality compilation with some English, some Italian, a fuzzy
picture, and it was nearly incomprehensible. Now, having seen a beautiful
widescreen version with subtitles (still in two languages, however), I can safely
include THE SPECIALISTS in that group of four classics. Johnny Halliday is very
good as the charismatic Hud, a notorious hand with the gun returning to Blackstone
to investigate the death of his brother, who was lynched by the townspeople for
losing their savings. It involves a voluptuous beauty who owns the bank, a Mexican
bandit leader, El Diablo, who was once friends with Hud, an honest sheriff who
dreams of better days, and a small band of hippies--well, it was the late sixties,
and hippies were everywhere, even apparently in our westerns. It's not a desert
western, shot in the alps somewhere, and is lovely to look at. There is a bit more
nudity than I expect in a western, but that's not a bad thing. Sylvie Fennec is
lovely as Sheba, who may be Hud's niece, or dead brother's girlfriend...that's
never made clear. This film deserves to be seen, and once again, we plea for a nice
DVD with all the trimmings--I think THE SPECIALISTS would be as well known as any
of Corbucci's other westerns, and that's high praise indeed.
Good, boring or bad? It's good. Worth your money? If you can spare it for a ticket,
sure. Better than the trailer makes it seem? Yes, oddly. There isn't
much to the script - Guards working at armored truck company move vast amounts of
cash. Guards see opportunity to retire as millionaires, one of them is too honest
to go along with it all, and a well-laid plan goes to hell. This could
have been a poorly-executed Reservoir Dogs ripoff, but the skill of the cast and
the director's ability to make just about anything tense pull it out of that realm
and put it onto a solid footing.
The copy of this movie that I have seen is not very good. It's grainy and has
almost no color in some parts. It switches back and forth between English and
French, often in mid sentence, and sometimes even in the middle of a word! To make
matters much worse, there are no English subtitles during the French language
parts, which I think make up at least one quarter of the film. But, amazingly, the
movie is still very understandable and enjoyable, even in this condition, and I
think that says a lot about how well-made this film is. This is a top
notch spaghetti western with great acting, an interesting storyline, and an
excellent music score. It also has a cool protagonist, a beautiful dark-haired
girl, some strange characters and events, and an overall feeling of melancholy.
This film has "Euro" written all over it. I hope there is a pristine
negative or print of this film out there somewhere, because it deserves a quality
DVD release, and when it comes out I will be one of the first in line to get it!
The whole town of Blackstone is afraid, because they lynched Bret Dixon's brother -
and he is coming back for revenge! At least that's what they think. A
great Johnny Hallyday and a very interesting, early Mario Adorf star in this Italo-
Western, obviously filmed in the Alps. Bret Dixon is coming back to
Blackstone to investigate why his brother was lynched. He is a loner and gunslinger
par excellance, everybody is afraid of him - the Mexican bandits (fighting the
Gringos that took their land!) as well as the "decent" citizens that lynched Bret's
brother. They lynched him, because they thought he stole their money instead of
bringing it to Dallas to the safety of the bank there. But this is is only half the
truth, as we find out in the course of this psychologically interesting western. But beware, it's kind of a depressing movie as everybody turns out to be
guilty somehow and definitely everybody is bad to the bone... Still, I
enjoyed it very much and gave it an 8/10. Strange, that only less than 5 people
voted for this movie as of January 12th 2002....
loved the story of a guy that tries to get his girl back....been there, done that,
so i can relate...any way, i love the camera work, how occasionally the camera gets
"left on", and they are just sitting there talking about the scene, or other
stuff...or how the camera follows him around to find the cast and what not...i
watched this on IFC sometime last year and i loved it, so i told a few of my
friends about it, and some of them watched it, and they too loved it...check it out
if you can, kinda girly, but its still a good film...I gave it a 10/10 because of
two reasons...one: i can relate...but anyone that has ever fallen in love and made
a mistake can relate... two: its a really creative way to make a film, its like you
are constantly there, right in the middle of filming...like i said, great film
This is an enjoyable project, that is not a film as the title suggests. Good
performance by Nadia Dajani who re-enacts the role of Grace. I follows the re-
enactment of what happens to Mike and Grace in New York City. She leaves, but he
wants to get in contact with her. This project is his way of trying to getting in
touch with her. I saw it on IFC. I have heard that it will be released
on DVD as well. I do like this trend of more independent projects. This is an
example of a good project. I hope that he finds her. Take a
look and be entertained. KirbyEF
Most movies from Hollywood seem to follow one of a few pre-formulated and very
predictable plots. This film does not and is a perfect example of what I watch IFC
for. There's a guy, Michael, and his girlfriend left him with out a
word. He wants to know what happened. Is she OK ? Can he say goodbye ? Perhaps get
some closure. He hasn't been able to contact Grace and in an effort to find her he
has made a film asking for your help. Michael figures we might need a
reason to help him, so he tells us his story by reliving his relationship with the
help of a friend ( Nadia ) to play the role of Grace ( the girlfriend who left) Hind sight is 20/20 and it is no different for Michael. By telling his
story, and getting feedback from his friends, he realizes his mistakes and just how
much he values what he has lost. This is unfortunately a lesson we all have had to
learn ( or need to learn ) and is easy to identify with. That is what makes you
want to hear more of Michael's story and wanting to know if he finds Grace.
It is clear this film's value far supersedes the cost with which the format (mini-
dv) implies. In fact, the filmmaker embraces the format and incorporates it so
craftily into the storyline that I forgot the fact that I was not seeing the
typical 35 millimeter film. It has the core appeal of indie movies like Clerks &
the work of Robert Rodriguez combined with a fantastic "new take" on the romantic
comedy genre. "This Is Not A Film" is an honest film with honest portrayals and, it
is a superbly paced narrative. There is not one point in this film where I felt a
scene could have (or should have) been omitted. On the contrary, the director pulls
amazing performances out of truly gifted actors and does so in extremely confining
circumstances. From page to screen, this film is a worthy and relevant story that
hits on so many levels (creative, technical or otherwise). I highly recommend it
for all who enjoy cinema or those looking for a little charm in an otherwise devoid
of charm medium.
'This Is Not a Film' works because it is so true in what it is trying to say. If
you ignore the dynamics of the plot and focus in on the message, you will see a
little bit of yourself in the main character, Michael. Whether male or female, all
of us have come to a point in our lives where we want to look back and reexamine a
situation or a relationship. Did it really occur like we remembered? What went
wrong? Michael's desire to find Grace is completely selfish. More than anything, he
wants to make himself feel better about how things turned out. But even so, he is a
sympathetic character because everyone is selfish when it comes to relationships.
We would not be in them otherwise. As the film ends, I am not sure if Michael has
learned anything new about himself or not. Our best gauge on the relationship is
through his friend, Nadia. She is the soul of the movie and reminds us of how there
are always two sides to every story. I found Michael to be pompous, arrogant, and
just plain clueless. Which is exactly why I liked him. He is a real character. If
you've ever wanted to go back and analyze a previous relationship, then this is a
film for you. In closing, it is a film for everyone.
I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone, but, this mimics life's reality in so
many ways, and, if you are really honest with yourself, you will resonate with it
in agreement in at least a few of the scenes. The acting is not only
believable, but convincing in a way that endears one to the characters. Moreover,
it's funny, without trying too hard at it. And, yes, I truly believe a
sequel is warranted, here. See the movie, you'll understand why. Highly
recommended, especially if you like movies that have a real message.
This is not a film is a clever, witty and often heart touching movie. It's a
retrospective of a failed relationship between Michael Connor (Michael Leydon
Campbell) and his estranged Irish girlfriend Grace Mckenna. Michael down on his
luck decides to make a documentary replaying his whole relationship and what went
wrong. He exploits his friendship with an actor he met at the gym Nadia (Nadia
Dajani) who he gets to play Grace. The concept of this film is very original.
Michaels relationship is shown from every point whether it's a high or low. Michael
Leydon Campbell pulls off a fantastic performance that makes you want to help him
find Grace. If fact most of the characters pull off great performances except the
puzzler. The puzzler is needed to move the plot along yet seems too surreal to
exist in a coffee shop. His monologues are often overdrawn and pointless. This is
proved when he says "Out of this chaos, we're all trying to create order. And out
of the order, meaning. But in reality there is no such thing as meaning. Something
only has meaning if we make it have meaning." The commentary saves this
movie. The commentary is done in the vain of This is Spinal Tap and has Michael and
his brother explain the problems they had while making the film. Michael offers a
very funny self conscious commentary that makes for some very good belly laughs. Overall I'd give this movie a 7/10.
I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast
majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this
film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done
that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a
happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me
literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking.
I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film,
I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I
am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and
is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist
than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for
my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an
excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half
sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or
significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was
great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather
abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very
Freudian psycho-thriller.
I'm not here to tell you "Armored" is Kubrickian, Hitchcockian or Fellini-esquire.
Nope. Referenced directors are more like Don Siegel ("Charlie Varrick") and Walter
Hill ("The Warriors"). Those two helmers didn't fool around with niceties like
putting women in their movies. No skirts need apply. They unapologetically made guy
movies. Guns, lots of guns. Men met violent death with a twitch of the jaw. Their
movies were like a sap to the head. You want a friend? Get a dog. "Armored" is so a guy movie. Dueling armored trucks? Bloody gunshot wounds?
Exploding money? If that doesn't get the lizard part of your brain excited, then
stay away. At 88 minutes, "Armored" is all muscle without an ounce of
fat. We meet six security guards who drive armored trucks, three per truck. The
six, led by Matt Dillon, scheme up a fake hijack involving two trucks. Their
mission one day is to deliver $42 million from the federal reserve (I think). The
idea is to drive both trucks to a warehouse, stash the cash, then stage a hijack.
Sure, the cops will suspect them, but if they stick together they'll get through
it. Trouble is, one of the six, played by Columbus Short, is a holdout.
At first. But he faces eviction. And he's the guardian for his messed up younger
brother. He needs cash bad. Matt Dillon cajoles, pleads, persuades the
holdout. No blood on anyone's hands. A clean getaway. All good, no bad. You'll be
rich forever. Blue skies smiling at you ... Right. Everything
goes to hell, of course. It's one damned thing after another and the stakes keep
going up. And it almost all happens claustrophobically inside an abandoned
warehouse somewhere in Los Angeles. In fact, the movie goes out of its way to
project a backdrop of industrial urban decay. I happen to like industrial urban
decay. Kudos to Matt Dillon, who plays the top bad dog. He goes from
charming to disappointed to frustrated to outraged to totally effing insane in the
course of the movie. Love that guy. Also, credit is due to the menacing,
throbbing, blistering and totally sinister electronic soundtrack by John Murphy. I
am guessing he's heard a few Tangerine Dream records. Also, it's
surprising that this is a PG-13 movie. I caught one one! f-bomb in this entire
movie about violent tough-guy robbers. On some level, I like that. Take the
kids. The director is Nimrod Antal, a Hungarian who made a fine noir set
in the Budapest subway system called "Kontroll." Screenwriter is an out-of-nowhere
guy called James V. Simpson. A lot of the people in this movie are just
starting out. I am willing to bet the esteem given to this movie will rise as time
goes on and these filmmakers advance in their careers.
Leos Carax is brilliant and is one of the best film and camera guys in the business
so it should come as no surprise that Pola X is an almost perfect filming of the
most gut wrenching story ever. Seriously. If I could have figured out some way to
climb inside my video monitor, I would have thrashed Pierre to within an inch of
his life. No one has the right to be that self absorbed and that stupid, both at
the same time, except maybe Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. After
spending 134 minutes with Pierre, I need a large glass of brandy. Never have I been
so angry at a main character. Ok, having said that, Pola X is a stunning movie with
one of the few totally honest sex scenes I've ever seen in any film....which means
another piece of brilliant filmmaking....and I'm talking graphic here, by the way.
Pola X will beat the hell out of you, though, so make sure you're up for it if you
decide to watch it.
Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du
Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of
youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well
aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without
thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times.
Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a
monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its
way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos
Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's
more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last
reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a
romantic in the german sense of it.
I watched Pola X because Scott Walker composed the film score and I admire his
music a lot. Frankly, I expected a somewhat pretentious and possibly incoherent
French movie. I was wrong. The vision of the film quickly managed to engage my
attention to the fullest - starting with the opening sequence, which shows black
and white footage of military airplanes throwing bombs at graves at the sounds of
music and Scott Walker's beautiful wailing voice. The film explores the identity
crisis of Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu - a brilliant choice for the role) and his
consequential (self-)destruction. The story is divided into two parts the first
depicts Pierre's carefree life in a beautiful house in the French countryside and
the second follows his utter personal disintegration after he abandons everything
and moves to Paris to live in squalor with his supposed half-sister. Both parts
contain some amazingly stunning photography the first very colorful and bright,
the second utterly gloomy and nearly apocalyptic - adding up to a true aesthetic
feast. Pola X is a fascinating and quite unique movie experience.
I agree with "johnlewis", who said that there is a lot going on between the lines
in this film. While I do think the pacing of this film could be improved, I do
think that the complexity of the relationships between the characters is
fascinating. Examples : Pierre is going to marry his cousin,
even though his love for her seems very cousin-y ? Pierre and his
stepmother have a rather...curious relationship. Pierre, Lucie, and
Thibault seem to have a triangular relationship, and the actual points to the
triangle are not quite certain... Lucie's brother is a bit of a eunuch,
or is he ? And Isabelle, who is she really ?? Overall, I
think it was worth my time. An interesting film, and one that makes me want to read
Melville.
Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'.
The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the
overwhelmingly negative reaction. The shock value is the least
appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of
proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of
those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and
idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have
seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into
an unforgettably emotional epic. I can't stress enough the importance of
disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with
an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on
edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary
in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at
once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to
make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year.
This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that
that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main
character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It
is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you
liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment," you will probably like this if only for
the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, "What is it
that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for
another set?" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a
conservative you will not like this movie. Besides other philosophical
questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well.
The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also,
there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main
characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give
this movie a 7.
No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder
about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the
first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring,
disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and
the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think
that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of
his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to
more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then,
Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-
the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious
group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between
playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording
sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old
steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-
mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in
the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that
his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who
had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because
the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled
hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu
then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or
destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and
extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous
sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene
which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people
are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never
happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario
come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The
differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme
French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an
excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if
harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and
turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film
were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making
an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that
far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves
defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.
At times I really wonder when I look at the comments here it seems as if most
people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and
liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a
good film! The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main
character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention. Maybe
it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most
people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie
definitely doesn't fit as background noise. And no. Good directing
doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means
following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that
doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good. I
liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The
opening scene is really special. I also liked the acting Guillaume
Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself
playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is
a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms
all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose
is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions
or explaining himself. People are wondering where this or that person
came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is
left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on
everyone. And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as
the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and
obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which
was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at
by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene
where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is
surrounded by books on Bosnia.
When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first
publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to
that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines
like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the
writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp
departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly,
he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances
that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however,
to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would
have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps,
but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite
appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and
more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes
more and more miserable. "POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this
novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves
little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that
Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message
so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films
have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer. I recommend
a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this
movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.
A rare exception to the rule that great literature makes disappointing films, John
Huston's beautiful farewell to life and the movies is almost entirely true to the
narrative and the spirit of James Joyce's short story, a tender meditation on love,
death and time expressed in the events of a Twelfth Night party in middle-class
Dublin circa 1910. Unpromising as the material might appear, the film succeeds by
its willingness to tell the story on its own quiet, apparently inconsequential
terms, rather than force a conventional cinematic shape of plot points and dramatic
incidents upon it. Only once is the wrong note struck, when old Miss Julia (a
trained singer and music teacher whose voice is supposed to have been cracked by
age, not shattered) sings so badly that the audience burst out laughing when I saw
this at the cinema. Fortunately, the mood of hushed and gentle melancholy is re-
established in plenty of time for the moment of revelation between the married
couple Gabriel and Gretta Conroy in a hotel bedroom as snow begins to fall outside.
It's a sad story, I suppose, but the kind that leaves you feeling better, not blue.
Especially recommended as a date movie - for people in love who aren't frightened
of confronting the sweetness and sadness of life.
In my opinion the directing, editing, lighting, and acting(minus Franco) were very
good. I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised and impressed with this film. I
wasn't expecting much, in way of camera angles, sound, etc, but in these areas the
film wasn't bad at all. After seeing the film, I personally felt
frustrated with both characters because I wanted so badly for these two characters
to reach out to one another. And I felt like the Travis(Franco) character wasn't
really affected or changed in the end after Terri commits suicide. Although, this
is probably due to the lack or inability of James Franco to express emotion(of any
kind) very well in this movie. I've seen a few of Franco's other films, and to me
he just can't pull it off when a scene calls for real emotion or facial
expressions. The only positive he brings to the film, is the possibility of more
people watching this movie. On the other hand, Rachel Miner's portrayal
of Terri was well done, and she looks to have a bright future ahead. I could really
see and feel the sadness and emptiness in her character, and it made me feel for
her. I only wish I could have seen more into Terri's life before the film ended. For a short film, this movie was good, but it leaves you wanting more in
the end. I only wish it could have been just a bit longer, to see the characters
develop a little more. In spite of that, I hope to see more films from the director
and crew in the future.:)
Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were
the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I
gone in with. I think the movie suffers from some serious excess
ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial
by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an
epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two
girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the
"unwritten laws of the family tradition" seem to be that of conservative India, let
me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts
that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very
true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today. Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both.
And fails pretty miserably at that. Why in English? Can you imagine a
movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English.
Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a
hint of colloquialisms in the language for "believability"). But the
chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for
you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life
love story. If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have
got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle
statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is
what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails.
Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are
not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens
everywhere else.
I first saw this film in Austria when it first came out, and I was entranced by it.
It is a passionate and deeply moving work that should be experienced by all
connoisseurs of motion picture art. What a shame that it has never been released in
DVD format. Perhaps one of these days that will be rectified, as it would be a
shame indeed if one of the best films ever made was forgotten and left to fade away
in some film vault forever. Why is it that 'B' movies like 'American
Wedding' and 'Eurotrip' get widescreen and fullscreen releases, and often a special
edition with multiple commentaries and extras, while great art pieces like 'The
Dead' are all but forgotten?
This is possibly the most perfect film I have ever seen - in acting, adaptation and
direction. It is self-contained and of a kind, so there is no point in saying that
it is better or worse than other great films, just that it can stand by itself as a
perfect work of art. And it was fun watching confused horror fans
getting up and walking out!
John Huston, actor and director better known for more robust fare such as "The
Misfits" and "African Queen," directs his daughter, Angelica Huston, in what would
be his last film. Indeed, the film was released after Huston's death. Based on
James Joyce's novella of the same name, "The Dead" tells the quiet story of a New
Year's celebration in 1904 Dublin. Huston, his cast and his screenwriters,
including his son Tony, have created a gem of a movie. The novella is among Joyce's
finest works (as well as being the only one that is filmable). The film is a
tribute to Huston's genius. He has taken a small,beautiful story and has made a
small, beautiful movie. Donal McCann and Angelica Huston shine (although "shine" is
too showy, too flashy a word to describe their quiet, understated performances).
"The Dead" reflects the Huston family's love for Ireland and is, in its own quiet
way, a fitting final movie for a legend.
Writers and directors, by the nature of their craft, stand back a frame from the
action in their work to show insights about characters and situations. Here, Huston
and Joyce have stepped back a bigger frame yet to show us the ultimate view of what
it means to be human. Until it's very end the movie appears to be about nothing
much, the kind of typical circumstances that fill every day life. It is not until
the end of the very final scene that we realize that it is in fact about
everything. It is not possible to watch this final scene without
simultaneously feeling pity, and also deep affection, for oneself and the rest of
fellow beings.
Because of the depth of his character studies and complexity of story lines, James
Joyce's works do not easily translate into film. Yet John Huston, in his last film
before his death, achieved a perfect translation of Joyce's story. He received
great support from his son, as writer, and daughter, as actress.
"The Dead" truly is a work of art. Clearly, John Huston meant to show that he was
still "in the full glory of some passion" by making it, even as his body was
failing him. This movie is powerfully affecting and lingers in the mind long after
it is done. Reading the Joyce short story certainly adds more depth to the
characters, especially Gabriel's inner turmoil, but the essence is all there in
this film. As a statement by an artist of his love of life and his craft, "The
Dead" stands alone.
John Huston made many remarkable and memorable films. Those most often and easily
recalled were released long before his passing in 1987. It was that year, however,
that reminded us that Huston was still at the top of his game as evinced by his
faithful adaptation of James Joyce's acclaimed novella "The Dead." Once
long ago, a very wise man called Doc asked me, "Doesn't "The Dead" seem remarkably
more vivid and bright than any of the other stories in Dubliners?" I tend to think
that it is. The story and film both contain some of Joyce's societal comments and
criticisms, but for the most part, paint a warm and loving portrait of an Ireland
Joyce himself so often railed against and would shortly leave. Huston's
handling of protagonist Gabriel Conroy, who realizes the world as he sees it is
nothing more than an illusion, is simply remarkable. To claim that the film lacks
plot is to miss the point. As with any of Joyce's Dubliners, plot--while most
certainly present--is not the focus. Plot is merely a tool for the conveyance of
the protagonist's epiphany. In addition to a seeming lack in action, there is quite
frankly little dialogue in Joyce's short story for the director to lean on.
Huston's ability to translate what Joyce puts in words into visuals is quite
possibly the movie's greatest triumph. Feelings, thoughts...Gabriel's discomfort
during the dance...all these intangibles leap to life and come within the viewer's
grasp in Huston's portrayal. To claim that Huston has softened his
writer's criticism of society again misses the mark. While "The Dead" may be
painted with a cheerful hue, the complacency and pretense of the film's characters
is but a comment on society on a smaller scale: we are the toddling old aunts; the
embarrassing drunk; the tenor with the sore throat; the wife with the sad, rain
soaked secret; even the self-deluded middle-aged man. But "The Dead"
belies its title. It is not a dark story. Nor is it really that bleak. Forget for a
moment the snow falling on the living and the dead and the inherent symbolism in
it; forget the shambles of a life Gabriel awakes to at the film's end: it is only
with the destruction of the illusions Gabriel has of himself and of his world that
he can truly go forward. Such is the central point of the film. Such is the central
point of our lives.
Saw this film at the NFT in London where it was showing as part of the BFI's John
Huston season. I wasn't really sure what to expect and the first few minutes of the
film gave very little away. In fact the rest of the film continued to give little
away! No real plot, no action, no suspense, very little drama and, except for a
short section at the very end, no scenery. The result of lack of all of
these features was, however, a wonderful film. I don't fully understand why, but I
think that its understated nature made the film almost completely perfect. The
acting, script and, most important of all, the casting were all spot on and I can't
remember walking away from a cinema feeling so good, but I still can't work out
why. I just know that I will be getting the DVD (this is one of those films that
will, I am sure, be just as good on the small screen as the cinema experience,
provided that you can find somewhere quiet to watch it!) and I will be watching it
again soon. I will be also interested to find out what my family and friends think
of it. I'm sure that it will not be everybody's choice but I am convinced that a
large number will agree with my view. 9 out of 10.
The Argentinian music poet, Atahualpa Yupanqui, once said that some folk music
repeats similarly at any country of the world. They look the same but everybody
consider them as their own folk music... This film, as I feel it, is
about the same music that repeats all over the world at some time of each country's
history. First, a few listen it playing and try to make the others hear it. Then
some, believe that they hear it, but they don't. Then, nobody says anything and
some people appear to listen to it. And others recognize that they have heard it,
but didn't think that others might be hearing it. Finally, everybody listen to the
same music, and suddenly it doesn't sound any more... Love and poetry,
as a real nationalism and the legacy of a father to his children... Why
would he call the film, The Dead when nobody dies? The Spanish translation of the
title refused to follow the same rule and we call it Dubliners, following James
Joyce's title... A nice 1900 Irish filmed postcard!
James Joyce, arguably, could write some of the best sentences in the English
language, and his short story, "The Dead," which ends his collection The Dubliners,
containsin its finaleperhaps the most perfect paragraph in the English language.
It's fitting that John Huston, who held back in attempting to film this story,
ended his career with it. As with The Red Badge of Courage and The Man Who Would Be
King, Huston revered the literary source but made the adaptation cinematic. And
with "The Dead" (which was completed after Huston's death by his son, Tony Huston)
we get something nearly perfect in the marriage of literature and cinema. Valuing all that cinema can do, as one of the commentators points out "this
isn't The African Queen" (nor does it need to be), this is the kind of movie that
is uncompromising for an audience. All of us slogged through Portrait of an Artist
in school, and one needs to bring the maturity of appreciating how words and images
in and of themselves can touch us. As with silent films, Huston seeks something
pure here, and he works with the confidence of his many years and leaves the world
a masterpiece that equals Joyce's original. Many veterans of the Irish
theater world are recruited to bring the story of a man filled with self-importance
(and mock self-doubt) that's reinforced by the hosts of an annual party on the eve
of the Feast of the Epiphany. What's in store for Gabriel Conroy is an evening of
celebration, song, dance, poetry where he's asked to give the annual toast to the
two sisters and their niece who host the party. He's distracted by the task wanting
to rise to the occasion, and this distraction leaves him vulnerable for an earth-
shattering experience, handed to him by his wife. While his ego is shaken when he
hears a story from his wife's past, it's also a gift where all that seems to have
mattered throughout the evening is swept away by the realization of impending
mortality for all who are living. And rather than trying to make the
last famous paragraph of the story "cinematic," Huston brings in a voice over and
we hear those incredible words recited as we watch "the snow falling faintly
through the universe and faintly falling." It's the perfect solution to a
filmmaker's adaptation. The cast is all we would hope. Since this is
basically a testament to the power of the written word and how it brings us
together through common experience each performer seems elevated by their role.
Anjelica Huston as Gretta Conroy has a wide range to play, and her account of a
young boy who once loved her sears not only Gabriel Conroy, but the audience as
well. When I think of Anjelica Huston, it's the transformation she makes
in this film; and when I think of her father, it's this film I remember first.
This is a haunting short film. Both James Franco and Rachel Miner deliver
performances that hurt, ring true and stay with you. Since this is called a tragic
story this isn't much of a spoiler. But I wanted to change the outcome, even though
it is right for the story, because I had already come to care about these people. I
can only think of a few short films that have had that effect on me. Beautifully
shot, acted, edited. High caliber work all around, even to the use of just the
right sound and/or music to advance the story. The end credit song finished the
job, wringing even more emotion from me. This is first rate from beginning to end.
Kudos to the writer/director and all involved. This is my first review
of a film in the comments section. I promised to do so in exchange for a copy of
the DVD. The review could be good or bad, just my honest opinion. This is it and
it's the least I can do. I am so glad I got to see it.
I've been waiting years for THE DEAD to come out on video, having pretty much worn
my VHS copy to shreds. This is one of the most beautiful films ever made for the
holidays. It takes place on the Feast of the Epiphany (Twelfth Night), and is a
simple, poignant vignette of characters attending a dinner prepared by three Dublin
women. Central to the story is a fairly loveless couple, a wife who once
passionately loved a young man who died for her and a man who wants to feel the
same kind of passion for his wife, but feels incapable. All of the performances are
stunning, and the script weaves among the various characters at the dinner
beautifully. Of course, its source material is James Joyce's short story of the
same title, and much of his narrative structure is kept fully intact. John Huston's
long career as one of Hollywood's greatest filmmakers had a truly fitting finale
with this film, which was scripted by his son, Tony Huston; stars his daughter,
Anjelica Huston; and is dedicated to his wife, Maricella. Thank you to Lions Gate
for picking up the rights to this film and releasing it on DVD. For lovers of all
things Irish or for folks looking for a literate, subtle, yet incredibly moving
holiday film, this is a true gem.
Naturally in a film who's main themes are of mortality, nostalgia, and loss of
innocence it is perhaps not surprising that it is rated more highly by older
viewers than younger ones. However there is a craftsmanship and completeness to the
film which anyone can enjoy. The pace is steady and constant, the characters full
and engaging, the relationships and interactions natural showing that you do not
need floods of tears to show emotion, screams to show fear, shouting to show
dispute or violence to show anger. Naturally Joyce's short story lends the film a
ready made structure as perfect as a polished diamond, but the small changes Huston
makes such as the inclusion of the poem fit in neatly. It is truly a masterpiece of
tact, subtlety and overwhelming beauty.
This is really the only chance to see the magic of James Joyce's writing brought to
life. His novels are all unfilmable (in any real sense) and this is the only long
story he wrote. It was John Huston's last film and did not reach the screen until
after he had died, and it is easy to see his touch of greatness. The Dead is
poetical in its approach on the screen, telling us more about Ireland than any
modern movie on the IRA and "the troubles" could ever hope to tell us. Hopefully
more people will watch this film and get to experience the finest of both John
Huston and James Joyce, and perhaps visit this story in your local bookstore (and
discover that it is probably the greatest short story ever put on paper).
I believe John Houston's "The Dead" is a true classic. Not only was it Houston's
final film, he is quoted as saying "all I know about film making is in this film."
The story, closely adapted from "Dubliners" by James Joyce, is a great ensemble
piece featuring sterling performances by Angelica Houston, John's daughter, and a
cast of English and Irish actors who bring the story to life. This is a film that
should be part of any serious collection, not only because it is visually elegant,
but because the story is timeless and very appealing. The film is not hurried, nor
is it charged with action. Rather, the story unfolds from within the characters,
who bring light and meaning to the dialog. The end of the film is stunning, poetic,
and haunting. I recommend "The Dead" without reservation as one of the finest films
ever made.
Not often it happens that a great director´s last movie becomes such a moving,
brillantly performed and filmed masterpiece. The cast is excellent as well as the
camerawork. What starts up as a merry coming-together of a group of well-educated
citizens of an early-20th-century- Dublin turns into a dark, philosophic narration
about all our fear from death and the sometimes dark shadows of the past. Thank
You, Mister Huston, for this last piece of great cinema!
In print this is one of the greatest short stories ever written, brought
brilliantly and poetically to the screen by this father-son team, working together,
sadly, for the first and last time.It is fitting that John Huston should end his
career on a high note by bringing the work of one of his favorite author's to the
screen, in what is easily the best Joyce screen adaptation. Huston made a career of
adapting great works of literature to film, usually quite successfully. It is sad,
and somewhat puzzling, that Tony Huston pretty much began and ended his career in
film by adapting what would be his father's final project and picking up a well-
deserved Oscar nomination in the process. I once had the privilege of
sitting in the company of the great screenwriter/playwright Horton Foote, who cited
this film as one of his favorites in recent years (at the time it was still a
fairly recent release). As a rather prolific screenwriter himself (and a brilliant
screen adapter of his own works, as well as great authors such as Faulkner,
Steinbeck and Harper Lee) he was obviously impressed with Tony Huston's first time
effort, and possibly equally puzzled by his lack of output since then. If anyone
has insights to share on the topic I'd be interested to hear more.
For his last film, John Huston directed his daughter, Anjelica, in this adaptation
of the story from James Joyce's "Dubliners", and he gave us one of his finest
achievements to remember him by. Joyce is about as impossible to film as
anyone, but "The Dead" at least presents a traditional narrative to work with. Much
(indeed, almost all) of the important information in the story lies in the spaces
between the lines, in characters' thoughts and expressions -- there are big
moments, but they're cerebral -- they're not the stuff of which movies are made.
But somehow, Huston gets it right, and he manages a nearly flawless
adaptation. Anjelica is magnificent, and the movie is haunting and
powerful. Grade: A
There are so many '10 Best' lists which could easily fit "The Dead" - Best Screen
Drunk, Best Literary Adaptation, Best Use Of Music Not Specifically Written for the
Film, Best Use of Poetry, Best Screen Speech, Best Ensemble Cast and finally,
perhaps, Best Film Ever Made. This was John Huston's last and greatest film,
adapted by his son Tony from James Joyce's short story and set on the evening of
the Feast of the Epiphany in the Dublin of 1904. It is confined, largely, to one
setting, the home of the Morkan sisters, and not a great deal happens in
conventional 'dramatic' terms. They entertain their guests; there is singing,
dancing, recitations and much small talk but watching this film you can't imagine
anywhere else you would rather be than in this company. Finally, of
course, it is 'about' much, much more. It is about love, loss and regret, those
stable mainstays of great drama. In the film's closing scenes the tenor Bartell
D'Arcy, (Frank Patterson), sings a song, 'The Lass of Aughrim' which conjures up in
the mind of Gretta, (Anjelica Huston), wife of Gabriel, (Donal McCann), the ghost
of her first and probably greatest love, a boy who died in all certainty of a
broken heart at the age of seventeen, and suddenly Gabriel realises he has never
really known his wife and that he has not been the great love of her life, after
all. Emotionally, these scenes are incredibly powerful, firstly as Gretta recounts
the circumstances of her lover's death and then as the voice in Gabriel's head sums
up his own feelings. This is great cinema, the monologues superbly delivered by
Huston and McCann. But then all the performances are extraordinary. This
is ensemble playing of the highest order and while it would be invidious to single
out one performer above another, has the screen ever given us a more likable,
genial or convincing drunk than Donal Donnelly or has poetry ever been delivered
with such passion that Sean McClory, (the IRA man in "The Quiet Man"), brings to
his reading of Lady Gregory's translation of 'Donal Og' here? Added poignancy is to
be had, of course, from the knowledge that Huston himself was close to death when
he made this film which seems to me the culmination of his life's work. Death may
well be its central theme but viewing this film is a life-enhancing experience.
John Huston finished his remarkable career with one of the most perfect and
sensitive movies I've ever seen. For his farewell he decided to adapt James Joyce's
beautiful short story, "The Dead", and made not only one of the most faithful
literature-to-film adaptations yet, he also crafted a movie that more than 20 years
later still surpasses a lot of contemporary cinema. When I watched this
movie a few years ago, as a student at University, I gazed in awe at the screen,
marvelling at every aspect of the movie: acting, screen writing, direction,
costumes, settings, music, cinematography. Thinking about it now, I still can't of
anything I'd criticise it for. Huston just knew how to tell a good story. A good deal of credit should also go to Tony Huston. He knew better than to
meddle with a text that is not only perfection itself but already visual enough for
cinema. Father and son let the story breathe and relish in the long, fascinating
conversations between characters, and in the meaningful silences. Donal
McCann also deserves credit for the his performance as Gabriel Conroy. I had never
seen him in movies before, nor have I seen him afterwards, but he gave one of the
most moving performances I've ever seen. All in all, The Dead is a fine
cinematic experience, from a legendary director who never stopped being excellent.
Easily one of my three or four favorite films. Definitely one for the desert
island. There is nothing `brilliant' about this film. Rather, it glows warm and
welcoming. The audience is invited to a party and, like any good party, the joy
comes in the interaction of the guests, and what you learn as you progress from one
to the next. With apologies to Joyce, the film's title conjures up a number of
ideas that keep audiences away. The film is not horrifying. It is not depressing.
It is a beautiful look into a time that has past, within which people are growing
up, and others are winding down. Some are frustrated, and others are serene. And
all around, ever present throughout the evening, are the people, and the parts of
people, that have been laid to rest. The words these exquisite actors are given to
speak are perfection and, set to the music of the Irish brogue, are an auditory
feast, particularly to us flat-toned Americans. About the lack of brilliance I
referred to above, I take it back. There is no other word to describe the final
scene between Anjelica Huston and Donal McCann. It speaks quiet volumes about
well, everything. Some lovely snowy evening, rent this film and just let it happen
before you. No gunfights, no car chases, no dinosaurs just film at its most
sublime.
Travis (James Franco) is a young man riding a train for business reasons (we're to
assume) who leaves his beloved phone behind. It gets picked up by a prostitute,
Terri (Rachel Miner), and when he goes to her city to pick it up, a series of
events occur that are sure to stay with him forever. Both characters
have barriers they've put up to defend themselves from communication. But despite
their facades, it's obvious both are eager to bust them down. In total there are
about 30 or so spoken lines, but from the way James Franco and Rachel Miner use
their faces you might as well turn off the volume, words are unnecessary. A scene
to look out for is Terri staring at herself in the mirror. You can just feel her
despair permeating the room. But, the movie isn't perfect. It's mostly
filmed using hand-held cameras, which gets a bit distracting. Mainly due to the
acting of Mr. Franco and Miner and the photography, the script's flaws don't stand
out as much. Still, sometimes it seems as if the story doesn't really know where it
wants to go. All in all, this is the type of film that truly stays with
you long after you watched it. An hour after you've seen it, you're still 'what-
if'-ing yourself on the behalf of certain characters. It's not flawless, but still
leaves you wanting more, wishing it were at least 4x as long.
The last film of John Huston, the great American director of the Irish descent is
an adaptation of the last short story in the early collection "Dubliners", of the
greatest writer ever came from Ireland. The film is a family affair. The dying
director made it based on the script adapted by his son Tony Huston from one of the
most poignant, beautiful and profound short story ever written in this language and
considered by many THE BEST English language short story. John directed his
daughter Anjelica in what could be her finest screen performance. The film is
short, only 83 minutes. It's got no action sequences, no plot, it is almost non-
eventful, and it may seem slow. The guests, friends and relatives come to the party
that takes place in Dublin during the Epiphany week in January 1904, at the house
of two elderly sisters who give annual dinner with music and dance. What viewers
see for the first hour, is the ensemble conversation piece. The guests talk, listen
to the music, discuss the latest opera premiere, and make jokes, sometimes awkward.
Gradually, the conversation turns to the long dead friends or relatives the memory
of whom never faded away. This is the film you have to stay with, let it
pull you in, listen to what and how the guests at the party say, how they
communicate. Pay attention to the body languages, to the looks at their faces when
they drift away from the light, laugh, and music of the present to the long gone
but never in fact left most precious memories where the Dead of the title are not
dead but forever young and so alive. If you do, you will be awarded with the final
scene of such emotional power and impact that it will always stay with you. It will
break your heart to pieces, pull them together and put it back transfixed. The film
as well as Joyce's story centers on Gabriel Conroy (Donal McCann as James Joyce's
alter ego gave a very moving understated performance) as one of the party guests
who arrives with his wife Gretta (Anjelica Huston). Gabriel is still in love, feels
close connection to and fascinated with her. It is after the party, he discovers
that even after many years of closeness, he does not know all about her past, her
pains, her regrets, and the unforgettable emotions and loss she had lived through
as a young girl, and he is no part of. For the first time, he looks at her and
thinks of her not as the indelible part of his existence but as another human being
with her own inner world, her own loneliness and sadness, and for the first time,
"a strange, friendly pity for her entered his soul." It is he who narrates the
final most powerful and profound lines of the story: "Snow is general all over
Ireland. . . falling faintly through the universe, and faintly falling, like the
descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead." If you
have not seen the film or read the Joyce's story, please do. They are truly the
works of Art that leave the everlasting impression and would change something in
you to the best.
It's a short movie for such immense feelings. The last 20 or so minutes are among
the most intense in the recent years of the industry. Huston (John) is dying and
only love can make the difference. The actor's work in the long evening scene is
absolutely marvellous.
An exquisite film. They just don't make them like this any more! We eavesdrop on an
upper middle class family in Dublin in the early part of the 20th century. They are
hosting an after Christmas dinner for their friends and relatives. Their table talk
is just idle chatter but it is so well written that one is engrossed. Away from the
dinner table some fine piano playing helps to create an intimate atmosphere as if
one were there as one of the guests. Perhaps a bit too perfect for an amateur
player, the odd mistake here and there would have added to the magic of this film.
No real story but real entertainment and an object lesson for up and coming film
makers.
So many literary adaptations are disappointments. There are many reasons for that,
but usually it is the need to cut down a complex novel to the size of a screenplay.
The Dead is unusual - it had to be 'padded', as the short story itself is a tiny,
relatively short gem. It may in fact be the finest short story in the English
language. In beautifully spare language it tells of the realization of Gabriel
Conroy that his life, and the lives of so many around him are controlled by
memories of the dead. Even his own wife of many years loved a man now dead more
than him. To bring such a short story to the cinema was always going to
be tricky. John Huston did a magnificent job. He never gave in to temptation to
play it up or use fancy technique to expand on the story. It is simple and true,
with outstanding acting. The only slight miss-step is the use of music to accompany
the devastating final soliloquy. Its rare indeed for a movie version of
a literary masterpiece to be itself a masterpiece, but I think its fair to use this
term for this movie. Its not a bravura piece of film making, but it is simple and
pure - I always think of Ozu's movies when i think of The Dead, its at that level
of purity and simplicity and deep wisdom.
The entire movie, an artful adaptation of one of Joyce's "Dubliners" stories, takes
place on the night of January 6 (Epiphany), 1906. Most of the film takes place at
an annual party given by three spinsters (two sisters and their niece), where a
group of upper-class Dubliners gather for an evening of music, recitations and
dinner. While there is very little plot per se, the interaction and conversation
among the group reveals much about Dublin in the early 20th century when the
stirrings for independence were just beginning. The cast, all talented Irish stage
actors with the exception of Anjelica Huston, are universally wonderful, and one
actually feels he is a guest at the gathering himself. The poignant final scene,
between Ms. Huston and the amazing Donal McCann, reveals much about the marriage of
the characters. There is poignancy mixed with humor and insight, and for those who
like quiet, thoughtful movies, "The Dead" is highly recommended. My wife is from
Dublin, we make a ritual of watching this wonderful movie every January 6th. After
many viewings it never fails to move me, and each time I glean something that I've
missed before.
I have watched thousands of movies in my life and I believe this movie is the most
"perfect" movie that has ever been made. By perfect I mean the storytelling, the
plot, the acting, the staging, the camera work, etc. (This is a lay opinion; I have
no background in film production.) A lot of movies have perfect scenes, such as the
bartender filing a report with the police officer in the movie Fargo. (Indeed, that
scene could play well as a short.) In The Dead every scene is done to perfection,
making the entire movie perfect. Perhaps, John Huston sold his soul to the Devil to
make such a movie. Hopefully, Daniel Webster has gotten him out of the contract!
John Huston was seriously ill when he made his final achievement,and it's
thoroughly his testament:uncompromising,difficult ,a thousand miles away from
crazes and fashions,it will stand as the best "last film" you can ever dream of.A
very austere screenplay,no action,no real hero,but a group of people coping with
the vanity of life,the fleeting years and death.The party doesn't delude people for
long.Admittedly,warmth and affection emanate from the songs and the meal,complete
with turkey and pudding.But the passage of time has partly ruined Julia's
voice,first crack in the mirror.Then the camera leaves the room where the guests
are gathered and searches the old lady's bedroom.For sure,hers seems to have been a
happy life,but it's a life inexorably coming to an end-A shot shows towards the end
of the movie Julia on her future deathbed-.Maybe an unfulfilled life,because she
remained a spinster,with no children to carry on .Only some poor things,yellowish
photographs,bibelots and trinklets.... But are a human being's hopes and dreams all
fulfilled?Look at Gretta.She 's a married woman ,about thirty-five,she's still
beautiful and healthy but she knows something is broken.What Julia is today,she
will be tomorrow,that's why,in her stream of consciousness,she goes back to her
past,only to find out how harrowing her memories are: a young man committed suicide
for her,a symbol of her youth now waning.The final monologue,if we listen closely
to it,involves us all in this eternal tragedy,the doomed to failure human
condition,John Huston's masterly lesson.
This is my favourite movie of all time. And I always think of it as John Huston's
requiem. I must have seen it at least 20 times and never tire of it. The
mood, the script, the singing, the dinner, it is like being invited into someone's
home and observing the events and not able to participate even though you want
to... It is a rare treasure, this movie and I cannot write enough praise for it. It is cast incredibly well, with quite a few Abbey Theatre faces and also
the wonderful tenor voice of Frank Patterson. Lady Gregory's poem recited in the
movie is one of the most moving ever written. Anjelica's scene walking down the
stairs as she listens to the song is one of the best performances every seen on
film. I cry every time I see it..for all the right reasons. We have all
had love lost at an early age and weep for our young hopeful selves. Donal McCann acted in far too few movies for my liking, he just loved stage work
and stuck to it, and it is our loss that we do not have more of his performances on
film as he does so much with this delicate role by expression and the portrayal of
a deep love for his wife that will never be reciprocated and he conveys such inner
sadness at knowing this. If you want your movies action and plot packed
avoid this, there really is no beginning, middle or end just a lens onto the
characters at a dinner party in Dublin 80 years ago and all the little nuances and
shadings of the personalities portrayed so beautifully. Bravo to all who
were involved in this production. 10 out of 10.
Flashes of lightning; a sprawling cemetery; the name of Adam 'Batman' West: all pop
up on screen before the opening credits are even over, and yet, despite these
rather naff elements, One Dark Night isn't as cheesy as it might first seem. Meg Tilly (Jennifer's sister) plays pretty student Julie, who reluctantly
agrees to spend the night alone in a mausoleum as part of her initiation into
exclusive high school clique The Sisters. What Julie doesn't realise is that the
other 'sisters' plan to freak her out with some ghoulish pranksor that the most
recent body to be interred in the mausoleum is that of 'psychic vampire' Raymar,
who feeds off the life force of scared young women. Admittedly, this
isn't the most original of set-ups, but thankfully there are enough inventive
touches to help set this film apart from the competition, my favourites being the
macabre sight of everyday objects embedded in the walls of Raymar's apartment, and
the creepy manner in which mouldy corpses float through the cold marble corridors
of the mausoleum during the excellent finale. Hal Trussell's impressive steadicam
cinematography and Tom Burman's wonderfully macabre special effects also add
immensely to the chilling atmosphere.
I have great memories of this movie... I was only 12 when it was
released and it scared the bejesus out of me. I really miss my bejesus... Zombies, graveyards, mausoleums, how can you go wrong? It's like Phantasm's
retarded cousin. This movie was released 1 year before the PG-13 rating
was instituted. I submit that One Dark Night is the GORIEST PG movie
(not scariest, mind you) that has ever been released. Can anyone come up
with a gorier pick? (FYI: I don't consider Poltergeist to be
gorier...scarier, yes. But not gorier...)
This film, for what it was set out to be, succeeded. It's a short tragic film.
Although my choice of film are ones that really develop characters and their
relationships, this film is meant to just give a taste, leaving you with the "what
happens next" factor. After watching it, I really was wanting more, more of the
characters back story, what influences they had to make them into the people they
were. I think thats what the makers intended the viewing audience to think. The
acting is amazing. There aren't many lines in the film so their body language,
facial expressions, and overall presence needed to be powerful enough to withhold a
scene. Both Franco and Miner have that element and it shows. For them (especially
Franco) to take the time to make this, obviously says they believed in this film
and wanted to be apart of it and for that, I appreciated the film for what it was.
Also I'm happy I own it so I can share it with other people that would've never
known it existed.
I can't describe the feeling when I got this crappy VHS rental cassette in my hands
about 20 years ago. Somehow I got my father to rent it for me and I watched it
twice with my little brother. Yes, we got nightmares. This film was originally
rated as PG in the US, in many other countries, including Finland, it was
restricted under 18 or 16. The film was aimed to teenagers, but this must be the
goriest PG-rated film ever. There's no bad language or nudity in it what so ever.
Originally made in 1981, stayed on the shelves for a couple of years before
release. This is an A-class B-movie, a true, well made 80's horror
flick. A bunch of college girls decide to spent a night in a mausoleum, not knowing
that a supernatural evil awaits... You can almost smell the rotting
flesh and feel the atmosphere of this movie. It's campy, utterly stupid, but they
just can't make these movies anymore. There is definitely a certain feel to this
80's horror genre. This one is still effectively spooky and entertaining after all
these years. The effects are just oozing quality by Ellis Burman Jr and
Thomas R. Burman. The make-up effects play a big part in this flick, otherwise it
would've been just a boring teen slasher. It's now available on DVD at
last and it's a Special Edition DVD including some extras too. Commentary track is
interesting. (In fact, this version isn't so special after all. Below
average transfer on DVD, some glitches and scratches here and there) At first it
was going to be released by the Blue Underground but unfortunately it was canceled,
so Shriek Show released it without restoring the print. Too bad!) Great
date-movie! Recommended!!! Note! I only gave 8 out of 10
because of the "nostalgic values", otherwise 6 out of 10
You have GOT to see this movie... I saw it, as a 13 year old, at the theater, on my
very first date... Fast forward over 20 years and I'm now gay (Thanks a lot One
Dark Night!! LOL!). This movie creeped the hell out of me as a kid (mausoleums
still do!), but as an adult, the thrill of this movie isn't in the storyline, but
rather the hysterical laughs it holds... Highlights are listening to the names the
teenagers call each other, from "nerdlebrain" (my personal favorite) to "turkey".
Also, keep your eyes peeled for the scene where Carol (the blond, head sister)
attempts to hang her phone up on a soda can (can't believe they didn't reshoot
that!)... Other highlights include Adam West's overly dramatic outbursts and the
gooey corpses. If you're a fan of true horror, I'd suggest this film just because,
to me, it's almost a parody on horror. There is def. a creepy factor and the plot
is a good one, but don't watch it if you want to be scared out of your wits (unless
you're like 10 years old or something).
I was kinda surprised by the PG rating on the back of the DVD case. I certainly
wouldn't want my kids watching this one. I think this would scare the crap out of a
10 year old. Plot: A girl trying to fit in to the clique is hazed and
tormented by the 'in crowd.' They talk her into spending the night in this creepy
mausoleum (that reminded me of Phantasm...) and they proceed to torment her in the
night. Little do they know, a recently deceased clairvoyant is coming back to life
and raising the dead around them! It sounds awfully cheesy, but given the age and
the budget, which was no doubt pretty small, this film is fun on many levels. Watch for an early EG Daily as one of the in crowd brats. I enjoyed it and
it scared my girlfriend. 7 out of 10, kids.
As part of an initiation prank Julie (Meg Tilly of Psycho 2) has to spend the night
in a mausoleum, but Karl Rhamarevich, a master of telekinesis has recently died and
been put in there. When Julie's fellow sorority sisters desecrate where he's housed
the real terror starts. This little flick had a good deal of atmosphere
and I enjoyed the build up, plus the last twenty minutes are just plain great.
Anyone who's looking for a lost gem of an '80's horror movie needn't look any
further. Highly under-appreciated. Plus Elizabeth Daily is adorable. My
Grade: B Media Blaster DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with director Tom
McLoughlin and co-writer Michael Hawes; and trailers for "the Being",
"Frankestien's Bloody Terror", "Just Before Dawn", & "Devil Dog" Disc 2) Alternate
director's cut (that's almost unwatchable due to a bad print) & Behind-the-scenes
featurette
"One Dark Night" is a staple in the 1980's low budget horror genre. Filled with
retro puns, clothing and scenery, "ODN" transports the viewer to a simpler time,
when horror films were just that... Horror! Nothing so intense that you
can't understand whats going on, the film tells a dark fable of what happens when
you mess with the dead. Well acted by it's stable of scream-queens, and a fine
directorial job by Tom McLoughlin, whom revels in the time and makes you believe
what he's presenting. There is no "Who done it?" and certainly no big twist at the
end. It is straight-forward and in your face horror from beginning to end, with a
lot of 80's humor thrown in for added spice. I give it "8" simply because some of
the special effects fall short towards the end of the film, but at least there is
no CGI... Perfect film for new fans to the 1980's horror genre, or anyone looking
to re-live a fun night of classic horror bliss.
I also saw this at the cinema in the 80s and have never forgotten it, even though I
have never seen it again anywhere. I don't know whether if I did see it
now it would seem dated, but remembering the storyline and comparing it to some of
the terrible modern films I've seen on Zone Horror I should think it would stand up
very well. I can still remember his coffin sliding out and opening up
and all the dead bodies becoming reanimated, and the blue lightning. Having seen
hundreds of horror movies and still remembering this one, it must be good.
I didn't know anything about this movie before I watched it. It seems to be a
lesser-known teen horror from the 80's. What struck me were the ways it differed
from so many other movies from that era. The first thing I noticed was
how slowly this movie builds. It doesn't do the typical setup of showing characters
being murdered one by one. It takes its time building the back story, leaving a
little bit of mystery about what might happen. I was almost starting to think no
one would even really get hurt in this movie. But everything leads to the climatic
sequence during the last 15 minutes, and then it gets fairly graphic (this was a
bad time to take a snack break--I almost couldn't finish my pizza once it
started). The characters also seem slightly more three-dimensional than
a lot of the cheap teen scare flicks. There conversations were refreshingly level-
headed for the most part, as opposed to the over-the-top stereotypes you'd expect.
For example, the girl who is the popular, snobby, queen-bee of the clique isn't
constantly spouting insults at everyone, but is capable of having doubts and
showing some consideration for others. So, to summarize, I felt this
movie was somewhat original compared to what I expected, and a little better made
as well. It drew me in, kept me interested, and then let me have it. As I said,
it's pretty gory during the finale, but almost family friendly much of the rest of
the time. I don't need to own it, but I'm glad I discovered it.
I saw this film when it was released to theaters. It's definitely one to remember,
I had forgotten the title until recently. A friend found it via online
search. One Dark Night is rather unusual for the suspense/horror genre
of the time in that it contains no blood. It is of the teen fright variety yet the
teens are respectable in their own ways. It's a nice, old-school film with props
and scenes that reflect the times. Our hero rides a motorcycle with no brain
bucket, for example. As has been mentioned by previous reviewers, One
Dark Night is currently available on DVD. The original negative was not available
for the DVD transition. Some reel changes are a bit rough but this doesn't take
away from the story. That being said, the colors are vibrant and the lighting is
very good. Adam West plays a rather smallish part in this film as
RayMar's son-in-law. His role as an overbearing and indifferent husband is
thankfully short. The story builds over the course of the film. Unlike
many horror films of the era, One Dark Night is a great suspense story that gives
the viewer time to absorb what is happening. The final 20 minutes or so
of One Dark Night are what make it so memorable. RayMar's telekinetic abilities are
used to open old graves in the mausoleum, pull the coffins out, open them and move
the corpses around. Attention was afforded to great detail in the final scenes. The
rotting, worm-riddled corpses look quite real.
Since Jason and his ilk took over horror films circa 1980 most every horror film
has involved a group of hormonally charged teenagers being chopped to bits with the
focus on the chopping and not the suspense. This little film is
different. Made in the early 80's it does what every good horror film should do -
bring your worst fears to life while you sit around just knowing that these horrors
are just around the corner. Then, you make those horrors simmer, just don't turn it
into a lesson on the biology of butchering. The story features Meg Tilly
right before she had a short-lived turn with fame starting with "The Big Chill" and
then slipped back into obscurity in the early 90's. Meg plays an outcast teenager
who is just dying to get into the good graces of some classic mean girls. They tell
her she can be part of their little group if she spends the night in a crypt. The
mean girls intend to scare her and cause her to leave the crypt thus giving them a
double reward - further tormenting the outcast girl and having an excuse to reject
her. Meanwhile famed occultist Karl Rhamarevich has died a bizarre death
shortly after having claimed to have discovered a way to return from the grave and
upon his return command great magical powers. His daughter doesn't believe this at
first, but she listens to a tape about her father's experiments which included his
successful animation of small dead animals and of his plans to emerge from the
grave with the power to animate bigger game and draw further power from these
animations. She also learns that she may have inherited her father's power and may
be the only person who can stop him should he actually rise from the dead. I think
you know where this story is headed, so I'll stop here. Did I mention the magician
was entombed in the same crypt in which Meg Tilly's character is spending the
night? I will mention that the commercial DVD containing this film does
look somewhat degraded compared to what you would expect from a film that was made
so recently. I saw it on TV in the mid 1980's and I remember it looking better than
this. The problem is that the original negative of the film was never located so
the DVD had to be created from a print. This means it comes complete with dirt and
scratches. This is worth checking out for any horror fan. It was an
independently made film and an example of the kind of unusual stuff that you could
commonly find on late night TV until the infomercial turned that time slot into a
vast wasteland circa 1986. Only TCM Underground airs this kind of film anymore.
A bunch of sorority girls make a new pledge spend the night in a creepy mausoleum.
Of course the recently deceased don't stay deceased for long and all hell breaks
loose."One Dark Night" is an enjoyable 80's horror with some ghastly dead bodies
floating around that are being controlled by the spirit of a dead psychic
Raymar.There is no gore and nudity,but the atmosphere of a mausoleum is very
eerie.The acting is solid,but the script takes too much time to develop the
characters until the final 20 minutes that Raymar finally breaks out of his
grave.The cinematography is impressive and the the mausoleum is a great location
for the climactic events.The film takes so long to get going and this is its major
flaw.7 out of 10.
hello all Denver fans! i couldn't agree more with you guys! This show
was so cool and cute, i i watched it as a kid in the late 80s. Among Denver are
other favourite too, such as Care Bears and Rainbow Brite. I am 24 now, but it is
still one of my favourite shows, and my favourite cartoon from the 80s. It brings
back all the memories. The theme tune was great too, i get goosebumps whenever i
hear it. It is sad that it lasted such a short time, but it has remained a firm
favourite. Its great that i am not alone and that there are people out there who
liked it too. This is one of the cartoon shows i shall keep for future generations.
 Viva Denver! :)
ONE DARK NIGHT is a highly overlooked and little known film from the early 80's
that deserves an audience that I fear it will never get, and that's a damn shame. I
have seen this film compared to others that have gotten a bigger name over the
years, most notably PHANTASM, HELL NIGHT and MAUSOLEUM. This is a much different
film than those and I don't see the comparisons other than the mausoleum, which is
a bit similar to the one in PHANTASM, but not enough to make any real comparisons.
I'm not sure how this one slipped through without a broader acceptance. Maybe it's
all in the marketing, I don't know. Perhaps a remake would breathe new life into
it, unless Raymar drained all the life out of it that is. I'm not too big on all
the remakes that are abundant these days, but I think they do work well with lesser
known films (except for the awful GHOST SHIP remake, which other than the opening
scene and Mudvayne's Not Falling blaring, was utter crap). So if a remake of ONE
DARK NIGHT would happen to fall into the right hands, I think it would make a lot
of people go and watch the original. I know that's what I do if there's a remake of
a film I haven't seen before. So anything short of a remake, I fear, would not
bring this film back to life. Unless, of course, Raymar got his eyes on it. Anyways, ONE DARK NIGHT is a must see for horror fans, especially 80's
horror fans ('cause we all know that's when the best horror movies were made).
Creepy setting. Fairly good acting. Very good story. Campy. What more could you
want from an early 80's horror film? What's that... nudity and gore? Well, sorry.
No nudity or gore in this film, but it's still great nonetheless! A solid 8 out of
10. Enjoy.
Thorn-BMI is out of business, before they stopped making films they made a chiller
of a movie. Using E.S.P. and telekinesis as the basis of the daughter whose father
mastered a terrible power. Only in the death of her father did Olivia find that her
father dubbed 'Raymar' from Raymarkovitch had really murdered 6 girls and was
planning two more by using the technique of Psyhic Vampirism. Our
picture starts with 6 coroner wagons pulling in and music to match the grusome
discovery of the 6 girls. Dead all with their eyes wide open in a closet. In the
walls were all kinds of objects, the coroners men were pulling up an old man, when
blue lightning hit the ceiling which caused a circular hole to form only made the
film more bizarre! If you like extremely chilling scenes this for you.
Unless you can see dead bodies from years ago in each level of decay, don't view it
without a friendly companion. Like "The Changeling" it has some heart stopping
horror in it. I gave this a rating of 7 it's in color, actress Meg Tilly debuted in
this film if you can find it see it.
This is an OK early 80's horror flick in which a young girl (Meg Tilly) is wanting
to shed her "goody two shoes" image and becomes part of a girl gang called The
Sisters. Their initiation for her consists of spending the night in a mausoleum.
Too bad the mausoleum is the "final" resting place of some psycho Russian psychic
and he's not quite dead yet. Seems this guy was found in his apartment with lots of
things stuck into the walls from his telekinetic target practice, plus there is a
pile of young dead girls found in the closet. All proof that hitch hiking can be
dangerous, so listen up girls. The daughter of this man (Reymar) is rather
distraught about her father's death and is confronted by a man that said he knew
Reymar and given a tape to listen too. Her hubby (Adam West, of Batman fame) is
there to laugh and scoff, and not much else. But it seems that perhaps Reymar's
daughter may also have some abilities that she doesn't realize. Anyway, having
deposited their unfortunate pledge at the mausoleum, the rest of The Sisters take
off to go get stuff (like masks, sheets, etc) to come back and scare the crap out
of her, but little do they suspect what's going on and they get more than the crap
scared out of them. For even in death Reymar is kind of a busy guy and he's
reanimating lots of corpses for entertainment. And it would also seem that he has a
thing for jail bait. Overall this is acceptable horror, nothing too intense but not
terrible either. The DVD from Media Blasters also contains another version of the
movie that's a rough cut, I guess, I only watched a little of it so I don't know
how different it is from the theatrical release but from what I saw I guess it's a
"warts and all" presentation. 7 out of 10.
Julie (Meg Tilly) is a "goody two shoes" type high school girl who, determined to
prove something to herself, allows herself to be subjected to the rituals of "The
Sisters", a small-scale clique presided over by snooty, homecoming queen type Carol
(Robin Evans). The Sisters propose that for Julie's final test she will spend the
night in a mausoleum, preparing to drive Julie up the wall, but not knowing that
recently deceased, ill-intentioned psychic Raymar is interred there and has plans
to cause havoc from beyond the grave. While this debut picture for Tom
McLoughlin ("Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives" and "Sometimes They Come Back")
is limited by its obviously low budget, it's what McLoughlin and his crew are able
to do with it that counts. It's genuinely creepy, unsettling fare; it might have
very well scared the stuffing out of me if I were under 10 years of age, and even
at my current age, it still got to me to a degree. Some of the effects
look cheesy, but the decent looking corpses and gore are created by Tom Burman, an
experienced makeup effects artist, who, while tending to be overshadowed by more
famous names like Winston, Baker, and Bottin, has a good resume with other films
like "Cat People" (1982) and "The Beast Within" to his credit. What I
liked most about it was a real sense of foreboding and atmosphere, an aspect
missing from some of the current trendy horror movies being shown in our
multiplexes. Tilly is cute and appealing in her role, having recently
completed her debut film work in "Tex" before joining this production. "One Dark
Night" was completed some time before its release to theaters in 1983, where it
actually did decent business during its first few weeks. The other actors do what
they have to do well enough; familiar faces in the supporting cast include the
equally appealing veteran singer / actress / voice-over artist Elizabeth (a.k.a.
E.G.) Daily, Kevin Peter Hall, for once *not* playing some sort of creature
character, but who unfortunately ends up with very little screen time, and none
other than Adam "Batman" West. The director's wife Nancy, who would play Lizbeth in
"Jason Lives", appears here as the spacey girl in front of the arcade. It's decent B-level horror entertainment, maybe too cheap for its ambitions, and
maybe not that slick (hey, McLoughlin *was* just starting out), but definitely good
for some chills. 7/10
I thought that One Dark Night was great! It deserves a 10! As to a statement made
by one user, the dead WERE actually zombies in this movie. A dead person brought
back to life IS a zombie, regardless of the method or cause for/of being brought
back to life. The "zombies" in this movie are used to frighten the girls, not to
feed off of them, like traditional zombies. This movie is a definite star among
horror flicks of the 80's. The score and atmosphere are quite eerie, and the
audience is kept in suspense throughout the mausoleum scenes. The acting is
actually convincing, with genuine expressions of horror at the sight of the undead.
Although I enjoy all zombie flicks, this movie is a refreshing change from the
typical "flesh-eating zombie" movie.
This is my favorite horror film, a close 2nd to 'Poltergeist'. I saw 'One Dark
Night' when it first came out in theaters in 1983 at the theater where I worked. I was born in 1963, so I have a certain love for '80's horror films,
despite them being a little dated and the dialog not well written. What I thought
was so original about it was that the phenomenon of 'psychic vampirism' has not
been addressed (at least, to my knowledge at that time) and is a very real
phenomenon. I didn't care if Adam West was in it (nothing against him,
but his supporting role was not memorable), but thought Meg Tilly was good casting.
The little-known Donald Hutton (from 'Brainstorm' and 'Invaders From Mars') as an
ambiguous scientist who oversaw studies on Ramar's abilities was sadly overlooked.
As a gay guy, I was paying more attention to David Mason Daniels, Meg Tilly's
unfortunate but gorgeous boyfriend. He's selling real estate in Texas now. I felt the film 'realistic' in two ways: Raymar, who was discovered to have
murdered 6 girls in his surreal apartment, had a funeral that was sparse in
attendance, reflecting the fact that not only was he mysterious, a hermit, but a
killer. As you know, these types are buried without fanfare. Second, if corpses
were going to be telekinetically mobile, they would hover, dragging their feet. The
filmmakers could have gone for the schlock walking, groaning, arms out-stretched
zombies, but opted for what would be believable. Kudos! The buzzing electrical
discharge from Ramar's eyes at his 'throne coffin' (like he's overseeing his
kingdom of dead), cast an eerie magenta light in the mausoleum that will stay with
you for years! If you've ever gone to a mausoleum, even on a sunny day, you will
notice that they have their own rosetta lighting caused by stained glass windows.
Don't get me started on the cavernous silence. Even Ramar himself looked like
someone who could pass as an eccentric, perverted old man. The score was one-of-a-
kind and memorable, and I keep kicking myself for not getting it on cassette when
it first came out. The track shooting was done where it was supposed to be. I
especially liked the carefully-planned characteristics of each corpse: the bride,
the badly decomposed child still holding its teddy bear, the grandmother, the tall
thin black guy, and the half-faced World War II vet, and the green-slimed eyed
elderly gent who was the first to greet the 'Sisters' clique initiators. Even
corpses can be good actors, I suppose. The only thing I had to groan about was the
arm that came out of one of the vaults and choke Julie's boyfriend couldn't
possibly be done unless a corpse was put in laying on it's stomach and feet first,
but why? It looked a little to fresh too. The film begins eerie, with us
never seeing Ramar's face (until the last quarter of the film, which is like
unwrapping a birthday present) as he is picking up teen girl runaways in his
daughter's psychic flash. We then see coroners hauling his body away in his one
bedroom apartment where we see he's experimented his telekinetic craft by phasing
dishes into his wall. The rest does drag as the Heathers-like 'Sisters' group baits
Julie into a final initiation by spending the night inside the mausoleum, but it is
a well-placed build up to the unleashing horror later. The movie isn't bloody in
any sense of the word. The goriest part is when Ramar's daughter uses a compact
mirror to feed his power back to him, and he bubbles then melts. I've always felt
that a power like Ramar's could never die and a sequel could be worth looking into.
I can see it now: One Dark Night II: Turning In The Grave. But let's face it-The
film stands alone. I heard the film had other titles, but the original fits. A remake would be pointless. But if there were to be one, I would write
better dialog, and lengthen some scenes such as show the studies on Ramar's
abilities done in the lab instead of hearing about it on a tape recorder. In this
information age, something like that would be well documented on DVD. And more
corpses! Why just raise the ones in the mausoleum when Ramar's power could spread
to the graveyard too? Let's just say I'd hate to be one of the persons who had to
clean up the mess at the end of the climax; something that too can be shown. I
think having one of the initiating Sisters recognize one of the corpses as a
relative would have added some good if disturbing character. With CG effects, some
awesome scenes with Ramar animating cremated remains would be off the wall! Say what you will about,'One Dark Night' but it has it all. So see at least
once in your life...or death!
Famous and mysterious recluse Raymar, who's some kind of lethal telekinetic psychic
vampire, abruptly dies under bizarre circumstances. Nice girl high school student
Julie Wells (a warm and sympathetic performance by the lovely Meg Tilly) wants
desperately to be accepted by the snobby clique the Sisters (played to sublimely
bitchy perfection by Leslie Speights, Robin Evans and the ever-cuddly Elizabeth
Daily), so she agrees to spend a night in a creepy mausoleum where Raymar's body
has been interred as part of an initiation rite. Naturally, Raymar still has his
extraordinary powers, so it's going to be a very long and harrowing night of pure
nerve-wracking terror for poor Julie. Director/co-screenwriter Tom
McLoughlin (who later gave us the enjoyably tongue-in-cheek "Friday the 13th Part
VI: Jason Lives") eschews graphic gore in favor of creating a brooding and eerie
atmosphere, but fails to pull this particular feat off because the first hour is
way too slow, talky and uneventful to be remotely scary or suspenseful. However, I
nonetheless still found this flawed fright flick to be oddly appealing and
entertaining. The big poofy hairdos, a goofy music montage sequence, badly timed
false scares (including the ubiquitous hand on the shoulder gag!), a scene at a
glittery video game arcade, kids gleefully smoking pot, and the hilariously dumb
teen slang ("nerdle brain"!?) give this picture a certain endearingly quaint 80's
period charm. Hal Trussell's handsome, polished cinematography (I especially dug
the smoothly gliding Steadicam tracking shots), Bob Summers' spooky, yet funky
hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, and Tom Burman's splendidly ghoulish make-up f/x
are all up to snuff. The ever-stolid Adam West of TV's "Batman" fame merely takes
up space in a nothing secondary part. The mausoleum makes for an impressively vast
and unsettling main location. The grand finale with a bunch of ghastly rotting
corpses popping out of their coffins and floating about qualifies as a marvelously
macabre shock set piece. Sure, this baby definitely ain't some unjustly unsung gem,
but it still delivers plenty of pleasingly silly and diverting cheesy fun all the
same.
Well groomed, well behaved teen Meg Tilly must spend the night in a creepy
mausoleum as an initiation into a high school club. Problem is a powerful psychic
named Raymar was just buried there that day, but he isn't quite dead and he needs
the life force of humans for his powers. Obscure horror film offers
plenty of thrills and chills, an appealing and likeable cast, and most superior
special effects. My rating: 7 out of 10. One Dark Night is
rated R for Violence and Adult Themes.
by the way it looks at the other comments made, it seems that a lot of people did
not get the point to the flick. It is not centered around zombies, as a matter of
fact they are not zombies at all, they are a device regenerated by the wizard to
scare the girls to death, his main focus is on Meg Tilly, who he wants to help him
finish the job that he died while doing in the first place, and what you get is a
great flick with an awesome ending, it is hard to find on video, but every once in
a while it shows up on HBO or Cinamax, check it out, I gave it a 10 and highly
recommend it.
I actually first watched One Dark Night in the theater & wrote a review of the film
for my high school newspaper. I loved it then & I still love it. The storyline
revolves around two people. First of all one woman learns that her father has
telekenisis after his death. She then has feelings herself about the strange powers
of her father even in his death. The mauseleum he's buried in plays host to the
other main person, a high school girl doing anything to get in with a group of
girls that just want to torment her & dare her to stay in the mauseleum all night
to join their group. They go back in the night to scare her & find scares for
themselves. The cast is led by Meg Tilly with supporting roles by Adam West and one
of my personal favorites Elizabeth Daily aka E.G. Daily. Check this one out if you
love 80's movies & cheesy horror movies, you won't be disatisfied.
Heya Denver fans! The animation is a cartoon's classic & one of my favorite too
(and yes, it was broadcast in Europe as well. Including my tiny central-European
country, Slovenia! =:) Oh, how I miss the 80's cartoons!! Honestly, they were way
better than today's children shows. More imaginative, creative, full of fun with
good morals, more substance, great storyline and excellent character voices.
Computer animated shows of today lack all of these features. So all of you, who
agree and want to bring back all the shows so that the kids of today's generation
would see the entertainment that these cartoons brought to us, please log on the
side posted bellow and sign a petition for a rerun of the 80's best cartoons!
 http://www.thepetitionsite.com /1/we-want-an-80s-child-cartoon-kids-
show-channel Carpe Denver! =) Lejla
One Dark Night has a typical teen horror film set-up with a quite a unique twist.
The ultra-brooding musical score and Gothic/claustrophobic atmosphere adds greatly
to this small film that delivers. Meg Tilly is excellent as "Julie," and leads us
through the maze of the mausoleum, giving a sense of foreboding and loneliness. The
other teens are equally effective in their roles as is Melissa Newman, the ultimate
heroine of the film. The special effects are excellent, though dated. This film is
highly overlooked, but that may be good so that it was never ruined by endless
sequels. There is a great, dark magic flowing through this film; once tapped into,
you really get it and you're in for some fun. The double-disc DVD is available,
though the original negative could not be found to restore the film. Maybe someday
it will be located. I guess in some ways the carbon speckles in parts do help the
film by giving it an old school respectability and making it more unexpected at the
end when suddenly there are plenty of effects. The second disc has a
rough cut/alternate version with a temp score version of the film that gives more
explanation of the demise of two of the girls, very Poe-ish("The Cask of
Amontillado" comes to mind in a new way!) Also, great ending tension going in on
the dark crypt opening. Not sure it had the punch for main stream audiences, but
certainly worked for me and extremely creepy.. . also, there is a making of
documentary that is interesting because it gives info on what was going on at the
time with the actors, crew, director and writer; candid material, then current
logos, discussions of shots and scenes, rehearsals. Very unique that this stuff
exists for a small film back then.
Multiply named and strangely casted, "One Dark Night" aka "Mausoleum", is one of
the better early horror video-rentals. Original and quite raw, we meet Adam West
briefly in this film about telekinesis and teen-age headgames. Meg Tilly is dared
into spending the night in a crypt by "The Sisters" a high-school gang of hair-
hoppers in blue satin jackets. The initiation is interrupted by the recently
interred body of a mass-murdering psychic wizard called "Raymar". Surprisingly
awesome make-up and scare effects paints this chiller film with style and deliver a
heart-pounding climax.
Pistol-packing Pam Grier takes names and kicks butt as the heroine in "Asylum of
Satan" director William Girdler's entertaining blaxploitation actioneer "Sheba
Baby," co-starring D'Urville Martin and Austin Stoker. "Sheba Baby" is one of
several tough chick flicks that Grier appeared in during the 1970s, including
"Coffy," "Foxy Brown," and "Friday Foster." The short-lived Girdler co-wrote this
thoroughly routine private eye potboiler with producer David Shelton in one night
and it features a headstrong female shamus that refuses to rely on a man to help
her take care of business. Unfortunately, "Sheba Baby" isn't nearly as good as the
blaxploitation movies that Grier made under the supervision of director Jack Hill.
Hill helmed the African-American North Carolina native in "Coffy," "Foxy Brown,"
"The Big Bird Cage," and "The Big Doll House." Anybody that analyzes images of
African-American women in cinema should be familiar with these epics. The chief
problem with "Sheba Baby" is that our heroine gets too many convenient breaks.
Naturally, the secondary villains are trigger happy clowns that couldn't hit the
side of a barn with a howitzer. As the main antagonist, Dick Merrifield qualifies
as both an egotistical as well as smarmy villain with choice lines like: "Anything
worth having is worth stealing." Additionally, composer Monk Huggins does provide a
strong, atmospheric orchestral soundtrack, and the best song, with Barbara Mason
warbling it, is "Good Man Is Gone." "Sheba Baby" casts Grier as stylist Chicago
gumshoe Sheba Shayne. She leaves the Windy City to return to her hometown of
Louisville, Kentucky, to help out her father. When she arrives in Louisville, Sheba
learns that her father, Andy (Rudy Challenger of "Detroit 9000"), is having trouble
with a local black gangster nicknamed Pilot (cigar-chomping D'Urville Martin of
"Hammer") who demands that Andy sell out his loan company to Pilot or die. Initially, Pilot dispatches a goon squad to trash Andy's office, but our
heroine's father catches them in the act. They turn Sheba's father into a punching
bag. Interestingly, during the fight scene, Girdler rarely shows fists smashing
flesh. Earlier, Andy's right-hand man, Brick Williams (Austin Stoker of "Horror
High"), had sent Sheba a telegram requesting that she return to Louisville, but she
didn't receive it immediately thanks to her lazy partner who didn't know where to
find her. Brick and Sheba hook up, rekindle their romantic flames, and share a
night in the sack. Brick spends most of his time urging Sheba to remain calm in the
face of adversity. As a former Louisville, Kentucky, police woman, Sheba prefers to
shoot first and ask questions second. After she arrives home, Sheba borrows her
father's car and barely escapes being blown to bits. As she is walking out the door
to get into her father's car, Andy receives another harassing call from Pilot.
Previously, Andy had refused to discuss the prospect of selling his loan company to
Pilot, but Andy changes his mind and agrees to talk with the hoodlum. A gratified
Pilot warns Andy about the dynamite that has been attached to his ignition with a
delayed action fuse. In other words, cranking up the car won't trigger the
explosion; the explosion comes ten seconds later. Andy and Brick rescue Sheba
before the car blows up. Earlier, Sheba had agreed to let her father handle his
problems without her interference. "Dad, I know you think I'm doing a man's job,
but I'm not going to sit on the sidelines just because I'm a woman," Sheba tells
him. After her near-death experience, Sheba vows to learn who sabotaged her
father's car. She grilles an old contact from her days as a cop and threatens the
guy with her gun to extract the information. Only after Sheba has ground the guy's
face into a bucket of chlorine dust does he relent and tell her about a pay-off at
the town's railroad museum. Brick accompanies Sheba and shooting ensues with a
flustered Pilot getting away by the skin of his chin. Later, Pilot sends
a quintet of out-of-town contract thugs armed-to-the-teeth to trash Andy's office.
These gunsels ignore their no-kill orders. Not only do they shoot the loan company
office to ribbons, but they also blast Sheba's dad with a shotgun. Sheba retaliates
in short order. Wielding her nickel-plated revolver, she guns down three of the
four assailants Dirty Harry style. The last hit-man discards his weapon and pleads
for mercy. Sheba has her finger on the trigger when Homicide Detective Phil Jackson
(Charles Kissinger of "Abby") and a uniform cop arrive on the scene. At the
hospital, Andy Shayne dies holding his daughter's hand. Naturally, Pilot is furious
at this revelation and his fury borders on apoplexy. Afterward, Sheba tracks down a
loan shark, Walker (Christopher Joy of "Cleopatra Jones"), and pries information
out of him about the Pilot while she holds him at gunpoint in a car wash. This is
one of the better staged scenes with lots of ominous shots of the car wash
equipment whirling and humming. Walker warns Pilot about Sheba. Pilot and his
henchmen confront Sheba in a parking lot and swap lead. Sheba flees on foot to a
nearby carnival. While the police corner one of Pilot's men, she deals with the
others. Pilot shoots one of his own accidentally and Sheba runs him down. She pins
Pilot to a roller-coaster track and threatens to hold him there until the roller-
coaster cuts his head off. Pilot manages to escape after he has spilled his guts to
Sheba about the identity and phone number of the big man, Shark (Dick Merrifield of
"The Hellcats"), whose reputation is so immaculate that Detective Jackson describes
him as "the guy with all the right answers." "Sheba Baby" isn't top-notch Pam
Grier. However, the idea that our heroine can handle everything by herself without
help from guys makes it interesting as well as entertaining chick flick.
If anything, William Girdler was an opportunist who wanted a piece of the action in
regards to whatever was popular during the time. I mean, a blaxploitation flick in
Louisville, Kentucky..who would of thunk it?!?! I can just imagine the enthusiasm
he must've had getting Pam Grier, quite a hot item, to star in his picture. If you
are pretty familiar with the genre, Girdler's Sheba, Baby doesn't necessarily stray
too far from formula. Despite a change of venue, the film still deals with a
ruthless businessman nicknamed Shark who muscles in on loan companies, using
stooges to threaten them in order to get their signatures. Grier is
Sheba Shayne, a former Louisville cop working in Chicago who returns home at the
request of her father's partner, Brick(Austin Stoker, Assault on Precinct 13).
Sheba's father, despite Shark's bullying tactics(..his man in town is Pilot, a
wannabe gangster, equipped with stooges who aren't that menacing, rather buffoonish
in nature, so thin-skinned they hire hit men outside of town to shoot up the Shayne
Loan building), won't give up his company, and this eventually costs him his life
when a warning through the use of brute force, leads to his being killed. Sheba
will get her revenge on all those responsible for his father's death. In other
words, Shark's ass is grass..can you dig it? Seeing Grier with a magnum
is enough to sell this particular film, the novelty of the setting being in
Louisville is part of the package. You even get to see a speedboat chase, Grier in
shootouts with gangsters(..not necessarily the most polished kind one might be
accustomed to seeing in a Chicago or New York during this period in
blaxploitation), lots of blood spurting from bullet-riddled bodies torn apart by
gun-fire, and colorful characters(..such as a wimpy loan shark in pimp-dress named
Walker and Pilot who is one of the least scary mobsters you are likely to see)who
show up during the film, most having the misfortune of coming in contact with a
very angry Sheba. The plot itself is nothing special, but Grier is always worth
watching, and Girdler orchestrates plenty of action sequences to keep his target
audience entertained. A modest success for Girdler, and one of his more
accomplished films.
Sheba Baby is always underrated most likely because it has a pg rating instead of
the usual r rating that a Grier movie gets. all that the pg means is that Pam
doesn't take her top off, she takes her top off in every other movie she's been in
though so. it is more exciting than Coffy, more action. it takes off slow but by
the time she's on screen the thrills have started. like Dolemite d'urville martin
is the heavy trying to get Sheba's father, but she ain't having that. she wages a
one woman war against martin and his gang of cronies. the best scene is with a
stupid pimp in his car which i'm still laughing about. i thought it would be stupid
because of the pg rating but i was wrong it replaces sex with violence and in a
blaxplotation film that can only be good!
Sheba Baby, is another Pam Grier Blaxploitation film. It was one of Pam's less
visceral films of this genre. Pam plays Sheba Shane, who's a Chicago gumshoe.
Sheba's father is the owner of a small loan company, in Missouri. When local
mobsters try to run her father of of business, Sheba goes after the bad guys. Pam Grier had already made her mark in Blaxploitation films, by the time
Sheba Baby came along. Fans of both Coffy and Foxy Brown, know that Pam is capable
of an explosive intensity as an actress. In Sheba Baby, the fiery performance that
viewers had come to expect from Pam, wasn't as evident in this film. Not that Pam
doesn't kick-butt in Sheba Baby. She's just not as much of a runaway-train
vigilante, as she was in her previous Blaxploitation films. The
supporting cast in this film, are a distinct disappointment. So Sheba Baby is Pam's
film, through and through. And though Pam's a bit more subdued than in her other
films, she still gives a compelling performance in Sheba Baby. This film is
definitely worth your time, if you're an ardent Pam Grier fan.
Yeah, I guess this movie is kinda dull compared to some of Pam Grier's other films.
The plot is overly familiar, the dialog stilted, and some of the acting isn't too
good. But it's worth seeing for the lengthy stretch near the end of the film, where
we see Ms Grier in a sexy blue wetsuit, with the zipper half unzipped. Yeah, it
seems like a frivolous point when discussing an actress of Pam Grier's talent, but
she also happens to be an extremely gorgeous woman, and back in the day, she had a
body that wouldn't quit. It's nice to see it being showcased in a tight wetsuit.
Rent the DVD, and then tell me I'm wrong. Can't, can you? That's because you know
I'm right! :-) And yes, I really did give a 10 just for the wetsuit scenes! ;-)
I thought it would be more fantastic a tale. But the subject is rather down to
earth compared to the story about the Death carriage I was expecting. In fact there
is much more of a social drama. As usual in the "European authors' movies". Actors are interesting, not overacting as in the average silent movie.
Images are not so good as to be stuck in your mind as in Bergman's
Smultronstället. This is true the comparison between the two movies is
the main point here. Smultronstället begins with a vision of a Death carriage
wherein Sjöström's character can see his own body. There are clocks without hands.
He is compelled to look back on what he has done wrong. There is a vision of his
happy family in the country. In Körkarlen Sjöström's wife doesn't cheat on him
before his eyes but she wants to flee with the little children because it would
never get any better with him. Eventually, Edit's confession is some kind of a live
judgement. Well I would just add that Sjöström destroying the door with
an axe because his wife locked it and plans to go away with the children reminded
me of The Shining. Which was much more of a fantasy tale with Death hanging around.
It's a mistake to refer to any film of this era as a horror film. Most early German
films with supernatural themes are not so much horror films as they are dark
fantasies borrowed from the works of early German Romantics like E. T. A. Hoffman
and others. In Fritz Lang's "Der Mude Tod" (also from 1921) Death personified takes
a young man away from his sweetheart, but in Lang's film the characters' destiny
cannot be mitigated by behavior. Neither of the young lovers deserves to die, but
they are destined by circumstances to be reunited only in death. In
Victor Seastrom's "Korkarlen," however, repentance is always an option. Destiny can
be altered - and death deferred - through the characters' choices. Although scenes
of the Phantom Carriage collecting souls are genuinely eerie, these horrific images
of Death as the great leveler are compromised by Death's offer of redemption to the
real monster of this tale, David Holm, a brutal drunk who, because of a perverse
hatred of humanity, spreads tuberculosis and emotional misery to everyone he comes
in contact with. One New Year's Eve Holm is struck down in a fight with
a drinking companion. As the first person to die on the stroke of midnight Holm
must become the driver of the Phantom Carriage and collect souls during the new
year. The Phantom Carriage, driven by an old acquaintance who had started Holm on
his road to ruin, comes for his soul and takes him on a journey of self discovery.
Along the way Holm sees the horror he has inflicted on his family and the people
who tried to help him. Perhaps my disappointment with the film's ending
is a criticism of the Selma Lagerlöf novel on which the film is based. But I would
have preferred to see David Holm unable to escape his destiny, and to see his
repentance come too late to prevent his wife from poisoning his two children and
herself, and to see Holm suffer for the consequences of his sins by being made to
collect their souls. It would have been a fitting punishment and a horror more
immense than witnessing the abuse he inflicted on others. In the film, however, the
unalterable nature of destiny isn't the message; redemption is. The driver of the
carriage allows Holm's spirit to return to his body, and he rescues his family in
the nick of time. His repentance smacks of Scrooge's repentance in "A Christmas
Carol." If the trite and sentimental ending does not offend you, there
is still much to admire in the film's images. The special effects are astonishing
when measured by the standards of the day, and still hold up, which is more
miraculous when you consider that these double exposures were created inside a
hand-cranked camera. Also, the restored film on Tartan's new DVD looks fabulous.
Once upon a time, in Sweden, there was a poor Salvation Army sister. At death's
door, she requests, "Send for David Holm!" But, Victor Sjöström (as David Holm)
cannot be located, because he is spending New Year's Eve in a graveyard, with his
drinking buddies. Dying Sister Astrid Holm (as Edit) wants to see if praying for
Mr. Sjöström's soul, over the past year, has produced any results; arguably, it has
not. In the graveyard, Sjöström tells the story of "The Phantom Carriage", which he
heard from his dead friend Tore Svennberg (as Georges). According to legend, the
last person to die in each year must pick up the souls of all the dead people,
until being relieved next New Year's Eve... Director Sjöström, whose
lead performance is very strong, combines with photographer Julius Jaenzon to
create a visually appealing film. The great "double exposure" effect is used
frequently, but never seems overdone; and, it doesn't make the film's other
dramatic highlights any less memorable (for example, Sjöström's tearing of his sewn
coat and axing of the door). A Selma Lagerlöf story probably wasn't one you could,
or would want to, tamper with in the 1920s - which may, or may not be, why the
ending of this film is a letdown. And, unlike similar spiritual stories, it's
difficult to suspend your disbelief, if you think too carefully about what is
really happening in "Körkarlen". ******* Körkarlen (1/1/21) Victor
Sjöström ~ Victor Sjöström, Hilda Borgström, Tore Svennberg
While caricatures and/or references to entertainment industry people or things or
even brands of products is usually a staple in shorts like this one, they aren't
used in quantity here. Most of the individual gags are rather generic. As I'm going
to give examples, there will be spoilers below: There are only three
(well, technically four-there's a quick one at the very end of the cartoon)
caricatures that I spotted, which is kind of low for this type of short, though one
is a featured character with a fair amount of activity. They are Jack Benny (as
Jack Bunny), Leopold Stowkowski and the inimitable Ned Sparks (as a crab on a can-
chances are very good that, if a crab was involved in a Warner Brothers short in
the 1930s-1940s, the caricature used would be Ned Sparks). There are also
references to Billy Rose's Aquacade and a riff on a radio show character called
"Henry Aldrich" (Coming, mother!), a play on Superman (Superguy here) and the
villain is a take-off on "King Kong". That's it for that kind of gag. The products themselves are mostly generic and the gags are more plays on basic
items in unusual situations, such as turtles coming off of cans of soup to attack
the villain as tanks, tomato soup cans doing "The can-can', gingerbread men who
turn into paratroopers, using tissues for parachutes and so on. The gags are very
good and it's an excellent example of a Bob Clampett cartoon. Clampett had hit his
stride as a director by this point and while it isn't anywhere near his best work,
it's nothing to sneeze at either. This short can be found on Looney Tunes Golden
Collection, Vol. 3, which is an excellent set that I highly recommend. This short
itself is also recommended.
Victor Sjostrom, who is the grandfather of Swedish cinema, directed this stark,
existentialist film about atonement, betrayal, death, forgiveness, guilt,
redemption, and the bleakest moments of the human condition. He stars as David
Holm, a no good-nick who responds to a moment of kindness by returning to his
drunken ways, only to later have to bargain for his soul with the driver of the
phantom carriage: death. Unlike many silent films during the period, the
film is nearly absent scenes with over-acting. The pacing does becomes tedious with
its overly familiar Dickensian narrative. However, examining the film in retrospect
and in comparison to others of its time, it's a very daring and unique film.
Audiences of the time were not exposed to such subject matter, and the
cinematography is tremendous, symbolic, and accompanied by double exposure effects
and multi-layered flashbacks. It's a genuinely creepy and frightening film for
youngsters for sure. Watching the film, it's easy to see the later
influences this film had on Swedish master Ingmar Bergman. Most of the great
Bergman themes are here on full display. Sjostrom, of course, later starred in
Bergman's masterpiece on alienation and loneliness: Wild Strawberries. This would
be Sjostrom's final performance as an actor. Sjostrom based the script on a novel
by Swedish writer Selma Lagerlof. *** of 4 stars.
The last person who dies before New Years, is cursed to drive the Phantom Carriage
for a whole year, picking up the souls of the dead. I saw a scene from
this old silent Swedish horror film on Youtube, and decided to track down the whole
movie. It was well worth the work finding it, because it's an absolutely amazing
movie for the time it was made. It has a wonderfully eerie atmosphere. The old time
horror film makers really knew how to create the perfect atmosphere. Sadly, many of
today's film makers don't seem to understand how important setting and atmosphere
are, and go for the cheap jump scares. The visual effects are excellent,
considering its date of production. If you can find a copy of this, I highly
recommend giving it a watch. 9/10
This landmark film can now be seen in two different versions on the Grapevine Video
release which also includes the English translation of Selma Lagerlof's novel which
she based on a Swedish folktale. The first version is the Swedish edit under the
title of THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE. The second version is a reconstruction of the way it
was shown in the United States under the title of THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT as
released by Metro (before it was M-G- M). The actual US release has long vanished
but a detailed review in The New York Times lets us know how the scenes were
reordered for domestic release -- and both are fascinating to see. Each version of
this film was presented at The Organ Loft in Salt Lake City with live theatre organ
scores provided by artist Blaine Gale. A live recording was made of these
performances and are included on the Grapevine Video DVD along with the novel and
notes about the two versions. While THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE follows the order of
Lagerlof's novel, THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT is in some ways easier to follow. Seeing
the two different edits is an education in how silent films could be changed
effectively for release in different countries. Some viewers look at
this film as a horror film which it certainly is not. This is a morality play with
shades of the supernatural used to hit home its stark message. The directing and
lead performance by the great Victor Sjostrom were way ahead of their time. It's
easy to see why M-G-M brought him to Hollywood to direct such films as Lillian Gish
in THE SCARLET LETTER and THE WIND as well as Lon Chaney in HE WHO GETS SLAPPED. In
America he was known as Victor Seastrom. He would also star in the lead role of
Ingmar Bergman's WILD STRAWBERRIES, giving a masterful performance. Bergman was
greatly influenced by KORKARLEN or THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE in his earlier days. This is a powerful film that is well worth taking some time to discover and
study. The Grapevine Video release is an excellent way to do this.
I have just finished watching this film for the first time, and I must say that I
am very impressed. How bleak. How full of despair. How nightmarish.
Incredible. Visually stunning, several scenes are embedded in my
mind...the first appearance of the phantom carriage...the soul of David Holm as it
rises from his corpse...his spirit on his knees, pleading. This film
takes a simple story-that of the ghostly driver of the phantom carriage, doomed to
collect the souls of the dead for a year-brings it into the present setting of the
film and then uses flashbacks as a means to explain how David Holm ends up in his
predicament. I would love to see this released on DVD so that more might
see it. Everyone should.
Victor Sjöström was quite the master in this film, having starred in it, directed
it and even wrote the screenplay! That's pretty amazing. While today few have any
idea who Sjöström was, he might be familiar to Ingmar Bergman fans as the star one
of Bergman's most acclaimed films, WILD STRAWBERRIES. As far as this
film goes, it's a very mixed bag. On one hand, you have to respect it because for
1921, it's a very good film. The idea of the Grim Reaper sitting down with a dead
man to discuss his wasted life is pretty imaginative. Plus, the special effect of
the Phantom Carriage is pretty convincing and technically speaking this is a well-
crafted film. On the other hand, it's an amazingly dated and preachy film--more
like something you'd expect to be shown in Sunday School instead of in an honest to
goodness theater. Plus, some of the story elements just don't make sense. Instead
of coming off as dedicated or good, the dying Salvation Army worker seems like a
sap--a very sad and confusing sap. Why is she "in love" with this man? Am I missing
something? So, my recommendation is that if you are insanely in love
with silents (like me), then by all means watch it. But, if you aren't a silent
fan, this film might do nothing to convince you that this style film is brilliant
because the story is so overly melodramatic and dated.
Körkarlen (1921), a classic film with cult status amongst the silent movies,
directed by Victor Sjöstrøm, who also plays the male main role, is based on a story
by Swedish novelist Selma Lagerlöf. The film tells the story of brutal drinker
David Holm, who beats up his wife, neglects his children, seduces his brother to
drinking and is blind for the love of nurse Edit (Astrid Holm). David sits toward
the end of the year together with his boozing buddies in the city-park and tells
the story of the Phantom Chariot (Körkarlen): Who dies in the New Year's Eve night
as the last one before dawn, has to serve one year long as driver of Death and
release the dying souls from their bodies. But David gets into a fight with his
buddies, suffers a hemorrhage and sinks dead on the soil. Meanwhile, the Phantom
Carriage is approaching. The driver is nobody else than David's late friend Georges
who seduced him into alcohol and died one year before. Since David refuses to get
on the carriage, Georges forces him. Together, they drive to the stations where
people live who suffered from David. They visit the nurse Edit whose love to David
he was unable to recognize and whom he infected with tuberculosis so that she is
dying now. But her unconditioned love to David will save his soul. Fulfilled with
her spirit, they get to David's wife and children. David is able to prevent his
wife from killing herself and her children, because she does not see a way out of
the misery in which David has thrown her. They also visit David's brother, who has
committed a murder after having been seduced into drinking by David. David asks
Georges to go back into his body, because he finally sees that his way was wrong.
Since it was Georges who had seduced him once into drinking, David's wish is
granted, he gets a second chance, and Georges has to be one more year the driver of
the Phantom Carriage in order to pay for his own sins. This movie belongs probably
to the strongest and most impressive films ever made. Deplorably, it is still not
available on international DVD.
Not as well known as the English, American, German and French cinema, though cinema
from Sweden from the '20's was also quite good, interesting and
revolutionary. This is a movie that is made great by its story. The
story is told in 'A Christmas Carol' kind of way, in which the death himself
confronts the deceased with his past, present and what could have been. It's of
course a story that concentrates on morals and it does this very well. The message
comes across as very powerful and effective. This is of course also definitely due
to the effective directing from the father of Swedish cinema; Victor
Sjöström. The story is based on the novel by other Swedish author Selma
Lagerlöf. The story is adapted by Victor Sjöström himself, who perhaps should had
taken out a few more elements, to let the story and movie flow better. It perhaps
takes a bit too long before the movie starts to take form and the story gets clear
but when the movie does take form and pace it becomes a really wonderful one. The movie does not only have a great story, it also is a good looking one.
The movie uses some early and effective effects and uses some different color
filters to create the right mood and to indicate what it past, present and
'future'. Sjöström did not only wrote and directed this movie, he also
plays the main character. Of course the acting in the movie is over-the-top at
times, by todays standards but not as bad as in for instance early German movies
was the case. And after all, this movie is more about its story and morals than it
is about the acting, so it really doesn't matter much, or distracts. A
really great and effective underrated silent-movie classic from Sweden. 9/10
On a dark, gloomy New Year's Eve night, an ill nurse, her life slowly ebbing away,
demands that David Holm be presented to her at once. We don't yet know who David
Holm is, or why this nurse wishes to see him, but her only dying wish is to speak
with him just one more time. On the other side of the town, nestled comfortably
amongst the gravestones of the local cemetery, Holm (Victor Sjöström, who also
directed) and two of his drunken associates merrily await the coming of the New
Year. "Here we can tell just when to drink the New Year in," exclaims Holm, casting
a finger towards the large clock tower that looms through the darkness. Little does
he know, however, that he will not be alive to greet it. To pass the
time, Holm cheerfully recites a ghost story. He'd once had a friend name George, "a
merry fellow" who was "smarter than the rest of us." On one New Year's Eve several
years ago, George has broken up a potentially disastrous brawl, fearing that the
final man to draw his last breath before midnight would be condemned to drive the
phantom chariot for the next year, doing Death's bidding and collecting the souls
of the deceased. "And, gentlemen, George died last New Year's Eve!" concludes Holm
happily, not bothering to contain his mocking skepticism of the man's
beliefs. As fate has it, of course, an unexpected violent encounter
results in Holm's death, just on the stroke of midnight. As the man's transparent
spirit rises gingerly from his earthly body, he witnesses, to his horror, the
distant approach of a phantom carriage. The driver, a frail cloaked figure - a
sickle clasped tightly in his hand - steps down from the carriage and approaches.
We are astonished to discover that the driver is none other than a decrepit George,
preparing to pass on his ghastly duty to this year's successor. Considering the era in which 'Körkarlen' is made, the special effects in this
film are absolutely superb. Cinematographer Julius Jaenzon used double-exposure
photography to create the eerie, ghostly silhouette of the carriage and its damned
driver. Even today, the end result is highly effective. A particularly impressive
scene involves the phantom chariot travelling to the ocean floor to retrieve the
soul of a drowned man. Another scene, eerily reminiscent of Jack Torrance (Jack
Nicholson) in Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining,' involves Holm breaking down the
kitchen door with an axe in order to reach his fleeing wife and children. Genuinely ominous and unsettling in its execution, Victor Sjöström's
'Körkarlen' is a fine work of cinema, successfully portraying Holm's steady
alcoholic decline, his inevitable day of judgment, and a final hopeful possibility
of redemption.
In the New Year's Eve, the tuberculous sister of the Salvation Army Edit (Astrid
Holm) asks her mother and her colleague Maria (Lisa Lundholm) to call David Holm
(Victor Sjöström) to visit her in her deathbed. Meanwhile, the alcoholic David is
telling to two other drunkards in the cemetery the legend of the Phantom Coach and
his coachman: in accordance with the legend, the last sinner to die in the turn of
the New Year becomes the soul collector, gathering souls in his coach. When David
denies to visit Edit, his friends have an argument with him, they fight and David
dies. When the coachman arrives, he recognizes his friend Georges (Tore Svennberg),
who died in the end of the last year. George revisits parts of David's obnoxious
life and in flashbacks, he shows how mean and selfish David was. "Körkarlen" is an impressive and stylish silent movie, with magnificent special
effects (for a 1921 movie). The characters are very well developed; however, the
story is dated and there is a weird and unexplained situation, when Sister Edit
tells that she loves David Holm. Why should a enlightened woman love such a
despicable man that wasted his life corrupting other people? Despite being
religiously dated in the present days, it gives a beautiful message of faith and
redemption in the end. My vote is nine. Title (Brazil): "A Carroça
Fantasma" ("The Phantom Coach")
Sjöströms masterpiece and a movie that captures the swedish soul . It also served
as a great inspiration for Bergman; the similarites between Körkarlen and
Smultronstället (with Sjöström in the leading role as Isak Borg) from 1957 is not a
coincidence. Don't miss it for the world!
Once again, we are fortunate to see a gorgeous opening scene where the artists'
work has been fully restored and we see this old-time grocery store on a street
corner with the snow gently falling. Inside are the rich colors of all the
merchandise, from produce to canned and boxed goods to medicine to candy,
etc. In essence, this is a story of those goods "coming to life," such
as the animals on the labels of items, or a pie, or even a pack of
cigarettes. The whole "show" is narrated by "Jack Bunny," a Jack Benny
impersonator, with music from conductor Leopold Stokowski, who was in so many
Looney Tunes animated shorts I have lost count. A lot of the humor is topical, so
it pays to know who "Little Egypt" and other characters. The Busby Berkeley-type
"aqua" number with bathing suited-sardines coming out of the can, and the tomato
can-can dance were both clever! All of the above, and more, was in the
first half of this slightly longer-than-normal length cartoon. The second half was
about a King Kong-type which escapes from the "Animal Crackers" box and terrorizes
everyone. That part was not much, and ended on a somewhat stupid note. So..... an
"A" for the first half, a "D" for the second, making it about a C-plus or B-minus
overall.
This, unfortunately, is a little-known film.....i say "unfortunately", because it
ranks up there with the "classics" of the American silent screen! It's
about a legend of a "phantom chariot" that travells all over the world, picking up
the souls of those who have died. The legend says tha the last person to die on New
Year's Eve is condemned to drive the chariot for the next whole year. It
brings to mind the sequence of the "Ghost of Future Yet To Come" in Dicken's famous
"Christmas Carol". The double-exposure effects of the ghosts (esp. when
they interact with the "live" people) are EXCELLENT! If you love silent
films, you MUST see THIS; it will "blow you away"! Norm Vogel Norm's Old Movie Heaven http://www.nvogel.com/film/film.html
Victor Sjostrom's silent film masterpiece The Phantom Carriage has recently been
released on DVD with a new soundtrack recorded by KTL. The duo, comprising American
guitarist Stephen O'Malley and Austrian laptop artist Peter Rehberg, has conjured
an extraordinary collection of sounds to accompany and accentuate the original film
footage from 1921. An ominous banging sound introduces each Act and a medley of
drones, guitar chords and feedback ebbs and flows as the grim drama unfolds. As impressive as the new soundtrack is, the film remains the real star with
its timeless rendering of a dark and dystopian fairy tale. According to this tale
the last person to die before the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve is condemned
to spend a year behind the reins of the eponymous phantom carriage, collecting the
souls of the dead. This is the fate of the anti-hero of the film, David Holm, who
is moved to painful scrutiny of his life following his untimely death and
subsequent encounter with the driver of the carriage. This film is often
referred to as a horror film and although this is a fitting label, the real horror
here resides not in the supernatural elements but rather in the depiction of human
suffering at the hands of others. Sjostrom gives a remarkable performance as the
drunken, spiteful and menacing Holm in life, and the wretched, frightened Holm
looking back from the land of the dead and shrinking from his past deeds. Striking imagery abounds throughout The Phantom Carriage and more than
compensates for the inevitably limited dialogue. The ill-omened onset of midnight
is powerfully illustrated through the image of a clock-face hovering alone in the
darkening night sky like a second moon. Equally impressively, the dead are depicted
through pioneering semi-transparent imagery and the scenes of the phantom carriage
riding over land and sea remain chilling to watch. Sjostrom's film
deserves its place as one of the most esteemed silent films of all time and the new
soundtrack by KTL is a superb accentuation of its themes. This is a must-see.
Victor Sjöström's "Körkarlen" plunges the viewer into life's lower depths for much
of its running time, with grim scenes of alcoholic degradation, family violence and
suicidal despair, but the most memorable passages involve the mythic image of Death
itself. Here Death is embodied as a ghostly horse-drawn carriage, driven by a
wretched sinner who was the last person to die on the previous New Year's Eve. For
one year the wretch must collect the souls of the newly departed, and after twelve
months of this horrible servitude the driver's own soul is finally released when
the last person to die on December 31st becomes the new driver. The
scenes involving this carriage (the film was known as "The Phantom Carriage" or
"The Phantom Chariot" in English-speaking countries) are eerie and mesmerizing,
utilizing double-exposure cinematography that was quite sophisticated for its time
and still effective when seen today. Most strikingly, the carriage travels to the
floor of the ocean to collect the soul of a person who drowned. As fascinating as
these scenes are, however, the bulk of the film is concerned with the downward
spiral of David Holm, played by the director himself in an understated portrayal of
a man who has given up on the possibility of living a decent life. In flashbacks we
see Holm enjoying a pleasant day at the beach with his wife, children and brother,
and he appears to be a perfectly ordinary guy. Abruptly, without segue or
explanation, we then see Holm as an alcoholic wreck, in trouble with the law and
alienated from his family. Ordinarily this leap from Before to After might feel
like a story-telling deficiency, but in this case the filmmakers trust us to fill
in the familiar, sordid details on our own. It's suggested that Holm has been led
astray by his convivial friend Georges, the drinking companion who first relates
the tale of the Phantom Carriage, but whatever the cause of his downfall Holm
appears to be a lost cause, a mean-spirited drunk who takes perverse pleasure in
inflicting pain on his family and in refusing to reform. While David
Holm is our central figure the story's true catalyst is a young Salvation Army
nurse who takes a sympathetic interest in his case and doggedly believes in him
despite his hateful behavior. When the nurse herself is dying-- indirectly due to
her ministrations on Holm's behalf --she demands to see him, and thus inadvertently
sets in motion a chain of events that will result in his recovery. At
times this film resembles Dickens' tale of Scrooge in its use of ghostly visitors
who inspire a deeply flawed man to take stock of his life, suffer over his
misbehavior, and reform. I was also reminded of Sjöström's 1917 drama "Terje
Vigen," in which a man returns from jail to find his house empty and his family
gone (a sequence echoed here). The director also reiterates a standard theme of
Scandinavian folklore, found earlier in his "Berg-Ejvind och hans hustru" (a.k.a.
"The Outlaw and His Wife," 1918) that no man can outrun his fate. This time,
however, it could be argued that David Holm actually succeeds in evading his
seemingly inevitable fate, for he's given an unexpected second chance to make
amends. Viewers expecting a plunge into the supernatural will appreciate
the sequences featuring the Phantom Carriage of the title, but may not be prepared
for this film's painful examination of a troubled man's alcoholic downfall. But
those with a taste for intense and powerful silent drama will appreciate
"Körkarlen" in its entirety. It stands with the best serious cinema of its era and
is certainly one of Sjöström's most accomplished works.
Much said without words. This is an excellent movie. It was made in
color-not color as in today's films, but a special mono-color use (with shadings)
that portrayed meaning, mood, sense and time. It should be seen in color, as it
becomes an entirely different film. The story, by Nobel prize-winner Selma
Lagerlöf, is effectively presented. One never has a clear sense of real, memory or
phantom. Changes going on in Swedish society at the time are subtly layered. Most
highly recommend. Try to rent it or find it on-line. I saw it in a Swedish film
class and I want to add it to my film library.
This film is a masterpiece to put it simply. Especially the double exposure made by
the cameraman Julius Jaenzon. It is skillfully made even with the standards we are
used to today seventy eight years later. Viktor Sjöström, the director, also plays
the main character, David Holm. On the night of new years eve he is killed in a
fight, and the legend says that the first one who dies on the new year, will have
to work as a soul-collector in the form of a transparent ghost. There is a new
soul-collector to be appointed every year. The scene in which the
alcoholic, David Holm, rises up from his dead body (like the soul is leaving his
earthly body) in the churchyard (where the fight took place) is a real award for a
filmloving eye. Also when the present soul-collector arrives with his horse and
carriage is a beautiful but also a scary scene. David Holm recognizes this soul-
collector as a drinkingfriend from earlier life. It is now his turn to take over.
Just like Scrooge in Dickens story "A christmas tale", David is shown what his life
and doings has led to for the people around him. The film is about the
danger of abusing drugs, in this case alcohol. It is based upon a book by Nobel
prize winner Selma Lagerlöf. Viktor Sjöström filmed a few more of her books, but
this is the one with the best outcome, maybe because this book is the most filmic
of them. 
One of the best silent dramas I've seen. As dark and shadowy as anything the German
Expressionists produced, but featuring performances that were quite understated and
naturalistic for the day. No camera mugging and no unintentional laughs due to
wild-eyed arm-waving histrionics. Sjostrom gave a convincing performance as the
drunken, mean-spirited and frightening David Holm. Set mostly at night
in a dingy Swedish slum, the film had a very claustrophobic set-bound feel to it,
aided by the low key lighting and extensive use of irising. There was a
deep, and typically Scandinavian, sense of despair and hopelessness to the
narrative: the film begins in a rather grim present, and then we're told David
Holm's story in a series of flashbacks (and flashbacks within flashbacks--a pretty
complex story structure for 1921), where his character is offered numerous chances
at redemption, but he doesn't take them, and we know he won't take them, because
we've seen him die drunk and wretched and mean as ever in the present. The
penultimate scene is as dark as any I have seen in all of cinema. The
writing and directing is tight and intelligent, even by today's standards. In
several instances, Sjostrom skillfully sets the audience up to suspect one thing,
and then pulls out a surprise. The ending might not be such a surprise to some
viewers, but I didn't see it coming. This movie deserves a full
restoration and DVD release. Or even a crappy budget release. It just needs to be
out there so people can see and appreciate it. 9.5/10, which rounds up
to 10/10
Okay , so this wasnt what I was expecting. I rented this film just to see how it
would be since I want to see the first one anyway. But , this film had B-movie all
over it. But when I watched it I realized that it was very funny. For the first 30
minutes It was just how the snowman was kiiling people and one man losing his
sanity. But , those first few minutes had some funny one liners in it. When He
throws up the first of his little minions I knew this would be very very funny.
They all act like the gremlins in the ninteen eighty four hit gremlins that it made
it look like it was spoofing it and made me forget it was a B-movie. So if you like
to laugh rent this one.
Some will say this movie is a guilty pleasure. I loved this flick but I don't feel
guilty about it. You can tell the whole cast and crew had fun making this movie.
But Jack Frost 2 won't go over well with some people. Right from the beginning you
can tell this movie will be cheesy and it definitely has an amateurish look to it.
Well, if you get the privilege to watch this movie, after watching it remember that
Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman is a pleasure, not a guilty
pleasure. Now, because I can't fill up ten lines heres some great scenes: **SPOILERS** The three women on the beach had great deaths. The first
one had Jack in a tree trying to drop icicles on one of them. He kept missing so he
dropped an anvil on her. The next woman fell on a bed of icicles. The last one was
stabbed in the eyes with tongs. The other great one was where two
surfers stoners are hanging out near a frozen pole. One of them gets their tongue
stuck on it (of course). Jack Frost pulls him back a rips his tongue off while
saying "COWA-TONGUE-A DUDE!". Well, you have to see it for yourself. And
of course, the snowball children kicked ass. **END SPOILERS** infinity stars
Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The
complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman.
Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to
watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The
acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main
character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The
screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and
add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second,
the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight
to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a
killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot
holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank,
with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't.
Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now
he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got
mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main
character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They
say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some
saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have
been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very
good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks
pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still
entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was
better though. 7 out of 10.
*SPOILERS* I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin'
hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The
snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to
the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation
chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first
movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring
antifreeze on him. Or so they thought. This movie takes place
about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the
antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they
just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the
Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him. This movie has it
all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you
stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even
say "Dada!" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs
are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one
as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability
to influence major weather patterns. Then there's the actors. There's
Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch.
YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the
stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with
dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet,
bar none. This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt
off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good "bad"
movie. *** out ****
Adapted from Sam Shepard's play, this movie retains many play-like elements such as
a relatively fixed setting (a roadside 50's motel in the Southwest) and extensive,
intriguing dialogues. A woman "May" is hounded by a man "Eddie" (played by Sam
Shepard). She tries to hide from him in the out-of-the-way motel, but he finds her.
The film explores the history of their relationship, mainly from their childhoods,
that has led them to this point. It's very easy to feel sympathy for the characters
and to understand that their dysfunctional present relationship is a result of past
events out of their control. We mainly watch them fight, make up, fight, make up
and so on. One image that stands out in my mind, is of Eddie hauling May over his
shoulder kicking and screaming, taking her somewhere she doesn't want to go. The soundtrack is also perfect soulful country with vocals by a lesser
known artist "Sandy Rogers". She has this country doll voice that almost yodels at
some points in the album! This is the kind of movie that will stay lodged in some
part of your brain/soul. In other words, go see it!
The problem with so many people watching this movie is the mindset they watch it
in. People come looking for a B-Grade horror film, or a "So Bad It's Good" movie.
Jack Frost 2 is neither of these. It is, to put it simply, a very good
movie cleverly hidden inside a very bad one. To view it as anything other than a
screwball comedy (easily funnier than all three absolutely meritless "Scary Movies"
combined) is to misinterpret the movie on a basic level. It would be like watching
Shawshank Redemption and then complaining that there were no explosions. The premise is simple; the characters from the first movie, haunted by
memories of Jack Frost, take a vacation to a tropical island. A new, improved Jack
comes after them, now with essentially the powers of Hydro-Man from Spider-Man;
essentially, he can turn from water to snow easily and quickly, divide himself,
multiply himself, and, worst of all, he's managed to grow an immunity to his only
former weakness...AntiFreeze. What's sad about this movie is that the
brain dead fans of the first Jack Frost (a simply HORRIBLE movie) can't appreciate
the change of tone for the sequel. Just as Alien was a horror film and Aliens was
all about action, Jack Frost was a weak attempt at gimmick horror and Jack Frost 2
is a cleverly written parody of the gimmick horror genre. Most of the
entertainment comes the live action actors, who serve admirably. Particularly funny
among them are Ray Tooney (playing a caricature of a retired British Colonel from
the early 1900s), Christopher Allport (offering an insane, hilarious spin on his
wooden performance from the first film), and David Allen Brooks (taking the once
serious role of manners to new, totally bizarre heights). The lack of
"memorable quotes" disturbs me. As a horror movie, Jack Frost 2: Revenge
of The Mutant Killer Snowman, rates a zero. But you have to understand, IT'S NOT A
HORROR MOVIE.
This movie has everything typical horror movies lack. Although some things are far
fetched we are dealing with quality snow man engineers. The only preview i can
reveal is that i cant wait for Jackzilla. Dare i say oscar winner. This is a
perfect date movie. I advise all men for a nice romantic surprise see this movie
with that special person.
Where to Begin, I like the scary snow-monster named Jack Frost. The whole concept
works well for me, we thought he'd be back and he was. Changing the local to a
tropical resort works. Seeing old friends and meeting new characters. Scott
MacDonald does a great job as Jack Frost, you can tell when an actor has fun
playing a villain, you can see it or in this case hear it in the performance. Yup,
Jack Frost 2 is a welcomed sequel that is better then the first. I do have one
complaint, the little Jacks or the Jacklings as I call them. They looked like hand
puppets. I think they could have done a better job with the Jacklings, the mouth
could have opened wider, but the CGI was good and as a whole the whole movie is
worth watching over and over again. If you liked JACK FROST, then you will like
this sequel. No questions or debate, 9 BIG STARS.
This is better then the first. The movie opens up with Sheriff Sam .Then, Sam and
Anne pack there bags up and head to the Tropicana while Jack tags along. People are shot, get glass through necks, get squished by anvils, get
stabbed with icicles, eyes gouged out, head explosions, drownings, hangings,
lobsters shoved into faces, slit throats, freezing to death, killed by snowballs,
arms are ripped off, melted by anti-freeze, icicles down necks, hit in face with
pots and pans, fingers getting' bitten off, icicles through mouths, bitten on the
neck, exploding people, toasted snowballs, and shoved in blenders. The
snowballs are hilarious, they put it into a blender and turn it on, then it says
'that was fun' they put in in a waffle thing and it gets burnt. This is
just a great movie. Then they start thinking of other ways to kill it, and the
snowball replies, 'that's not nice' It was worth then ten bucks spent to
buy this. 10 out of 10 stars.
Seriously, I don´t really get why people here are bashing it. I mean, the idea of a killer snowman wreaking havoc on a tropical island paradise is
pretty absurd. The good news is, the producers realized it and made it a comedy in
the vein of Army of Darkness. Especially in the second half of the
film, when the little killer snowballs attack, I laughed my ass off. For example,
the put one of the little creeps into a blender (a la Gremlins 1) and mix it. After
that, it morphs back into a snowball and squeals with a high pitched voice "That
was fun!". Bottom line - incredible movie, rent it.
Worst horror film ever but funniest film ever rolled in one you have got to see
this film it is so cheap it is unbeliaveble but you have to see it really!!!! P.s
watch the carrot
Okay, I'll say it. This movie made me laugh so hard that it hurt. This statement
may offend some of you who may think that this movie is nothing more than a waste
of film. But the thing that most people don't get is that this movie was intended
to be bad and cheezy. I mean, did people actually think that a movie about a killer
snowman was intended to be a masterpiece? Just look at the "scary" hologram on the
jacket of the movie and you'll find your answer. Instead, like the original Jack
Frost (which I thought was just as funny), this movie turned out to be a side-
splitting journey into the depths of corny dialogue, bad one liners and horrible
special effects. And it's all made to deliver laughter to us viewers. It certainly
worked for me. For example: Anne Tiler (to her troubled husband): What
makes you frown so heavily darling? If that chunk of dialogue doesn't
make you laugh, then you have serious issues. Who in their right mind would utter
those words in real life? Of course, no one because it was meant to sound
ridiculous! Just take one viewing of this movie with an open mind and low
expectations, and hopefully you'll see what's so damn funny about Jack Frost 2.
I suppose this movie is not your typical Spanish thriller as it is based in a real
story that took place abroad. The movie is based in the real story of French man
Jean-Claude Romand, and the real case is much more gory and scary than the film. In
the real story of Mr. Romand the family didn't escape, after years of lies he
decided to end it all by killing his wife, two children, parents and dog, and
although he tried to kill himself, it seems he didn't try very hard as he survived.
I watched the movie with people next to me talking about how it could never happen
in real life that all these lies went undetected, I was laughing as I had read the
book about Mr. Romand, and knew it did happen. I like José Coronado in this movie,
he offered us a good performance, as the rest of the crew.
I just watched this movie at the Santo Domingo International Film Festival. While
watching the movie I had the feeling that I have seen a movie with a similar story
before...a movie with Ray Liotta but I can't remember much of it. Of course, this
one is a lot more dramatic, especially at the end. This is the story:
Emilio's life becomes a lie that he can not longer sustain. After 20 years lying
about his entire life to his wife, son and all the people he knows, the truth is
chasing him and there is nowhere to go. Watching Emilio make up lies is
exiting and funny but after a while you get tired of the same thing...the affair
with a young girl was supposed to ad something but it doesn't. Despite that the
movie is still funny, exiting and involving. Either it makes you want to help
Emilio with his lies or help everybody else catch him. I liked the analogies,
photography and the good performances. 7.5 out of 10.
It kept me on the edge of my seat. True, the story has a few plot holes, but the
sheer tension of it, the way the director just keeps challenging the premise is
simply fascinating. José Coronado and Adriana Ozores are two of Spain's
best actors (see La vida mancha and Héctor) and here they appear as a happy upper-
middle class couple. Beneath it all, the truth is that all of Coronado's life is a
lie. He's not an economist, never went to college or does not work in Spain's
Central Bank Reserve, as everybody else believes. We get a few insights as to how
he kept up appearances or manage to do it, and while not very plausible it is still
somehow believable. The inner-workings of the scam are shown
intermittently, but it is credible because Coronado is a source of self-assurance
and assertiveness. He not only believes in the scam, he also believes in the film
premise, and therefore he carries it. Sure, it tests belief that a wife
would not know the inner workings of a marriage's finances for almost 10 years, but
again, since he's supposedly a brilliant economist. It has been said, in
a nationalistic tone, that the movie is not "distinctively Spanish", as if that
were a litmus test for good film. True, no castanets or odd cabbies in this one,
just a taut thriller. You'll want to know how this story ends once you start
watching.
(WARNING - CONTAINS MILD SPOILER) A movie almost designed to make you pause and
check your recollection of it - it's confined to an almost empty motel where the
huge courtyard resembles a circus ring and the rooms seem like temporary withdrawal
points rather than refuges; as the characters become increasingly preoccupied by
the past, the present increasingly falls away, until the ultimate incendiary
appearance of the Countess in the black Mercedes marks the fusion of reality and
fantasy. Whether or not their stories are true, and whether Stanton is truly the
father or just a crazy old man stepping into their stories, seems impossible to
determine. The theme seems to be how love of an extreme and unconsidered nature
messes with stability to the point where reality itself breaks down; where exotic,
misplaced fantasy becomes dangerously tangible. The image of the burning motel - a
symbol of dislocation beset by destruction - is an appropriately weird ending for
this strange but effective, startlingly imaginative, movie.
Of course, how could he. He obviously co-opted several aspects from that excellent
movie, which was also based on the sensational French case of the self-described
"doctor in the World Health Organization" who murdered his family and himself when
finally unmasked as a fraud. Emilio refers to his son as "monster," he sings to the
radio in his car, he hangs out on park benches, and he specializes in investment
schemes to defraud his family and friends -- all of this and more directly lifted
from "Time Out," which came out the year before "Nobody's Life." It's too bad
because this movie is pretty good on its own, with good acting and writing. Whereas
Vincent from "Time Out" is a much more subtle character who seems to have a sense
of ethics even though at times it gets twisted into knots, the protagonist here
seems devoid of any character at all save for his winning looks and charm.
Seriously, the part where he used X-rays that show his mother-in-law's cancer to
bilk more money from his father, then utilizes a subtle twist on the same scam to
avoid eviction from his fancy home for failing to pay the lease on time -- it's
almost too much. The guy has no shame whatsoever, In fact, he's more like the lead
in "Stepfather" than some poor schmuck who gets fired and is so humiliated that he
can't face the disappointment of his family and friends and feels forced to invent
a shiny new life for himself, as Vincent did in "Time Out." Thus, one could feel
the tension mounting in "Nobody's Life" and the violent conclusion coming. One
thing "Nobody's Life" has that "Time Out" definitely lacked was a love interest
apart from the protagonist's trusting wife. It's not hard to understand how the
sexy babysitter was able to fascinate and ensnare Emile to the degree that he
ignored the danger of her natural curiosity and allowed it to lay bare his less
than carefully constructed con. Given the reservations mentioned, this is a pretty
good movie that we found entertaining. If you long for something touching on
similar elements that goes a might deeper and is more intellectually and
spiritually satisfying, I strongly suggest "Time Out."
Emilio is a successful business man, a perfect father and a good husband. Or that
is what everybody think. The perfect storyline he has carefully built all along
these years will start closing around him all of a sudden. Will he be able to keep
up with his own lies? This is a very well laid out drama, with great
acting and steady direction. Even though the plot is pushed up to the limit to
increase the tension, the movie explores some of our worst fears... Do we really
know the people we deal with? Can we be so sure? The story develops at
an increasingly faster pace as it reaches the point where Emilio is not in control
of his lies anymore. A good deal of Spanish movies have interesting stories but are
far from technical proficiency. The perfect rhythm and well shot scenes make the
actors so credible, we get inside Emilio, and hate him, and suffer for him, as his
situation gets more and more desperate. There is no need for any Spanish folklore,
nor is this an attempt to create a Hollywood style flick. This is real Spain, 2002,
and regardless the obvious unlikeliness of Emilio's life existing in reality, there
are good chances somebody we know is not quite like the person he claims to be. Not
just a great commercial product, it will let you wondering where lies can get us
to. Can we keep up? Well done.
François Truffaut, Young Jerk of the "Cahiers du cinema", main bastion of the
coming so-called New Wave, made a big show of hating this film and even accused it
of dragging French cinema into mediocrity. Translation: Truffaut, who was
terminally repressed sexually, was already jealous of the way Carné could make a
huge success of a story that pushed all the right buttons of its audience and
actually involved it into something important with all the trappings and seduction
of sensuality. In other words, where the general public and many critics saw a
perceptive sociological analysis wrapped in a beautiful film, Truffaut saw "Girls
on the Loose". Carné, after all, had everything that would be severely
lacking from the New Wave: intelligence, refinement, humour, a great talent as a
storyteller, a great ear for dialogue, dazzling technical brilliance, the capacity
to make his actors do what he wanted them to do, and a good dose of good taste. By
comparison, Truffaut is a provincial bore with nothing to say. A 50's
tragic remake of "Pride and Prejudice", the French answer to "Rebel Without A
Cause", an updated version of "Children of Paradise", "Les Tricheurs" tells a story
of disaffected Parisian youth who have lost their way in an atmosphere of
existentialism, sexual liberation and disrespect for traditional and religious
values. Some (young) critics perceived Carné's take on the subject as the
moralizing slant of an "older person", whereas I think what happened, quite to the
contrary, is that Carné being gay and knowing a thing or two about repression, felt
an untold sympathy for the young iconoclasts in his story. Furthermore, this being
a French film, there is no mistaking that the rebellion in question is essentially
sexual, something that still had to be decoded in American films like "Rebel
Without a Cause" and "The Wild One". Carné's young people are all
supremely beautiful, graceful, elegant, spontaneous and intelligent. They are Gods
and Goddesses. They drive the latest Vespas and the right cars. The cut of their
suits, dresses and duffle-coats was a high point of the fashions of the last
century. Their haircuts are still plastered on the wall of your local hairdresser.
Their body shape, which they attained and maintained without effort, is still the
modern Western ideal. They listen to the best jazz musicians. They know how to
move, how to be sexy and how to make love even though the pill hasn't yet been
invented. They know how to negotiate different social classes and cultures.
Unfortunately, they are defined by and live by the code of the gang and their own
heartless rituals that exclude sentimentality and make a sin of romantic love. The
only thing wrong with them is that their elders don't talk to them and vice-versa.
The incidents depicted in this film got a lot of tongues wagging for a long time in
France about the amorality and nihilism of youth while still making it a huge
public and critical success. This film is so stylish and gorgeous, I
suspect the older viewers who watched it wished they could be like the people
depicted in the film and quite a few young filmmakers or aspiring filmmakers like
Truffaut developed a bad case of jaundice reflecting how they could never
conceivably make a film as sexy or popular as this one, although they would be very
good at eventually aiming for the nihilistic bits. On the other hand, given a
certain clichéd aspect of the script (amorous misunderstanding leading to a medical
emergency), one can only wonder at the horribly pious and puritanical mishmash
Americans would have extracted from the same basic script if they had dared to
tackle the subject. Interestingly, the movie was filmed in the same
basic locations as the American musical "Funny Face" a year earlier. Where
Hollywood saw the picturesque aspects of the Rive Gauche and existentialism, Carné
restituted its tragic and ironic dimension. Watch this trailer on YouTube:
19ZkKeoNjPo
It's generally an accepted fact that Marcel Carné's 1936-1946 movies are
masterpieces and it's considered polite to say that the rest are mediocrities.This
is an unfair opinion:at least ,two of the latter era are eminently
watchable:"Thérèse Raquin" ,his best post-war work,and "les tricheurs" (the
cheats). There's a strange evolution from the Prevert golden hour to
"les tricheurs":in "les enfants du paradis" "quai des brumes" or "le jour se
lève",true love is thwarted by the villains. In "les tricheurs" true love does not
exist anymore:we deal with a bunch of young people who believe in nothing;falling
in love would be incongruous for this youth.The adults are not the villains at
all:Mic's brother and mother are kind people ,but she is beyond their command.Very
few grown-ups appear anyway. During two hours,the characters do not stop
playing around,dancing,listening to jazz records(a music which was not still part
of the bourgeois culture),and heavily drinking .When two of them discover they care
for each others ,it will be too late. The cast is rather good ,Laurent
Terzieff as an existentialist cynic and Andréa Parisy as a rich kid are the stand-
outs.On the other hand,Pascale Petit and mainly Jacques Charrier(who married
Brigitte Bardot the same year as "les tricheurs")do not possess the ambiguity their
parts ask for.They are all smile,too sweet and to nice to be believable. Oddly,"les tricheurs" was labeled "nouvelle vague"!When you know what the
priests of this cinema school (the likes of Godard)thought of Carné ,it's really a
good joke.But this disenchantment you feel throughout the whole movie is really
disturbing.
I blow hot and cold over Carné. He really can be a puzzle for me. I think perhaps
his inspiration left him a little earlier than it did for other directors of his
generation. Certainly a man who came to maturity in the Thirties with the Popular
Front seems ill at ease in the France of the Fifties, with its rampant
commercialism and heavy American influence. He is almost thirty years older than
his young stars, and it shows. The party scenes go on much longer than they should,
as if he were trying to buy time for the anemic scenario to work. Roland Lesaffre's
character--he plays Pascale Petit's older brother--seems to exist only to reassure
the director that his old-style ideas are still sound. At two hours,
this picture is far too long. Still, let me praise Pascale Petit for her game
performance; she was a natural who should have challenged Brigitte Bardot for
sexpot supremacy, but somehow lost her way. Andrea Parisy is excellent too as the
girl who gets pregnant and wants Charrier to marry her and make her baby legitimate
(yes, they still thought that way in the Fifties). Laurent Terzieff is the only
French actor who could play an anarchist convincingly: he is great here as he
rescues a cat from death, then remarks he can't stand cats. Jacques Charrier only
reminds me how mediocre he was as an actor, with that constant little grin and
those blank eyes.
First, I rated this movie 10/10. To me, it's simply one of the best I saw since I
was born (I'm 23, but I saw numerous films). The story is cruel, but reality is,
too, not ? It went deep into me and stirred my bowels. I saw it about 5 or 6 years
ago and it still shakes me - and I still remember it ! Second, there is
no 'national preference' (this expression is a direct translation from the French)
for this movie. I mean it's not because it is a French movie that I put it so
high : it has really caught me when I saw it. Furthermore, I don't know well Marcel
Carne's filmography, so I don't know if it is or not his best movie, but I know it
is not his most famous : Hotel du Nord, Quai des Brumes and Les Enfants du Paradis
are the most famous. Third, the movie's in B&W, but it deals with inter-
temporal problems of youth (not acne) like love, friends and studies in a modern
way. It could even be remade frame-by-frame with actual young actors, a Dolby(tm)
sound and special effects (a car crash), it would still be a great film ! Problem : Maybe is it a film to be seen by young adults (from 16 to 25
years old) - and above, of course - for its message to be well understood... Did I
say it was a great movie ?
This late 50s French study of disaffected youth (in their early 20's,
actually--"grown up", but not yet settled down into the adult world) probably
missed the mark by a mile in terms of being an accurate depiction of 1958 French
youth (don't virtually ALL youth films made by adults do this? The ones that
don't--River's Edge comes to mind-- are rare indeed), but director-writer Marcel
Carne, of Les Enfants du Paradis fame, is too accurate an observer of humanity to
NOT provide an insightful view of the essence of these characters. In a sense, the
details are not important--you could change the details and set this film today and
it would work just as well--but the loneliness and insecurity and superficial
passion and self-righteous anger of the characters is captured well. The young
Pierre Brice and Jean-Paul Belmondo are in supporting roles, but leads Jacques
Charrier, Laurent Terzieff, Pascale Petit, and Andrea Parisy play the roles with
subtlety and depth. There is also a fine jazz score, which you can get on the CD
JAZZ IN PARIS--JAZZ & CINEMA VOL. 2. Unlike some who have commented on the film, I
don't really see director-writer Carne as sitting in judgment on these characters--
he seems as though he is an objective observer to me. Of course, these middle-class
characters may seem like people who are spoiled and have nothing to whine about to
some working-class viewers of the film, and I think Carne is certainly aware of
this. For this American viewer (I watched a dubbed, fairly literally I'd say,
version of this titled THE CHEATERS), the film provides an interesting window into
the France of the 1950s. It also is self-consciously poetic (the scene on the
ledge, saving the cat, is but one example of this) and has intellectual aspirations
in that charming way that only French films can get away with--I can imagine the
heavy-handed, melodramatic, shallow way this kind of material would have been
handled by an American studio production, and the sensationalistic, moralistic,
suggestive way this kind of material would have been handled by American drive-
in/exploitation filmmakers. I feel that Marcel Carne has captured the essence of
that period between, say, high school graduation and when, by one's early 30s,
people have largely settled into a routine, whatever that routine may be. Those
willing to watch the film with an open mind and not fire away at the many easy
targets it offers should find a serious and valuable study of people in their early
twenties. And even if you don't want to do that, you can go in the other room while
the film is playing and simply enjoy the fine soundtrack, with great 50s jazz and
instrumental pop, including the wonderful original score by an American "Jazz at
the Philharmonic" group including Coleman Hawkins, Dizzy Gillespie, Stan Getz
(spelled "goetz" in the credits), Roy Eldridge, and Ray Brown.
As an adult, I am grateful to have caught this movie by chance when I was a teen.
During the time, I was experiencing familial problems. This particular movie
managed to capture what I was seeing from a closeted world. How much peer pressure
is too much? I actually had to purchase this movie because it reached me on a level
unlike most films try to reach an audience. How far might an individual go for
social acceptance? Who is the "bad" crowd? Teenagers do struggle trying to find out
the answers to these questions, but ultimately...who is the "pack leader" if there
must be one? Is it the strong? The beautiful? Perhaps the person we just all seem
to like? Could it be the moral character? As far as the movie goes, the cast worked
together as if it were predestined. I only hope that more directors and producers
try to create a piece of work that reaches all of us like this particular movie
reached me. I wish I could vote higher than ten because this particular title
deserves much more.
I just saw this movie on Showtime in the wee hours of the night. I was viewing the
beginning with one eye open, but instead of drifting off to sleep, I became
invested in this crafty, nail-bitter of a movie. It was very believable and
engaging. I could have done without so much profanity(as with every David Mamet
movie I see), but thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I know teenagers swear, but I
don't need to listen to it. Anyways, the story had some interesting surprises which
I won't reveal but if you have a chance to catch this movie on Showtime, I think
you will enjoy it as much as I have.
As a camera operator, I couldn't help but admire the great look that this picture
achieved. The performances were excellent, as was the story. Just when I thought
this film was about to slow down, it didn't. Heart-pounding tension, great pacing
through editing, and a score that knows when to be quiet all come together here
under competent and capable direction. The camera was always in the right place.
Love that.
Why would I say that? Because when the movie ended, I was in a good mood. So many
people exclaim at the end, wow! Bruce Willis can be funny. For those of you who
believe he learned how to act after the sixth sense, you must be very new to his
career. He won an emmy for best actor in a comedy series before he did Die Hard.
It's like saying, wow, the sky learned to deposit snow on the ground just because
it's your first winter in life. The movie was hilarious. What boggles my mind is
how some other comments made about this movie claims that there are no memorable
lines or scenes. Spoiler... The waaaambulance? I am not a loser? Have
you ever seen a grown up scream I am not a loser before? I thought this
movie was great. It was funny, it was never boring and in a cheesy Disney sort of
way, it had a point to make. Something to do with life and of course any kid movie
trying to do that is in over it's head but for once, I didn't care. If
you haven't watched it. Do so. You'll like it.
A stunningly well-made film, with exceptional acting, directing, writing, and
photography. A newlywed finds married life not what she expected, and
starts to question her duty to herself versus her duty to society. Together with
her sister -in-law, she makes some radical departures from conventional roles and
mores.
Born Bad is a well put together crime drama about a group of teenage kids. Teens as
well as young adults would find this movie well acted and entertaining. The movie
is similar to The Black Circle Boys in the sense that a bunch of teenage boys go
around their town making up their own rules and not caring about the consequences.
this is a great movie for all Corey Feldman fans. This movie has a great cast of
young actors. a group of teens decide to rob a bank to get some quick cash, but all
goes wrong when a security gaurd gets shot and they take hostages
I just watched the DVD version of BORN BAD and found it to be tense, gritty and,
near the end, too graphic for the faint of heart. Justin Walker (Clueless) and
Corey Feldman turn in superior performances. For a low budget film, this picture
delivers. The depth of character and clever dialogue are two things not usually
seen in a Roger Corman picture. Check it out on DVD!
This film is like "The Breakfast Club" meets "Mad City." It's got one plot twist
after another with Justin Walker, Corey Feldman, and James Remar delivering really
great performances. However, this movie is not for everyone. If you don't like
movies that "go all the way" with regards to violence, then don't watch the last
twenty minutes. My wife had to leave the room. Of course, I couldn't take my eyes
off the screen. This is a really gritty, realistic teen drama. I can't believe it
came from B-Movie king Roger Corman. This film is a must-see for those who are not
faint of heart. Highly recommended.
I recently rented this video after seeing "Final Ascent" by the same writer. I
wasn't prepared for how intense this film would get. I found it engaging from start
to finish, and was rooting for the teenagers to get away with their attempted
crime. The ending was definitely disturbing with some of its implied violence, but
well-done. I highly recommend this picture.
This film was so well-paced that I don't think I actually blinked while watching.
One intense situation after another kept me glued to the set. However, I would have
liked to have seen Corey Feldman a lot more in this picture. He just steals every
scene that he is in. This could be my favorite grown up Corey performance. The
ending was clever and unlike other films which back away from severing body parts
of likeable supporting characters, this film goes for it! I liked that it was not
graphic blood and gore but left more to the viewer's imagination. Bravo. I
literally had to wipe sweat from my forehead during this particular torture scene
with a paper cutter. Ultimately, the film works because of its likeable lead
character and the awesome presence of my all-time favorite bad guy, James Remar(48
Hours, remember?) I strongly recommend this film for anyone looking to break a
sweat. 
The efficacy of this picture was best proven on the intended target audience,
namely teens. My 14-year-old son became so engrossed in this film that I rate it
considerably higher than its imitator "Mad City." It sparked debate in our
household on issues such as peer pressure and loyalty vs. doing the right thing.
For that alone, I rate this film a 10! Parents should watch it with their teens and
discuss it afterwards. I very much liked the smart dialogue and
consistent acting. I thought that James Remar was adequate in his role, but the
teenage cast really carried this picture. Other IMDB users have praised Corey
Feldman's performance, which truly is inspired. All in all, I give this picture my
highest recommendation. Go get this one!
I love this film. Tense with great characters. The kid from "Sandlot" is excellent
as is Corey Feldman. When the kids storm the bank, it is pure adrenaline. Inside of
the bank, it becomes a bit like a "Lord of the Flies" situation where they turn on
each other. Justin Walker from "Clueless" is wonderful. I saw this on "Showtime"
while channel surfing. It was a pleasant surprise. James Remar is also quite good
here as the small town Sheriff. Taylor Nichols who I love from "Barcelona" does a
nice job too as a Federal Agent. I recommend this film for any fan of bank robbery
movies with a lot of good characters. I was shocked to discover that Roger Corman
was a producer on this, since the film is not a B movie.
This movie about a group of small town teens that decide to rob the local bank is
excellent. Brian (Justin Walker) wants to get out of his small town, much like
Jimmy Stewart in "It's A Wonderful Life." However, unlike George Bailey, Brian is
going to rob a bank to finance his dream of attending art school, even if his
father is not supportive. The offer to Brian is to act like a customer and distract
the guard. It's a tempting offer that if offered to many, I question what they
would do. Anyways, Brian does it. When the Sheriff (James Remar) and his force
surround the bank, things go from bad to worse. It's a standoff with even the Feds
moving in to kill the kids if they have a clean shot. The Sheriff must prevent this
and try to end the standoff in a peaceful way. Unfortunately, tensions rise, and
the teens inside turn on each other. Some are out of control. The paper cutter
scene is gruesome and hard to watch. Very intense!
This picture doesn't have any big explosions or expensive chase sequences. However,
it does have really wonderful performances and an exceptional script that puts this
at the top of my "indie-must-see list." Taylor Nichols and James Remar are terrific
together. The young cast surprised me with really consistent acting. Usually, indie
pictures have some weak link, but there are no weak links here. Impressive. Go get
this one.
I couldnt believe how well this kid did on screen, you will completely forget that
they are actors and loose yourself in the movie. It is like watching home movies
with a twist. I recomend this to everyone. Highly.
My wife and I loved this film. Smart dialogue, great characters, clever plot
construction. The pacing in this film is non-stop. Couldn't even get to the kitchen
for some munchies. We have never seen Corey Feldman this funny. Taylor Nichols
plays a good Fed...my wife loves him on that "Married Man" HBO show. The ensemble
cast were all strong. The twist at the end had us cheering. That is why we give
this film a "Standing O."
This "TFTD" episode from season one titled ironically "Answer Me" is a pretty well
done and memorable episode, and it takes a shocking twist at the end. You have Jean
Marsh as an over the hill and washed up actress from L.A. who's moved to New York
City for an audition and she's living in an apartment provided by an old friend.
Oddly every night she's kept awake by a ringing phone from the next door apartment,
yet oddly enough the dwelling where the ringing phone continues to ring is
unoccupied as the guests have been dead for many years. Finally she has to give in
only she should have followed along and not answered the phone with no one home, as
it's bad to get wrapped up in a phone with a life of it's own! Overall good episode
a strange one though about a supernatural phone still it's suspenseful and it
twists well at the end.
I can understand why others reacted rather unpleasantly towards the climax yielding
a twist that really is hard to take seriously. I think, though, that the build-up
to it works rather well. The music, quite menacing and spine-tingling, really
provides a spooky aura matching the unforgiving sound of a constant ringing
telephone that is driving struggling English actress, Joan Matlin(Jean
Marsh)bonkers. She's borrowing a pal's nice apartment while attempting to jump-
start her career in New York City(..the city buildings outside the window look
about as realistic as David Letterman's)and is unceremoniously welcome by a noisy
telephone which rings quite a bit, followed by loud slams against the wall.
Searching for answers regarding the one responsible for such disregard towards her
sanity, Joan discovers that no one rents that room, and that a former tenant had in
fact strangled herself. Without help from the manager, Joan will decide to find out
for herself who is causing her such anguish. Joan discovers the room empty and the
phone with a particular female voice which will haunt her. The episode,
I think, is a tour-de-force for Jean Marsh who is a one woman show. She's the only
actress visible and we follow her through the crisis which slowly erodes her, the
phone and the banging from that other room causing her much distress which grows
into fear. Instead of leaving, Joan remains, so shaken by the noise and to the
breaking point where she just wishes for the phone(..or whoever is ringing)to stop.
The episode provides a possible answer as to who is plaguing Joan and why. A
character named Beth comes into the story rather late as Joan struggles to find out
whose female voice it was across the other line who knew her name on that dreaded
phone she discovers in the room across from hers. The fate of Beth might just tell
the viewer why Joan is being traumatized. I think this episode is an exercise in
spooks instead of credibility;some didn't particularly like it, but I certainly
did. I will admit that the phone, as a physical menace "crawling" towards Joan is
hard to take seriously, not to mention it's attack on her, but I thought the
intense opening twenty minutes before this were suitably chilling enough to make up
for it.
I know that Chill Wills usually played lovable old sorts in Westerns. But his role
in this segment is something I've remembered for a long time. Wills could be a
first rate villain. Yes, Burgess Meredith's Fall was correct! That look in
Hepplewhite's eye! It expressed porcine greed, ignorance, and the threat of
violence all at once. Quite a performance, I think. The segment itself
was a good one, too. Question: couldn't the little black bag cure alcoholism? I
guess it did, sort of, with Fall. But the doctor would have been wise to apply the
cure, if he had it, as quickly as possible to Hepplewhite. There is one
moment that was annoying but also necessary. And it is something that appears to
recur in these Night Gallery segments. It's Serling's constant need to sermonize.
For that's what we got, one more time, with Dr. Fall. I don't know what was more
frustrating, losing the black bag and all its miracles or not being to stop Fall
from preaching about the bag's benefit for humanity, all while rubbing
Hepplewhite's greedy face in the mud, and, therefore, all but begging for
Hepplewhite to strike out at him. But as I say, it was necessary. At least it was
for me. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to see Wills' performance discussed
above. All done without moving a muscle or speaking a word.
This is a perfect movie to watch with a loved one on a cold and snowy night. If you
like a few laughs with your horror then this is the movie for you. The makings of a
real cult classic. It has everything you would want to see in a horror movie. A
beautiful girl, A hero, The buffoon, A MONSTER TRUCK and of course a family of
mutant satanic killers. This one is full of blood,guts and gore. I strongly
recommend watching this one in the wee early morning hours, and be careful of who
sees you being entertained by the sounds of Monster trucks, Bad {But Funny } One
liners and our Hero eating eye ball stew. Not as good as the Evil Dead but a close
second. Just remember WARNING..... Do NOT EAT BEFORE VIEWING THIS FILM...
Two college buddies - one an uptight nerd, the other a rude slob - embark on a road
trip through the country. On the way, they encounter a vicious vehicle that looks
like an army tank combined with a monster truck, that tries to run their car over.
They escape it, but only enrage the mysterious and dangerous driver more when one
of them takes a leak in the top hatch while at a rest stop. Later on, they pick up
a sexy hitchhiker who ends up getting involved in their life threatening situation.
MONSTER MAN is an extremely entertaining horror-comedy that has some good
suspenseful moments as well as some good gory ones. The two lead characters and
their constant bickering is fun to watch all on its own and the end takes a TCM-
like turn which was very well-done. Absolutely worth checking out.
I caught this movie on the Sci-Fi channel recently. It actually turned out to be
pretty decent as far as B-list horror/suspense films go. Two guys (one naive and
one loud mouthed a**) take a road trip to stop a wedding but have the worst
possible luck when a maniac in a freaky, make-shift tank/truck hybrid decides to
play cat-and-mouse with them. Things are further complicated when they pick up a
ridiculously whorish hitchhiker. What makes this film unique is that the
combination of comedy and terror actually work in this movie, unlike so many
others. The two guys are likable enough and there are some good chase/suspense
scenes. Nice pacing and comic timing make this movie more than passable for the
horror/slasher buff. Definitely worth checking out.
Five minutes in, i started to feel how naff this was looking, you've got a
completely unheroic hero and his overweight fool of a friend. Seen it all before,
yeah right. I was getting ready to be bored out of my mind for a good few hours.
This is something i have become quite used to... haven't we all. Then after a few
minutes of testosterone fuelled insults and such, the truck appeared. Okay the
filming techniques used to make it look fast were clumsy, but who cares! That truck
is amazing! Soon however that is taken away again and we're back to the geek and
his overweight friend. But now i'm satisfied that at least it won't be too
terrible. I then proceed to be amazed again and again by the cleverness of the
film. There are so many jokes at their expense, it's like everyone in the world is
in on this except the two of them. The mind behind the makeup and effects was a
genius i swear it. Believe me, if you are a man you miss so many of the jokes in
this film, there is so much here that only a girl can understand. Brother Bob is by far the best hillbilly killer that can be found anywhere, the
fact that he's sewn together just adds to the effect. There are of course some
really dud science facts in here, but isn't that always the case. When our 'hero'
is having a nose bleed and using the blood to lead brother Bob to his death, now
that is rubbish. There is no way a nose bleed can be that bad and not mean a
severed artery or something. I'm all with the use of too much blood, but that is
taking it a little too far. The incest jokes are a little predictable but funny
nonetheless. And the way brother bob meets his end is more than classic. Overall,
this movie rules, it really breaks out of the overacted melodramatic strain of
horror that we got so much of in 2003-2005. The end of this move simply could not
have been better. This is a definite must watch for anyone who likes
their horror with several side orders of gore and attitude.
I got Monster Man in a box set of three films where I mainly wanted the other two
but still had a very pleasant time with it. It blends horror and comedy to
reasonable effect, helped out considerably by the decent performances of Eric
Jungman as the geeky lead, Justin Urich as his a hole friend and Aimee Brooks as
the love interest. The film is fairly predictable and mines ideas from a host of
other films, but stays fun throughout, with some good gruesome gore thrown in. Sure
it doesn't measure up to the classic gory comedies, but this still does fine.
Director Michael Davis even manages one or two creepy scenes, such as in the
bathroom, or the bar. The film is watchable throughout if a little messily plotted
and written and for me it only lost it a bit towards the end when the Monster Man
of the title starts to resemble a member of Slipknot and the film tries to go more
horror style but isn't twisted or convincing enough. The final moments are a trifle
weak as well. Still, despite lack of much suspense and overall silliness, this is a
good example of unpretentious, often gnarly splatter comedy that should endear
itself to fans of the same.
I got this as part of a competition prize. I watched it, not really expecting much
from an obviously low budget production. I laughed myself sick!There are obvious
references to other films in the horror genre - Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Friday
13th etc. All the standard clichés were there - long drive through partially arid
and somehow menacing countryside, inbred red-necks, mysterious vehicles tracking
you - throw in some really good humorous scenes (siphoning petrol from the camper-
van) and dialogue ("f*****g virgin? That's got to be an oxymoron.." and you have
one of the best spoof horror films for years. I particularly liked the way our
reluctant hero used his stress-related nose-bleed to great advantage..
The story is quite slow at the beginning except few interesting humour that come
along the way but some of the plot still empty. The science on how the
kid entered the 21st century is still a mystery except at the end of the movie, we
have been shown of how. Other than that, everything looks ok!
Just got around to seeing Monster Man yesterday. It had been a long wait and after
lots of anticipation and build up, I'm glad to say that it came through and met my
expectations on every level. True, you really can't expect too much from hearing
the plot rundown, but after reading some of the reviews for it, I was ecstatic. I
mean, what trash fan wouldn't want to see a gore flick about a deranged inbred hick
mowing people down with his make-shift monster truck? I went in expecting a cross
between Road Trip and The Hills Have Eyes and got so much more. This was a horror
comedy that actually worked. The film makers got it right when it came to making
you squirm and making you howl with laughter at the same time. Kudos to Michael
Davis for going all out with the gore and pushing the envelope with the sickass
humor. Let me list just a few reasons why I love this movie so much: First off is
the story. It's been done to death in so many other flicks. A college guy gets wind
that his childhood crush is getting married. He, being the 25 year old virgin that
he is, hops in his Vista Cruiser and decides to take the road trip to confess his
love, hoping that she will fall head over hills and all that good jive. Hidden in
the backseat of his station wagon, is good buddy Harley. Harley is the loudmouth,
former friend, who laughs and talks just like Jack Black in High Fidelity. You
can't help but like the guy, but if he was your friend in real life, you'd have to
keep a whiffle ball bat handy(laugh all you want, but have you ever been hit with
one?) to keep him in check. So, he's a little on the obnoxious side, to say the
least, but you can tell that he's a loyal friend, deep down...Anyway, they're on
the road and when they stop in a bar, they aggravate the locals. Now they're being
stalked by a leatherface clone in a monster truck. That's it. Yeah, along the way
they pick up a gorgeous hitchhiker but I'm too lazy and hungover to go into that
right now... so just watch the damn movie. Second thing I love was the
humor. This one had some of the sickest laughs of any movie since Cabin Fever. Just
how messed up is it? Well, I won't even go into the whole cat scene and as for the
"corpse burrito" thing, I'll leave that to your virgin eyes as well. The bar full
of amputees was somewhat disturbing and that guy who looked like John Turturro
bothered me too. Harley, although a totally obnoxious frat-boy type, can really
sling off the one liners. Love the clogs, by the way. I need a new pair.. The GORE. This one pours it on heavy. While the first hour plays out as a
demented road comedy, the last third is all about blood and guts. If the movie
hadn't kept such a light tone throughout, it would have been a little disturbing,
but seeing how it was all played for laughs, there is no way possible that you will
be bothered by it. If you're still in your seat by the time it comes, you'll
probably see the humor in it too, but seriously, there were buckets and buckets of
the red stuff. There was a big plot turn that I DIDN'T see coming and when the
credits rolled, I was completely satisfied. I had gotten exactly what I came for
and I'm really glad that I bought it. Much like Cabin Fever, it's going to get a
lot of replay. The Look of the movie was outstanding. There was this
deliberately cheap look that made the whole thing scream late 80s and I loved the
exaggerated colors. It's obvious that Monster Man was done on a relatively low
budget, but much like Cabin Fever (sorry I keep comparing the two) it actually
works in the movie's favor. Cabin Fever was an ode to the 70s greats, this was the
80s answer to that. So take that for what it's worth. No CGI here. This is what we
all needed. I'm not exactly sure why it didn't get a theatrical release because
this is everything that Jeepers Creepers SHOULD have been. Thank god for Lions
Gate.
This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well
made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending!. All the characters
are pretty cool, and the story while unoriginal is very good, plus Eric
Jungmann(Adam) and Justin Urich(Harley) had fantastic chemistry together. One of
the funniest moments in the film for me is when Adam is trapped in the bathroom,
and Harley wakes up to find that monster truck sitting there, and decides to take a
p*ss in the truck, and Aimee Brooks is just plain sexy!, plus this is one of the
best low budget Horror films I have seen in a long time. It's very gory, but in a
comical way, and I thought it was very well written as well, plus Michael Bailey
Smith is fantastic as the Monster Man and had some wicked makeup!. It's similar to
films like Joy Ride, Duel, Jeepers Creepers, etc, etc and it has some suspenseful
moments here and there, plus The gore effects are really well done for the most
part. This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty
well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending, I highly
recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Michael Davis does a very good!
job here, with great camera work, good angles,good use of colors, and using a great
setting, plus he kept the film funny and at a very fast pace. There is a
lot of gore!. We get extremely bloody nose bleeds,gory impaling's, bloody
stabbings,guy is cut in half by a monster truck, human remains in a cooked stew,
guts all over the place,guys guts fall out,pencil in the eyes,bloody slit
throat,bunch of people walking around without limbs,gory dead squirrel,heads are
squished,severed limbs,bloody and mangled corpses,decent amount of bloodshed,one
very gory scene at the very end and more!. The Acting is very good for a
low budget film. Eric Jungmann is fantastic here as Adam, he was a nerd but a very
likable one, he had fantastic chemistry with Justin Urich, had some cool lines,and
I just loved his character, he also seemed to be enjoying himself,and he was
especially good at the end!. Justin Urich is excellent as the ass of a Best Friend,
however I just couldn't help but love him as he was very funny, and often stole a
lot of the scenes, I really dug him!. Aimee Brooks is gorgeous, and did great with
what she had to do, she had good chemistry with Jungmann and like Jungmann was
especially good at the end, as I loved her mysterious character. Michael Bailey
Smith is wonderful as The Monster Man he was very creepy looking, had some awesome
makeup, and is now one of my favorite slashers!. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5
Two city guys are driving through Hicksville USA when a rusty monster truck
suddenly appears and repeatedly attempts to run them off the road.Having picked up
a mysterious blonde hitchhiker,they pull up at a truck-stop full of redneck
amputees,one of whom warns them of 'the demon out there'. But they don't listen.Big
mistake!"Monster Man" by Michael Davis mixes comedy with horror surprisingly
well.The film borrows heavily from "Duel","The Blair Witch Project","Jeepers
Creepers" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".The story is pretty silly,but there is
enough gore and violence to keep splatter freaks happy.I enjoyed especially the
performance of Justin Urich,which offers the film its comedy relief.Still the
complete lack of suspense is hard to forgive.Give this one a chance,if you have
some time to waste.7 out of 10.Did I mention that Aimee Brooks is sexy?
Great horror comedy from Michael Davis.Iwas laughing so hard i almost peed! Great
acting from Eric Jungman as the good guy who saves the day & great performance by
the Jack Black-esquire like performance from Justin Urich. He was just divine in
this film. This guy deserves to be a big star. Also,Aimee Brooks was good in the
film as well as the girl in danger along with the guys from a killer reminiscent of
Jeepers Creepers. The gore to was given in copious amounts & i loved it.I just hope
they release a not rated version. Great low-budget Horror Comedy. The dead cat in
the hotel sex scene is just gruesomely funny! ***** out of *****
In the veins of Jeepers Creepers and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Monster Man
surprisingly well-made--though mindless--little horror. Throw in a little buddy-
comedy, nice gore and intense scare. It's hard no to say that Monster Man is really
entertaining. The low budget seem pretty obvious, but it doesn't effected the
presentation of the movie in general and put more big budget horror movies in
shame. Yes, the plot somewhat generic as possible. Pair of friend, Adam
(Eric Jungman)and Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to interrupt the
wedding of a woman Adam has always loved. While Adam is more nerdy type, Harley is
a self-proclaimed ladies man and very offensive loudmouth. Adding a bonus to the
plot, then they picked up a sexy hitchhiker, Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Things turn into
nightmare when a monster truck with scary face drive stalking them. When dead body
starts counting, they must do the race against the time before their own life on
risk. The plot is obviously reminiscent of many prior famous horror
movies, but Michael Davis as the writer and director succeed in keeping the
tension. The scare is build well enough, where characterization is never be the
best, but fairly okay. The script also littered with comedies that works for the
funny moments and they quite enjoyable rather than annoying and also wait for the
twist in the finale. It's hilarious and shocking in the same time, which is pretty
amusing. As conclusion, Monster Man surprisingly entertaining. It
deserves more attention in the big screen. It proves that big budget doesn't make
an effective horror movie, but skill does! Something that the director has shown
and delivers.
I first saw this on Demand. Or on TV. I'm not really sure. But this has got to be
my all time favorite movie ever! I mean, this movie has blood, gore, laughs and
chills through out the movie. I recently ordered "Monster Man" from Amazon and i've
been watching "Monster Man" ever since i got it. Trust me, you will love this
movie. P.S. The commentary on the DVD is way funny. They also said
something about "Monster Man 2" during the commentary. Let's hope they make
"Monster Man 2"! If you have the chance, rent the movie or buy it. You will
absolutely LOVE it! This is the best movie that has come out in 2003. 10/10
Adam (Eric Jungmann) and obnoxious best friend Harley (Justin Urich) are driving
cross country to a wedding. Along the way they pick up sexy hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee
Brooks). Then, for no reason, a monster truck keeps trying to run them off the
road...and maybe kill them. Who is doing this and why? Pretty good
horror film. Its energetic and full of flashy direction which gets you right into
the action. It's also a horror comedy. Most of the humor is infantile and REALLY
gross but actually somewhat funny. Also this movie really piles on the gore at
times--but that's a GOOD thing! The acting is OK--Jungmann overplays his nerd role
a bit much; Urich is stuck with the hopeless role of the foul-mouthed, sex-obsessed
best friend--but pulls it off; Brooks is good too in a limited role. BUT
I could see the "twist" ending coming long before it happened and logic totally
disappears at the end (especially the rescue). Still, this is a gory, sometimes
funny and sometimes scary horror movie. I give it a 7.
I saw this on Zone horror and fully expected it to be compete crap like most of the
films they play , however I was pleasantly surprised. The film revolves around 2
friends and a maniac in a monster truck who is chasing them (i know it sounds crap
but its actually quite good) , the film is creepy when it intends to be and is
laugh out loud funny in parts (and not in an unintentional way either, it is well
paced and is a lot of fun as well as being very gory , there's some very funny
black humour thrown in as well. Its not the most original movie but so what. If
your after Shakespeare then this is not it , if your after a fun movie then this
should be fine
While driving in a highway to the wedding of his beloved Betty-Ann, Adam (Eric
Jungmann) is surprised by his former schoolmate Harley (Justin Urich) on the
backseat of his car. Adam has broken off with the inconvenient and moron Harley
because of Betty-Ann. Along their road trip, Harley makes fun of some rednecks in a
bar and later their car is chased by a giant monster truck on the road. After some
incidents, they give a lift to the hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks) and sooner the
trio is terrorized by a scary monster driving the monster truck. In
spite of having one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a horror
movie, the irritating Harley, "Monster Man" is a surprisingly good trash horror-
comedy. The story is a collection of clichés, beginning like "Joy Ride" or "Duel";
then it turns to one of the countless rip-offs of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre";
there is a surprising twist, ending with a hook for a sequel. There are hilarious
scenes, Aimee Brooks is extremely sexy and this film really entertains. My vote is
seven. Title (Brazil): "Monster Man"
If you took a really good jack black movie, added a little jeepers creepers, and
then a dash of joyride with a hint of texas chainsaw massacre and house of a 1000
corpses...you would have MONSTER MAN! i went into this movie, not really expecting
much at all, but i wound up really enjoying the movie. the whole premise is really
cheesy, a monster man in a monster truck chases down people, but it is so funny
that the writer/director doesn't expect you to take it seriously. justin urich is a
comic gem and should have a very promising career. he is identical to jack black.
the only problem with the film is the unbelievable hero role played by eric
jungmann. but overall, if you are looking for a really really fun movie that will
crack you up until you are rolling in the aisles, and at the same time, scare the
crap out of you...check out this film.
Perhaps I was just in a really good mood when I watched this film. but, for
whatever reason, I really liked this film. Was it terribly original? No. Was it a
bit predictable? Yes. And so what? It was still a really nice movie. I've always
liked Bruce Willis (well, almost always, there was Hudson Hawk and The Fifth
Element, after all), and he portrayed a selfish, sarcastic b***ard perfectly. Maybe
this movie isn't Academy Award material, but it sure is feel good material. Go rent
it.
This was on Showtime the other night, and I figured it was going to be another
made-for-video crap fest, like "Earth vs. the Spider" or any of those other HBO
horror shorts. Instead, I found a comedy/gore classic. It was legitimately funny,
and surprisingly, the acting was quite good. Even my wife, an overall horror-hater,
agreed and was laughing at parts. In addition, the FX were high-quality. Overall, the film felt like a parody of Joy Ride/Jeepers Creepers, and the
2 main characters reminded me of the pair from Shaun of the Dead. Definitely worth
watching, but don't take it seriously. The End.
A beautiful woman, a backwoods, inbred monster man, a super sweet monster truck, a
road kill zombie brother and 2 friends...one anal retentive, overly sensitive nerd
and the other a foul mouthed, adolescent slob. Throw them all together with a dash
of Jeepers Creepers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Road Trip and you've got Monster
Man. A hilarious horror/comedy outing that never sets out to "say something". It's
a simple, straight forward laugh fest. Unpretentious and well made, this
horror/comedy is at its heart, a buddy flick. This film offered some hilarious and
sickening set pieces. I highly recommend this to fright fans looking to be
entertained.
Well, it has to be said that Monster Man is a huge mess of a film, but somehow
multiple different genres and a clichéd plot come together to make one of the most
enjoyable modern horror films I've seen in ages! The two biggest styles that the
film mixes are a 'Road Trip' style teenage comedy and a 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'
style redneck horror vibe, and while one gets in the way of the other quite often;
director Michael Davis manages to keep things moving thanks to the fact that the
constant shift in tone means that we're never quite sure where the film is going to
be taken next. Things start out worryingly as we're introduced to two characters,
both irritating in different ways. Adam is a wussy virgin, while Harley is a fat
big-mouthed "A-hole". They're both driving across the desert to attend the wedding
of some chick they both liked in high school. After a couple of strange events,
they pick up a hitch-hiker, and then find themselves being chased by some maniac in
a monster truck for reasons unknown... The idea of someone being chased
by someone else in a bigger vehicle is hardly original, but the way the monster
truck is used here is one of the film's biggest assets. The truck itself looks
spooky because it's so haggard and rusty, and the fact that it bounces around the
screen makes the unfolding action exciting and suspenseful. After a while, you
begin to get used to the characters and once Aimee Brooks enters the fray, things
start to look up. The teen comedy side of the movie actually works pretty well, as
Justin Ulrich is always on hand to deliver some entertaining lines of dialogue and
the scenes between the dorky virgin and the hot female hitch-hiker are interesting
enough. Just when you think the film couldn't possibly get any messier, things take
a turn for the weird in the final third. Without spoiling things, it has to be said
that Monster Man features the sort of ending that couldn't possibly be seen coming,
and along with the twist, is a big surprise. Some people may feel ripped off by the
sudden turn at the end - but I actually thought it worked quite well as it fits the
film in that nothing here really fits... Overall, this isn't a 'great' film by any
means - but if you're looking for some silly entertainment, Monster Man should hit
the spot!
Before watching this movie from beginning to end, I happened to just catch the last
half hour. Ordinarily I don't watch a movie if I haven't seen it from the
beginning, but a friend had it on and once I started watching it I couldn't
stop. I'm really surprised this movie didn't get a wide theatrical
release. This is quite a funny movie (often gallows humor) , and the monster and
monster truck in it are quite menacing. The monster makes Leatherface look pretty,
and the monster truck is a like a cross between a World War I German artillery
vehicle and a giant coffin. A timid twenty-five year-old virgin guy is
on a long drive to stop the woman he loves from getting married. His ex-best friend
tags along and rags on him constantly. They're menaced on the road by a vintage
black hearse and the aforementioned monster truck. They also pick up a hitchhiker,
played by the very sexy Aimee Brooks. I also watched the animated
trailer with the director's commentary, and the electronic press kit and I found
those both to be interesting. I would bet that the feature commentary with the
director and the two male stars is pretty enjoyable too, but I have so many other
movies to watch I've never seen before....
"Gaming? Nicotine? Fisticuffs? We're moving in a descending spiral of iniquity!" So
says the head of St. Swithen's upon inspecting the master's common at Nutbourne.
The faculty and students of St. Swithen's have been ordered to share facilities at
Nutbourne to avoid German bombs during World War II. Then there's the masters'
library. "The Diary of Samuel Pepys? Abridged...well, that's something to be
thankful for. What's up here? The Memoirs of Casanova? Wasn't that the book we
caught Jessica James reading in the closet? Decameron Nights! Well, really! What
ever else this place may or may not be, it's no place to bring carefully nurtured
girls!" Yes, a terrible mistake has been made by the Ministry of
Education. Nutbourne is a school for boys. St. Swithen's is a school for girls. And
what makes this one of the best post-WWII British comedies, Nutbourne's head master
is Wetherby Pond...played by Alastair Sim, while St. Swithen's head mistress is
Muriel Whitchurch...played by Margaret Rutherford. "St. Swithen's?"
says Pond. "You don't mean to say that yours is a school for boys and girls?" he
asks one of the early girls. "Only girls" she says cheerfully. "Does this mean,
sir," asks one of Nutbourne's teachers, "that we are to expect 100 young girls?"
"It means that not only have the ministry made a mistake in sending a school here
at all, but that it is guilty of an appalling sexual aberration!" Margaret Rutherford's Miss Whitchurch, as positive and immovable as a battleship,
intends to make the best of it, by briskly taking over Nutbourne if possible.
Alastair Sim's Pond is exasperated up to his big bald head and is determined to
salvage his school. In the meantime, there are 100 young girls and 170 young boys
to be fed and places found for them to sleep (along with all their teachers). The
cooks and caretakers, totally put upon, walk out. Miss Whitchurch and her girls,
however, are up to the cooking tasks. "Come now, Angela," she says to one girl who
is trying to stir something in a big pot, "haven't you made porridge before?" "Yes,
but no one ever had to eat it." "That's a defeatist attitude, my dear. Stir it well
and don't shilly shally." Things are hardly going well when Pond
discovers four governors from a school he hopes to lead are arriving at any moment
to see for themselves how well led Nutbourne is. And Miss Whitchurch learns that
four wealthy and influential parents have just arrived to see how their daughters
are doing in the new -- boy free, they were told -- facilities. The only solution?
Miss Whitchurch and Pond, their teachers and their students, concoct a split-second
shifting of classes to give the allusion that Nutbourne has no girls and that St.
Swithen's has no boys. After the parents inspect a dorm and leave for a class, the
girls in the beds duck under and the boys who'd been hidden under leap up into the
beds, just as the governors walk in. The boys are observed at rugby and, as soon as
the governors turn their backs, the goal posts are taken down, nets for lacrosse
are put up, and just then the parents walk over to observes the girls. One parent
spots her daughter in a science class, then moments later sees her in a choir
practice, then moments later.... "There's Angela again," she says to Miss
Whitchurch. "Why so it is," she replies, hustling the parents out to avoid the
governors who are approaching just around the corner. "The child's quite
ubiquitous." When we leave Nutbourne, everything has been discovered.
The students are milling about. The teachers are dazed (except for two who are
kissing.) The Education Ministry has just sent several more busloads of students.
The parents are speechless but the governors are not. "We're waiting for an
explanation," one says sharply. Pond holds his head and shudders. "Can't you see
I'm trying to think of one." The film moves from one complicated and
ridiculous situation after another, braced by a very funny script and two hugely
comedic performances by Rutherford and Sim. Sim's droll exasperation and
Rutherford's implacable determination are so well matched that's it's a shame this
is the only movie they ever made together. Joyce Grenfell, as Gossage, St.
Swithen's tall, awkward, loping sports teacher gives them some competition. If you
keep your eyes open, you'll also find some amusing references director Frank
Launder works in, including a gong at Nutbourne that looks just like a midget
version of J. Arthur Rank's, a faint echo of the zither theme from The Third Man
and a shot stolen from David Lean's Oliver Twist, except this time the little boy
walks up holding his porridge bowl and says, "Please, sir. I don't want anymore."
 Frank Launder and his partner, Sidney Gilliat, were responsible for
some of the best films produced in Britain during the Thirties, Forties and
Fifties. They wrote, produced and directed, sometimes doing one, sometimes the
other. In one way or another they were responsible for such first-rate films as
Green for Danger (with a masterly droll performance by Sim), I See a Dark Stranger,
The Lady Vanishes, Night Train to Munich, Wee Geordie, The Belles of St. Trinian's,
The Rake's Progress and many others. With The Happiest Days of Your Life, Launder
wrote and directed while both produced. It's one of their best.
This film is just plain lovely. It's funny as hell and as old as the hills. The
acting is superb and it's fascinating seeing post-war Britain and how we used to
behave in those days. This seems to have been some pre-runner to the St. Trinians
films (given the Alastair Sim and Margaret Rutherford connection - there's also a
very young George Cole in there who appeared in many St. Trinians films) but I
don't myself understand the connection. It was shown on BBC4 recently after a
biography of St. Trinians creator Ronald Searle, however I missed enough of the
biography to miss the connection with this film. Anyway a great film in its own
right and something that should be preserved for all time!
This film was made thirteen years before I was born but I still think it is the
wittiest, dottiest, most harmless piece of fun ever made. It simply could not go
wrong with the cast of superb British character actors it boasts. Where
to start? Alastair Sim-peerless; Margaret Rutherford-ditto;the wonderfully alkward,
innocent Gossage, played to perfection by the imperious Joyce Grenfell. The caddish
Victor Hyde-Brown (a Guy Middleton special) and the rest of the staff sum up post-
war middle-class England to a tee. The humour is sometimes obvious, but
it is of that special "Ealing" variety and is never offensive. I have
watched this film more times than I care to remember and still laugh like a drain
at the antics every time. The storming of the dorms occupied by the girls school,
the magnificently-planned but ultimately doomed twin tours of the school and the
chaotic ending involving the arrival of a third school to add to the anarchy, are
priceless. It's an old cliché I know, but they really do not make them
like that anymore. How I wish they did. If you haven't seen it, please do, you
won't be disappointed.
A bumbling error at the Ministry Of Education results in Nutbourne Boys School
having to share with St Swithin's School For Girls. This bemuses the respective
head teachers of each school and leads to all manner of chaotic goings on, however
the two are forced to come to an uneasy alliance in the hope of averting major
trouble. The Happiest Days Of Your Life is based on the John Dighton
play from 1948, with Dighton writing the part of Headmistress Whitchurch
specifically for Margaret Rutherford. Replacing George Howe from the play in the
role of Headmaster Pond, is Alastair Sim, and here in lies the crowning glory of
this filmic adaptation, Sim & Rutherford are perfectly wonderful, bouncing off each
other to keep what is basically a one joke movie, highly entertaining. Directed by
the gifted Frank Launder, and produced by the equally adroit Sidney Gilliat, The
Happiest Days Of Your Life is a quintessentially British movie, obviously a
precursor to the St Trinians franchise, the film entertains the children with it's
high jinks clash of the sexes heart, whilst tickling the watching adults with its
very saucy undercurrent. Thankfully the chaotic ending cements all that has gone
before it to leave this particular viewer with a grin as wide as Nutbourne Rail
Station, great fun 8/10.
After a long run in the West End this charming film re-cast Margaret Rutherford as
the Headmistress 'Miss Whitchurch' in this financially successful adaptation made
in 1950. All interior shots took place at Riverside studios in
Hammersmith, London. The exterior scenes were filmed on location at a public girl's
school near Liss in Hampshire. During the 12 - week shoot both Margaret Rutherford
and Joyce Grenfell were staying in a hotel nearby and would often visit the school
during the evenings where they would happily enjoy the company of the real school
mistresses. Although the film's script contains only two original lines
from the original play the leads and supporting actors are in fine form and you can
only feel sympathetic for their predicament especially in the final scenes.
The play is cleverly constructed - begin with the porter, Rainbow - & let the
audience see the background unfold through his eyes. The film follows the play with
great faithfulness, working, no doubt, on the simple premise that it couldn't be
bettered. Now throw in a host of superb character actors - & the result is a
resounding triumph.A definite must-see.
In this Dream-Come-True, I found myself loving what was going on. It's a good
movie, and should not be passed off as a corny fantasy movie. It's too smart for
that. It's definitely a feel good movie, but with a nice message to leave you with.
7/10, B, **1/2 out of ****
The Happiest Days of Your Life showcases some of Britain's greatest comedy talents
of its time in a traditionally farcical and upper-class-twit like fashion.
Generally it is a whistle-stop tour of stuffy English behaviour with the girls-only
school providing a great setting for the dotty goings-on. Margaret Rutherford,
Alastair Sim and - most especially! - Joyce Grenfell are all fantastic, giving us a
lot of laughs as they express their utter horror at what they are having to deal
with. As the film moves on, things get sillier and sillier with the tour around the
school for the parents being a suitably crackers high point. At this
point I will give special mention, again, to Joyce Grenfell and her wonderful
character Miss Gossage. She is so extraordinarily innocent, silly, apologetic and
ineffectual that she seems to steal the whole film. She provides the greatest laugh
of the film when she flirts with a male teacher ("Call me sausage!"). Whilst some of the film is slow or dated, and not always very involving, it still
maintains most of its sparkle and barely pauses for romance. Good for a silly,
harmless giggle. 7/10
This film, without doubt, is the clearest example of the British humour the Germans
can't understand. One-liners run rampant in a film spawning one of the greatest
series of films in British cinema history (St.Trinians). The story of bureaucratic
incompetence amid post-war trials enables Frank Launder to direct maximum talent
from all the cast. It's probably the only film in which Margaret Rutherford meets
her match, in Alastair Sim, for forceful characterisation (she still wins though).
Joyce Grenfell (bless her) and Richard Wattis both deserve mentions in Dighton's
masterpiece of English etiquette and stiff upper lip under pressure. No
Rutherford/Sim/Grenfell fan would be without this in their collection. Absolutely
brilliant. Why 9/10? Only 83mins long.
One of the flat-out drollest movies of all-time. Sim and Rutherford are at their
best matching wits over the predicament of an all-boys and all-girls school sharing
the same quarters. Slapstick has never been this sophisticated.
From the golden period of British films, this has my vote for one of the funniest
of all time. Screened yesterday at my Film Society to a rapturous audience, I was
astonished at how well the comedy has lasted (made in 1950!). It is really down to
the expert timing and inimitable playing from two of the finest actors Britain has
produced: Margaret Rutherford and Alastair Sim. Adapted from a play by John
Dighton, this farce is briskly handled by director Frank Launder. The plot is
simple: A ministry mistake billets a girls' school on a boys' school. I will always
laugh when I think of this film.
I can't remember exactly where i heard of them first, but i listen to a little of
one song and liked it. Went and bought the cd and had finally found the type of
music i like. I heard about this video and knew i had to have it. It has a lot of
clips from them playing in concert. Let me tell you, watching this video doesn't
even compare to them in concert. I've seen them twice in concert and don't want to
ever miss a chance to see them again. The other two things it has is some
interview, and even a video for one of their biggest songs. couple little side
notes...i saw them at ozzfest 2001 and they ruled there, but seeing them in a
smaller inside stage was much better (they had some really cool things to do with
being able to cut out the lights) the other, in case anyone wonders, votary means a
devout follower.
Slipknot is a heavy metal band from the great city of Des Moines, Iowa in which the
rockers wear their own distinguished mask (I know someone already said this, but I
need to fill up space for this review). The band members are Joey, Mick, 133, Sid,
Clown, James, Corey, Chris, and Paul. This band is one of the best new heavy metal
bands in my opinion and should be heard by everyone that loves hardcore rock.
Another good movie is called "DISASTERPIECES" which shows the band's performance at
the London Arena. The "My Plague" video was shot there and is included on the DVD.
The most kick ass song they made is also on there (Sic). So if you love the band
you need to see this and if you love heavy metal music then you have to hear this
band.
I did it too. When i first saw the band, i dismissed them straight away without
even listening to the music. Then one day, out of sheer curiosity, i bought the cd
and fell in love with it. So i bought the video. hold onto your lunch kids, this
isnt going to be pretty! the video was excellent - a great opportunity to hear the
music, see some of the promo videos, and meet the band...although i *still* dont
know how they can cope with wearing those masks all the time! a must for all fans
of the band, and fans of alternative music in general
This DVD usually sells for around $20. I wouldn't pay this much for the DVD if I
had known what I was getting, but regardless this is a pretty good disc. It
displays the Knot in all their glory, with footage from their concerts... playing
Surfacing, Wait and Bleed and Scissors among other tracks, including the "Spit it
Out" music video, which was apparently banned from MTV. Slipknot, for
those who don't know, is essentially a symphony of the damned: nine masked men who
display total chaos on stage, with machine gun drums, squealing guitar and vocals
that will tear your face off and leave you wanting more. For those who've never
seen Slipknot before, I cannot recommend enough you get this DVD... probably off
eBay or Amazon so you can get a better deal. A short, though well made
show of the Knot. Seven out of ten.
Slipknot is a hardcore rock band from Des Moines, Iowa. Nine band members who all
wear customized boilersuits, and personalized, homemade masks (eg. #6's clown mask,
#0's various gasmasks, #8's tattered + torn crashtest dummie mask with dreadlocks).
The music itself seems to walk the finelines between sane and otherwise, yet is
performed so brilliantly and psychotic. "Welcome To Our Neighborhood"
sounds rather a generic title, but the footage itself is something else. Interviews
with the band, soundbites from their latest, selftitled album, 2 live performances,
and one banned-by-MTV music video (a brilliant homage to the classic Kubrick film
"The Shining"), the movie clocks in at not even half-an-hour, but is certainly
worth it. It is perfect for introducing any metal/hardcore fan to Slipknot.
This is one of the most enjoyable teen movies I have ever seen (and that I wished
was released to video). It was released the same year as another great comedy in
which Tim Matheson played a role "Animal House" (Which is probably why it was
overlooked). One of the most memorable parts of this film would
definitely be the soundtrack, which could have and should have been a formal label
release. The soundtrack features a lesser-known 70's act named High Inergy whose
song "We are the future", played a marquee role in the movie's Prom scene. I
remember purchasing the group's album "Steppin' Out" as a kid mainly because of the
look of the girls and not necessarily for their musical talents. The
closing song is one of the best ballads I have ever heard, and I can still hear it
in my head. I wish I knew the group's name so that I could look for it somewhere in
cyberspace. If you liked films such as "Over the edge" and "Rich Kids",
I think this is one that you will enjoy as well.
At last, a great film that doesn't have to be edited for profanity or sex! It's a
fun film that the whole family can enjoy. Willis is great, as always. "Rusty" was
delightful. Just enough action to keep interest going.
I remember seeing this film in the theater in 1984 when I was 6 years-old (you do
the math). I absolutely loved it. I was Tarzan for the 2 weeks after seeing it
(climbing the furniture, jumping around making monkey sounds). It started a
fascination with Tarzan and monkeys, but oddly enough a longer lasting love for
Christopher Lambert (keep in mind that I saw Highlander very shortly after this).
1984 was the last time I saw that film, until about a month ago. It happened to be
on cable as I was getting ready for bed at 3:30 am and even though it was late and
I was tired and I had to be at work at 9:00 am, I stayed up to watch this movie
that I loved as a kid. Upon viewing it I realized that it was not that
great of a film and even odder then that, that Andie MacDowell's voice was dubbed
by someone else. Ian Holme was of course solid as usual, and surprisingly the
monkey suits still kind of held up, but what was most surprising was how good
Lambert was as Tarzan. He was great! The depth he managed to capture in so few
lines, his primal body language and most importantly his ability to bring this
character through its extremely large ark, were just amazing. As I
stated earlier I am Lambert fan, but I'm used to Highlander, The Hunted and
Fortress. In this film he was really quite good and it is a shame that he never got
a chance to portray a character with such depth again. So to make a
short story way too long, I was a little disappointed that the film was not that
good, but I was glad to see that Lambert was good and I do not regret staying up
until 6:00am to see it.
How his charter evolved as both man and ape was outstanding. Not to mention the
scenery of the film. Christopher lambert was astonishing as lord of Greystoke.
Christopher is the soul to this masterpiece. I became so enthrawled with his
performance i could feel my heart pounding. The entireity of the movie still moves
me to this day. His portrayal of John was Oscar worthy; as he should have been
nominated for it.
Although films about Edgar Rice Burroughs famous Rousseauian hero Tarzan have been
seen by movie goers for almost a century now, this is the definitive version of the
story. Greystoke is the actual story of the origins of Tarzan as set down by Edgar
Rice Burroughs way back in the second decade of the last century. I've been assured
by experts. Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes are probably the most filmed
fictional heroes in history. I've no basis in fact for saying that, just a gut
feeling. The most popular Holmes was Basil Rathbone, the most popular Tarzan was
Johnny Weissmuller. And films that they made with both those characters will be
criticized no end by purists. But Greystoke is the real deal, a faithful
adaption of Burroughs first story concerning the origin of his hero. I can't think
of another film which shows that Tarzan learned French before English, but that is
shown here and it's only natural since it was a French survivor of a massacred
safari played by Ian Holm who discovers Tarzan who has been raised by the apes
since his parents who were shipwrecked on the African coast died there after his
mother gave birth. His parents were in fact the son and daughter-in-law
of the Earl of Greystoke and the surviving Earl, played by Ralph Richardson is of
course overjoyed to learn he has a grandson. Of course there are others who don't
welcome the new heir back in society. One who doesn't is Andie McDowell
playing of course Jane. She does not communicate with Tarzan in answer to his
grunts and monosyllabic commands. Tarzan speaks a concise English, French, and
understands the language of the apes as well. As for the language of love, Tarzan
and Jane need no lessons. Greystoke earned three Oscar nominations for
best makeup in regard to the apes, best adapted screenplay and a posthumous
nomination for Ralph Richardson for Best Supporting Actor. It should also have
rated a nomination for cinematography of the jungle scenes in Cameroun and the
scenes of the British Aristocracy in several landmark places like Hatfield House
and Blenheim Palace. For Burroughs purists, Greystoke is the real deal.
I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo
Derek, which is totally deplorable. I have seen this version several
times since it was originally shown. All the cast had memorable parts,
great acting the Ape sequences. Last night I viewed same on Spanish
station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish. As far as
Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the
dailies and could have hired a dialog coach. It seems silly that a story
about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked
Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last
time I checked Carolina was in the USA. She was beautiful in movie and
her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not
have to resort to Bo's level. She has remained a LADY throughout the
rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting
point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a
half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty. Great sending point for
Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie.
I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo
Derek, which is totally deplorable. I have seen this version several
times since it was originally shown. All the cast had memorable parts,
great acting the Ape sequences. Last night I viewed same on Spanish
station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish. As far as
Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the
dailies and could have hired a dialog coach. It seems silly that a story
about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked
Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last
time I checked Carolina was in the USA. She was beautiful in movie and
her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not
have to resort to Bo's level. She has remained a LADY throughout the
rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting
point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a
half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty. Great sending point for
Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie.
Watch it with an open mind, it is very different, nothing's cutesy about this. Very
well done realistic tale of Tarzan. The animatronics chimpazees are well done for
'84, Christopher Lambert was brilliant imitating chimpazee language and behavior. I
wouldn't be surprised if he took lessons from Jane Goodall.
While it comes no closer to the Tarzan of Edgar Rice Burroughs than, say, the
Johnny Wiesmuller flicks did it does have it's own peculiar, and entertaining,
slant on the story. Its a well done Tarzan movie. Nice scenery, good photography,
workable continuity, and a Tarzan yell that echos the one described by Burroughs.
The players all perform well. The only bad points I found were, I think, related.
It moves slow in places. That slow movement? Makes this picture to long. It could
easily have been 15 to 20 minutes shorter, which I think would have helped with the
natural flow of the plot line and the character development. But the rest of the
film works well enough to carry it over these two rough spots and still leave the
viewer satisfied with the flick. Short version of all the above ... Its a very GOOD
Tarzan movie.
I thought this was a very daring representation of the old hokey 'Tarzan' concept
made so popular by Hollywood, Weismuller, et al. Yes; there is a lot of
silly stuff. But then, the idea is silly. It is almost unbelievable that a human
baby could be sired to adulthood by chimpanzees. I am tempted to say completely
unbelievable, but that the concept has never been tried. And there is certainly a
bit too much anthropomorphism for comfort. Though under the circumstances I can see
how that would be very difficult to avoid. We also now have a much greater insight
into the issues of acculturation, and know that a human raised from infancy without
human behavioural prompts would ultimately never learn them in adulthood. Still, if you can get your head around that lot, there's a great deal to
admire that is both imaginative and daring. Lambert does the beast thing with
tremendous aplomb. I am tempted to say that it is the most convincing and
sympathetic role I have seen him play. There are plenty of other excellent
performances too. Not least of which are Sir Ralph Richardson and Ian Holm. What is particularly disturbing - and rightly so - is the simian perception
of humans. We get to see ourselves almost from the point of view of the poor, dumb,
helpless brutes over whom we so routinely lord it. And it demonstrates well how the
phony 'civilisation' and 'morality' with which we cloak and justify our conduct, is
no more than an expression of own selfishness and arrogance. It may seem a little
overstated at times, especially in the hideous museum dissection rooms, but what we
see isn't just a truth about the Victorians; its a truth about the way we are
today. It's one that needs to be stated, and cannot be stated often enough. Holm's
character's obsession with the 'ray-zor' as a symptom of civilisation - as if to
possess facial hair were a primitive condition to be scorned - is an excellent case
in point. Primitive bearded readers take note. The story is depressing.
Ultimately it's a tragedy. Because even though he returns to the jungle and the
freedom from moral tyranny that is truly human 'civilisation'; we know he's doomed.
Before the third millennium is 50 years old, wild simians will be hunted into
extinction as bush meat, and their environment developed for agriculture and
mineral exploitation to gratify insatiable human excess. In the end,
it's a tale about ourselves. The path to extinction that other simians tread, must
eventually be followed by humans. Highly recommended for its ethical
take, despite the hokey moments.
Before I review this film, I must make a confession that is rather a bold statement
to make as a film reviewer. Anyone who has already read any of my previous reviews
may know that I've always been controversial in a low-key sense, giving high marks
for flops such as "Captain America" and 1985's "Creature" and panning such film
classics as Alistar Sim's "A Christmas Carol" and "Shakespeare in Love." With that
in mind, this confession might not come as a surprise: The simple fact
is, Christopher Lambert is probably one of my favorite actors. Woah, now, don't
start getting crazy on me just yet. Let me explain myself: I by no means think he's
the greatest actor in the world. I clearly confess that he is not. He is certainly
no Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins, but I would say that his acting ability is
probably somewhere up there with at least Bruce Willis. What I admire about him,
however, are the human qualities that he brings into his action heroes. He is just
an average guy who laughs and cries and bleeds, who is a hero because he has to be,
not necessarily because he wants to be. It takes a lot, in my opinion, to be able
to bring out those qualities in a character (especially in the movies he's worked
in), and Lambert's heroes are a far cry from Schwartzennegger's or Stallone's.
Quite frankly, Lambert's characters are easier for me to relate to. Hence, he's not
the greatest actor in the world....He's just a personal favorite. I
can't say that same, however, for his films. However much I appretiate his acting,
it would be foolish not to confess that his choice of films leave something to be
desired. Most of them are, quite frankly, terrible, and any ridicule that he's
gotten over the years from me isn't due to his acting, but rather his bad choice in
scripts. With that in mind, I can say that his debut film, "Tarzan," is
one of his best films and probably his greatest performance. As I mentioned, it is
effective becasue of the humaness he brings to the role, and for how seriously the
director, writers and actors handle the material. This is a far leap from the B-
movie action adventures with Johnny Weismeller from the 1940's. In fact, I would
hesitate to call it an action movie. Instead, it is a serious drama that takes all
of E.R. Burrough's material seriously, showing Tarzan's quest to discover his real
family in Scotland after realizing that he doesn't fit in as a "white ape." He is
torn in between his old family and his new one, which includes a wonderful Sir
Ralph Richardson in his final role. In an attempt to adapt to humans, his ape
instincts also kick in, and he can't decide what he loves more: His real family, or
the one that he's always known. All in all, it is a wonderful commentary on
society, and a wonderful character study. If nothing else, it launched
Lambert into international stardom, which continued will into the 1980's with films
like "Highlander" and "he Sicilian." Unfortunately, it didn't last. But just wait a
while....His latest career moves such as "Gideon" and "Resurrection" have proven
that though he still have a long way to go, he's a competent enough actor to be
able to perhaps make a... ahem.... comeback if he'll just pick his roles better. For now, however, here's the verdict on his first film: *** out
of ****
The greatest Tarzan ever made! This movie is done in a way that no other Tarzan
ever has come close in doing. It has every thing in it that you would want in a
Tarzan movie. No other Tarzan movie ever has or ever will portray the character
this well. I would say that if you have seen a Tarzan movie and liked it you should
see this one you will love it, and if you have never seen Tarzan you should see
this one and forget the rest of them.
I waited long to watch this movie. Also because I like Bruce Willis. The plot was
quite different from what I had expected but still quite good. Its a good mix of
emotions, humor and drama. Left me thinking over and again :)
I must confess that I don't remember this film very well. But, certainly I liked
it. I think it was the best adaptation from Burroughs novel, really. And of course
it's one of the best movie from Christopher Lambert. A good movie about
Tarzan, as cult as the ones with Weissmuller.
Don't let the wildly varying reviews of the movie deter you. You'll love it or hate
it according to your own tastes. However, if for no other reason, see "Greystoke"
to experience the excitement of a great actor grabbing your heart as he breathes
life into his role. Ralph Richardson was not a great actor for how perfectly he
could handle Shakespeare; rather, he is to be remembered for his sensitive
treatment of every character he portrayed. He was never indifferent to his
responsibility as an actor. His reading of the part of the Sixth Lord of Greystoke,
his last performance, is to be cherished by all who love the theatre.
Where this movie is faithful to Burroughs' vision, it is excellent; where it
departs from Burroughs, it is superb. It is a tale of family, of the seeking of a
father by a real and emotional orphan. Lambert's speaking of one of the most
anguished lines in all of cinema "He was my Father!" is enough to bring tears to
the eyes of the most cynical critic. Not a perfect motion picture - the notorious
over-dubbing of McDowell's voice by Glenn Close is unconscionable and only
explicable in terms of a very British error - but a fine if flawed masterpiece and
a noble farewell to Sir Ralph Richardson.
There is absolutely no doubt that this version of Tarzan is the closest to
Burroughs' vision. While he gladly collected his royalties from the films produced
during his lifetime, he frequently made it clear that they were little more than
the bastard children of his tales. The film studios' ludicrous obsession with
casting Olympic swimmers as Tarzan was beyond laughable. I guess we should consider
ourselves lucky that they did not set their sights on shot-putters. Prior to this film, the most faithful adaptations were in comic strips and comic
books. As fine as some of these were, we had to wait seven decades for a filmmaker
with the integrity to respect the character as he had been created.
This is both an entertaining and a touching version of the classic tale, also quite
intelligent, not of the 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' school at all. It's the
famous story of a child reared to manhood in the jungle by apes. A titled British
couple (the wife pregnant) is stranded in the African wilds after a shipwreck.
After the parents' deaths, the baby is raised in the jungle by apes. Twenty years
later, this young man (i.e. Tarzan) rescues a wounded Belgian explorer, nursing him
back to health. The Belgian discovers evidence that his rescuer is the young Lord
Greystoke and returns him to his rightful estate in Scotland, where he must adjust
to civilized society. The movie is sort of divided into two parts. In
the first half, we see Tarzan in his jungle environment. Not being an expert, I am
unaware as to the realism of its depiction of ape community life, but it is
certainly entertaining. For me, the more moving section is the second half, when
Tarzan must meet his real family, develop language skills, and adjust to
aristocratic British society, all the while wooing Jane (Andie MacDowell). He is
portrayed as a 'noble savage', whether in the wild or in elegant Edwardian parlors.
By contrast, the upper crust is depicted as often far more barbaric than the jungle
Tarzan left. Christopher Lambert is fantastic in his sympathetic
portrayal of Tarzan in both the jungle and civilized environments. He conveys a
real sense of his confusion and conflict, torn as he is between the two very
different worlds, his original ape family and his new human one. Sir Ralph
Richardson, one of the old British legends, is brilliant as always in the role of
Tarzan's grandfather, the Sixth Earl of Greystoke. The film focuses
more on Tarzan's struggles in adapting to civilization and his inner conflict than
on his jungle exploits. This unusual take on the old classic makes it both the
typical dramatic adventure but also, above all, a moving personal story. I wasn't
surprised to note here that its director is the same individual, Hugh Hudson, who
also directed Chariots of Fire, another brilliant movie.
..especially by Lambert. This is the essential Burrough's Tarzan that I grew up
reading when I was a kid. I have read a few negative reviews on this film and
couldn't help but wonder what their issue was. They obviously didn't see the movie
I did or they were expecting something that was more akin to the Saturday afternoon
serials. This was the Tarzan that was of the novel and the film makers
should be applauded for tackling the source material and taking it seriously.
Lambert was excellent. I still think he is one of Hollywood's most under-rated
actors. This was a movie that he shines in. The photography and the
apes, done by Rick Baker both were amazing. You definitely felt the since of the
jungle. The 2nd half, Tarzan's attempt at being civilized really pulls you into the
emotional conflict he had was forced to resolve. I highly recommend this
film
I don't understand why it is so underrated on IMDb.. This movie is just the
perfection.. The better adaptation of all times of the myth of Tarzan! As a french,
I can say that this is the better role of Christophe Lambert, ridiculous in a lots
of movies, but here absolutely wonderful, charismatic, incredible! The plot is
great, well told, the story magnificent, the direction, the atmosphere, the music,
every things are perfect! How believe these sequences with the Elgar music, just
simply perfect.. Greystoke is truly an unbelievable movie, underrated
here, I don't really know why, but really appreciated
Beautifully filmed, acclaimed director Hugh Hudson (Chariots of Fire) creates a
story that brings the entire legend of John Clayton, Lord Greystoke and Tarzan of
the apes to life with reverence and dignity, and with a scope not heretofore seen
in Tarzan films. Christopher Lambert makes his starring debut as the young Lord,
raised in the wild by a female gorilla after his parents die in Africa. Later
returned to what is to him an alien world, that of class and privilege, he feels
totally out of place. Once he learns what has happened to the apes that raised him
and their world he realizes that he must go back. A sad but triumphant story told
against a background of fantastic vistas. This is one of those films that is a must
for every Cinemaphile's collection.
Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is based on the classic book
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs and is a more faithful adaptation to the
classic book, the film has some great scenery like the Jungles of South Africa to
the Greystoke mansion, the acting is also great. Chirstopher Lambert did a great
performance as Tarzan, it was also his first English speaking role. The film has
some funny moments, sad moments and touching moments that makes this a real
classic. The film sees a boat crashing in the Jungles of South Africa
and some time later they have a son named John, the Apes go into the hut and one of
them kills the Father. The Apes then take him to where they live and adopt him as
one of their own, as the years go by John grows up and learns to be more like the
Apes. In his teens his Foster Mom gets attacked by Native Hunters and soon killed
by them, years later a group of people are going to Africa on a expedition. After
setting up camp they're soon attacked by the Natives, most escape but Capitaine
Phillippe D'Arnot is left behind injured by some of the arrows. After hiding he
meets John now an adult who takes him to his home and takes care of his wounds,
after a while Phillippe starts to teach John how to speak English and teach him
that he's not one of the Apes but a person. When Phillippe goes to leave John goes
with him, after sometime they arrive at Greystoke manor where the Sixth Earl of
Greystoke is shown his long lost Grandson, John is shown his bedroom and picture of
his true Mom and Dad. John also meets Jane Porter and slowly as they get to know
each other he begins to have feelings for her, when it's Christmas the Sixth Earl
of Greystoke slides down the stairs killing himself. John then starts to miss the
Jungle and wants to return but Phillipe tells him to stay since everything they had
done would be for nothing. John is then torn between his life as a Greystoke and
the Lord of the Apes. Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes
is a great classic that should be seen. 10/10
I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until
the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and
made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker
to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't
understand by "studying" it literally to death without considering the rights and
comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but
in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend
this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of
showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific
world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a
young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of
his parents in the African jungle. Christopher Lambert was wonderful and
very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film
role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell
was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized "Jane" in her first
movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I
cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad
movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded
Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his
previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always. I
am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world
at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his
gentle and loving ape "relatives" who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and
living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first.
I really enjoyed this movie. Yes there was disrespect throughout the movie, but
Bruce Willis learned, from The Kid, that there is more value in repecting others,
and his life of disrespect needs to change. This movie was a refreshing change from
the trash that Hollywood is trying to shove down our throats. There are some very
good lessons to be learned in this movie. I really believe this was one of Disneys
best, even though a couple of things could have been left out. I was impressed with
the lack of swearing and lack of sexual inuendos. It isn't perfect, but much better
than most everything else out there.
This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that
came out during my childhood in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch
now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had
been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising
striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the
protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the
world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was
intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid
representation of events with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction
than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero!
Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom as did another debutante, Andie
McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course) with the title role,
which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph
Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every
scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious
affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an
effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable
interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save
his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at
(with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an
appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker)
and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable
value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day.
If you are looking for a modern film version of Buster Crabbe or Johnny
Weismuller's overcoming the machinations of unscrupulous, white safari guides or
cunning, black tribesmen, while saving the animal kingdom, this is NOT the movie
for you. This is a recounting of the Tarzan "legend" from its beginning in
intelligent, adult terms. It is beautifully filmed and faithful to the Edgar Rice
Burroughs stories. Tarzan is no action hero, but a man torn between two
worlds - the natural and the civilized. In a stunning performance, Christopher
Lambert portrays this angst with absolute realism. If he slips up just once the cat
will be out of the bag: the audience (especially the adult audience targeted by the
film) will laugh, and the film will completely lose its grip. It will plummet into
the cheesy depths. But Lambert never lets that happen. (Forget what you may think
of him in other movies; when I saw this film at the theater on its original
release, I thought he deserved an academy award.) The supporting cast is
uniformly excellent, as other commentators have noted. I disagree with most of them
in that I didn't find anything wrong with Andie McDowell's performance. I wouldn't
have nominated her for an academy award - the role is undemanding - but she is
completely up to it, such as it is. I don't know why her voice was overdubbed,
either. The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is
absolutely beautiful. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and the
exotic expectation it holds in the collective imagination of those who have never
been there. The scenery is lush and exotic, and the colors are vivid. But this is also a "period" film, and the cinematography also magnificently
depicts Victorian England - the countryside, the city and the interiors. The
costumes are outstanding. The soundtrack is beautiful without being overwhelming or
obtrusive. There are some disturbing scenes - especially for animal
lovers - but no more disturbing than a few scenes in Dances with Wolves. This is an
excellent film about the conflict between civilization and nature, personified in
the young Lord Greystoke, convincingly portrayed by Christopher Lambert.
Greystoke is without doubt the best tarzan movie I have ever seen. Christopher
Lambert portrays a very believable man trying to return to the world of mankind
alongside the fantastic Ian Holm. The struggle of John to leave the jungle and the
apes who raised him is quite stirring. Some very memorable scenes including where
Lambert makes the jungle noises to the romantic interest, and the scene where he
witnesses his ape father's death. Tarzans feelings for both worlds is well
developed and really makes you feel for him. An excellent and underrated
movie.
SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for
the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the
forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema
characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious
version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth
Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you
usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not
only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we
are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made
in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the
first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive
friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real
origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian
Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could
make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed,
Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the
English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever
laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned
well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the
jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this
homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to
disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role.
Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll
play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a
clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural
sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie.
It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated
barely (6/10)?
After I first saw this, I thought, "Wow, this is the most spectacular movie,
visually-speaking, I've ever seen." Since that time, I've seen some that topped it
but it still ranks as one of the best in that department. I'm just disgusted the
long-awaited DVD was so poorly done, the quality of this transfer hardly better
than the VHS tape. The jungle scenes are filmed in Cameroon, and "lush"
is the best adjective to describe what you see. Except for jungle sounds, "seeing"
is certainly almost everything in the beginning as there is almost no "hearing," no
dialog until Tarzan (Christopher Lambert) befriends Ian Holm and vice-versa....so
be ready for that, if you haven't watched this film. Story-wise, all
I'll say is this is not the Tarzan many of us came to know in Johnny Weismuller
films.....but that's not a complaint. For those craving action, and don't care
about cinematography as I do, you just have to get past that silent introduction
period In this Tarzan version, our hero goes back to Scotland (his
roots), adapts to that environment (for the most part....and a little too quickly
for credibility, frankly) and then returns to the jungle without Jane. This is
supposedly more true to the Tarzan books, written by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The special effects in here were done by Rick Baker, one of the best in the
business. Sharp DVD or not, this is still a stunning film to view and very
interesting throughout its 2 hours and 15 minutes.
Ruthless mercenary Bruno Rivera (Paul Naschy in peak nasty form) betrays his
pregnant partner/girlfriend Meiko (well played by Eiko Nagashima) in order to have
exclusive dibs on a fortune in stolen diamonds. But Meiko manages to seriously
wound Bruno before he gets away. Bruno winds up in the swanky chalet of kindly rich
doctor Don Simon (a fine performance by Lautaro Murua). He also attracts the
attention of Simon's two hottie daughters: the fiery Monica (luscious Silvia
Aguiler) and the sweet Alicia (nicely essayed by the lovely Azucena Hernandez).
However, Bruno soon realizes that something is very amiss about the isolated place
and plans to escape as soon as he can. Meanwhile, the bitter Meiko tries to find
Bruno so she can exact her revenge on him. Naschy, who wrote and directed as well
as stars, concocts one of his strangest, most twisted and perverse horror vehicles
ever with this little seen oddity. The offbeat plot and mysterious atmosphere
become more weird and unnerving as the story unfolds, eventually leading to a
genuinely startling surprise downbeat ending. This film further benefits from
occasional moments of graphic gore (watch out for the memorable sequence with one
poor guy being devoured alive by vicious flesh-eating pigs!), Alejandro Ulloa's
slick cinematography, and a decent sprinkling of nudity and soft-core sex. Good
supporting turns by Roxana Dupre as sassy maid Raquel, Pepe Ruiz as amorous playboy
Don Serafin, and Julia Saly as the deranged Teresa. A pleasingly grim and
worthwhile shocker.
Pretty good movie about a man and his wife who get caught up in murder and the
police officer investigating the case. It starts off marvelously, but kind of hits
a wall at a certain point. We're sure we know what happened, then a tiny plot
thread that seems at first like a red herring pops back up and disappoints. Still,
Clouzot's direction is great, and the acting is quite good. Louis Jouvet, who also
co-starred in Marcel Carné's Drôle de Drame, gives the best performance as the
clever detective. I wonder if the Coen brothers were influenced by this film when
they wrote Fargo. Much like that film, the police officer doesn't appear until
nearly halfway through, and then he becomes almost the focus of the film. There's
also a lot of droll comedy surrounding him (although sometimes his methods seem
sort of fascist).
Should we take the opening shot as a strange frame??? I guess we have to. Anyway
two women are behind a closing umbrella, they walk upstairs to the talent agency
and we go with them...and then they are never to be seen again. Okay, how come not
INSIDE the place, at the piano, or even outside with the SOUND of the piano, then
track inside and over, a la Hitchcock??? So I guess Clouzot is already telling us
in a not very subliminal manner that we are following a segment of postwar society:
especially how he then uses a Citizen Kane=like song cut up into about five pieces
to show the lady singing traveling from the talent agency all the way to her first
roses and applause of her Vaudeville debut. After that we are relentless
observers of more or less small disgusting details of a defeated country getting
off its war torn tattered knees. And nobody ever handled small disgust better than
Clouzot. In fact, too bad he never tried Sartre's Nausea. Almost everything we see
after the first few minutes makes us ever so slightly queasy. ....okay, okay I'm
grossly overstating that, let's just settle for a general feel of a lot of the
film. Look carefully, in fact, and you will even see one of the cops picking his
nose. And in how many films has anyone ever done that. Then there is a very loud
nose blowing bit in front of the photographer lesbian by the main cop, and notice
that she does not, literally, blink an eye or raise an eyebrow. The
point of all this is an almost feverish immersion in contiguity, seemingly, until
you can smell practically every scene as well as see and feel it. As
for the other aspects of the movie, others here have covered them in a lot more
detail than I. But forget about the mystery here: this is the ultimate McGuffin.
Clouzot is about as interested in the real killer as those two women coming in out
of the rain in the first few seconds of the film and are never seen again. From
beginning to end all he wanted to do was follow a bunch of people around, not even
particularly interesting ones at that, and say, here look at this woman's twitch,
that man's hitching of his pants in all their insignificance, years and years
before Tina Turner was singing we don't need another hero. \ Even the
forced levity of the ending is bleakly done in a dilapidated part of Paris, and
rather chilly bare walled apartment. With only the couples love for each other to
see them through, as if to say there must be two or three million like you
throughout the city, working your fingers off by the day for a little love at
night. From this it was just a short step to Wages of Fear and the
ultimate in despair. They don't even know how to make films like this
anymore in the U.S. For that matter, they didn't even know how to very much in
France then, much less now. The relentless detail of gesture makes even the
neorealists of Italy look like bad psychologists. Which I guess makes Clouzot a
kind of Rosselini on speed. Very enjoyable nonsense, this movie. The
only flaw, seems to me, and as was pointed out by another viewer, the lead woman is
somehow not quite right. Everybody else in the film is just about perfectly cast.
What do you get when you have a tenacious, seasoned French police inspector by the
name of Maurice Martineau is called to solve a murder case? Well, simply a very
entertaining, fun film. The re-mastered black-and-white film "Quai des Orfevres"
delivers the goods despite romance, jealousy and marriage that seem to just get in
the way towards the truth of 'who done it?' Inch by inch, technique by
technique as seasoned by experience and intuition, the patience of this master
Inspector etches into the truth -- but of course, with the help of a bag full of
dirty police interrogation tricks. Martineau is the centerpiece of this
film. The use by director Henri-Georges Clouzot of raucous background music to
intensify the drama in grand film noir style is a wonderful wrapper around the
visual experience. Martineau eventually solves the mystery and arrests
the culprit. Hey, he is good!! But alas, Martineau, too, can keep a dark secret in
his past. Who is that boy that is perhaps not his son? Some things can
never get solved -- even beyond the closing credits.
Great artists, always suffered while they were young. I could mention Mozart and
Beethoven, but that is not the point. This movie was made by H-G
Clouzot whose family wanted him to succeed in the Law professions. Its
main star is Louis Jouvet who studied and practiced as as pharmacist before
becoming "The Greatest Actor" and also director of France's Theater before and
after WWII. They both had health problems. Clouzot had TB while young,
Jouvet had cardiac problems and died on a theater.. Such events shape
the character of men (and women, of course). One might even say that today's
Artists are so poor, because they had never suffered and fought for their lives. To me, this is the greatest of Clouzot's movies. "Wages of Fear" is greater
in "suspense", "Diabolique" also has more "suspense" and a better plot and is more
about "female evil". Quai des Orfèvres is more human. Clouzot was
falsely accused by De Gaulle's entourage (mostly communists and Jews) of
collaboration with the Nazis and banned from making films until until De Gaulle
left France's Government in early 1946. De Gaulle came back in 1958, as
President. The main characters are all good souls: Jenny L'Amour may
perform as a "putain" on stage, but she is not a "whore" (dictionaires make
synonyms of those words, but they are not the same), loves her husband, and refuses
the slight "advances from her (presumably Lesbian) friend Dora, the
photographer. Maurice the husband is jealous and timid, but runs away
from the scene of the crime. He is a coward because he fell in love with a woman
and traded an eventually more upscale career for love.. Antoine, the
detective (interpreted by the great Louis Jouvet, basically a stage actor, performs
in this French "Gray" not Noir, as well as E.G. Robinson in "Double Indemnity")
shows flair for pseudo criminals, tenderness for a Negro son(?), and compassion for
the true author of the crime, because he remembers that is father cleaned the
latrines at some nobleman's château!! Clouzot was capable of slapping an
actor's face in order to put him in the right frame of mind, but deep inside he was
very human. I have his horoscope in front of me. He had Venus in
Sagittarius which means open-heartedness, devotion, charity and altruism. For those
who do not believe in Astrology, my most sincere apologies...
This is one of Bruce's most underrated films in my opinion, its an awesome
heartwarming film, with a neat story and an amazing performance from Bruce Willis!.
All the characters are great, and I thought Willis and Spencer Breslin were just
awesome together, plus Bruce Willis is simply amazing in this!. This is definitely
one of Bruce's best comedic performances (The waaaaaaaaaamabulance thing was great)
and I thought it was very well written and made as well, plus The finale is
especially cool!. It's good natured and it was cool how you can see Russell's
(Willis) character change throughout the film! plus the ending was pretty good. I
think this should be higher then 6.0 and it's one of the best Disney films I have
ever seen! plus it has many surprising moments throughout. All the characters are
extremely likable, and it also has a cute love story angle too it as well, plus
Bruce and Spencer Breslin both had some really funny lines (Holy Smokes!). This is
one of Bruce's most underrated films in my opinion, its an awesome heartwarming
film, with a neat story and an an amazing performance from Bruce Willis and I say
its a must see!. The Direction is great!. Jon Turteltaub does a great job here with
really good camera work, and just keeping the film at a very fast pace. The Acting
is excellent!. Bruce Willis is amazing as always and is amazing here, he gives one
of his best comedic performances, is hilarious had wonderful chemistry with both
Spencer Breslin and Emily Mortimer, had some funny lines, and was dead on
throughout the movie, he was one of the main reasons I liked this movie so much!
(Willis Rules!!!!!!!). Spencer Breslin is fantastic as the younger version of
Russell, he was very funny and didn't get on my nerves once, he is one of the
better child actors out there!. Emily Mortimer is good as Amy and was really cute I
liked her she had decent chemistry with Bruce too. Lily Tomlin is funny as Janet I
liked her quite a bit. Jean Smart is good with what she had to do, which was not
much. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see!. **** out pf 5
Henri-Georges Clouzot's film is quiet an example of the french transition cinema. A
film between the realism of the postwar cinema and the full-of-magic and symbolism
nouvelle vague. With some spots of the American classic films (but not imitating
it) the director tales us a story about love, crime and the importance of points of
view. We can find great actors too (Suzy Delair is impeccable). Is
interesting too, how we can find aspects of this film nowadays. Quai des Orfèvres
inheritance is palpable in Woody Allen tradition. Plunging a crime situation in a
picturesque environment. The naive ending is also typical in Steven Spielberg's
good-ending films. And finally I would like to point out, the deja voo sensation
during the photography session between Jenny Lamour (Suzy Delair) and Dora Monier
(Simone Renant) in which the first one confess that she thinks her husband is being
unfaithful and exactly with the woman who is photographing her. That scene is
exactly the one between Natalie Portman and Julia Roberts in Closer (Mike Nichols,
2004).
One of the best film I ever saw. The performance of Louis Jouvet is
fantastic. He really 'fill' his part, and this is wonderful. He's such a good actor
that you can't think of anyone else to take his part. And both Suzy
Delair and Bernard Blier are good as standard french people, trying to defend
themselves in the struggle born with a murder... The story is
breathtaking and well built. You can feel the ambiance of Paris for that period
(which is about 1930-40), between two wars... The clubs, the old little buildings,
the neighbors. All those things contribute to make a great movie.
First, the obviousas a cop drama crossed with a funny melodrama, QUAY is
disconcerting ,straightly independent and a menace to banality. Jouvet's aplomb is
put to good use in a tough cop performance immediately noticeable by its vigor and
exuberant force; his Antoine is not so much a man of intellect, but a man of vast
life experience and earthly instinct. QUAY is not subversive in the sense that
today's (and already yesterday's ) philistines enjoy using the word. It is
Clouzot's most playful hour. He tended to adapt Steeman's books in a satiric note.
(It's said that Clouzot was a big reader of detective novels.) As a director,
Clouzot's firm hand is successful. It is not a mystery or a
thriller,but a satirical look at a Parisian couple and at the police's proceedings.
Those accustomed with Clouzot's masterpiece LES DIABOLIQUES might find slightly
disconcerting the multiplicity of things, styles, elements in QUAY .Here Clouzot
speaks about many things, about a couple, and a hidden love story (Simone Renant's
for Blier),about the entertainment's world and about old spinsters, about police
techniques and an old bitter cop with a boy to raise, etc.. There is a note of
exuberancenot only in Jouvet's performance, but also in the film's conception. Quay is a realistic crime drama made as a satire. It offers an outstanding
performance by Jouvet as a tough police inspector. Antoine is an old cop with an
adventurous past (he fought in Africa ,but did not climb the ranks' stair because
of his independent behaviors); he lives with his son, a schoolboy; at work, Antoine
is tough and merciless, an able inspector, bitter, intelligent and harsh. It is a
role of great gusto, very picturesque. Jouvet composed his character of several
defining traitshis clothes, his expression, his funny accent, his brutality, and
that mocking air .Antoine is not made to look more clever than plausible; when he
interrogates Blier, Antoine makes mistakes ,and his talent is presented like the
talent we meet in real lifemixed with errors and lacunae and defects. Antoine's
talent is one that comes also from experience, from daily observationit's not the
almost supernatural _divinatory genius of almost all the famous detectives. QUAY is multifacetedit is a realistic crime drama, and also a satire and
a melodrama. One can consider it among the first _filmic forays into the legendary
toughness of the French police. Long ago Eastwood's and Wayne's harsh cops, there
was Antoine. The title is interesting, suggesting that this is a movie
about the police, not about a case or a mystery. As craftsmanship,
Clouzot was perhaps the best and sharpest in France (in the way that Welles was).
QUAY is very true to Clouzot's naturea sardonic comic, sharp observations, much
psychology, sharp, unsparing irony. The man was firstclass when he filmed
somethinghe knew what to shoot, what to choosesee the introductory scenes of this
film, with Jenny Lamour's great stage success. Each scene is memorably,
_exemplarily shot. Clouzot's technical, stylistic aptitudes were amazing. His style
is inventive, satirical, sharp, extremely limpid, ingenious. Jouvet's
style was exuberant, powerful, vehement. (Some disliked it precisely for these
features. As he had been a great stage actor, his movie style was deemed as too
theatrical, etc..) His Antoine is a fine example of what was meant by composing a
role, by a composition. Jouvet had a very peculiar physiognomymuch
like a menacing bird of preysomewhat like Van Cleefyet much subtler, nobler and
more intelligent and distinguished. Jouvet had this predatory, ferocious air, and
it is useful here, as he performs an old tough cop. One of QUAY 's sides is that
it is a Jouvet recital. He is immediately recognizable, identifiable by the quality
of his play (I see that many, watching this flick, do not know it is a Jouvet
moviewhich is an astounding quality in itself). Fresnay and Jouvet are
the two French actors that I admire the most; the first one was revealed to me by a
Renoir drama (the famous one), while Jouvet by a Carné comedy. I was charmed to see
that Clouzot gave leading roles to both of them. To end, a word about
Steeman; he wrote the novel used by Clouzot (who had previously adapted another
Steeman novel, as a Fresnay comedy). Steeman was an old school mystery writer, in
the Wallace vein. He became quickly outdated with the new hardboiled fashions. When
I was 11 I have read one of his thrillers, and liked it much.
This film is so lovingly made you want to be part of it forever. The flics are
straight but not without malice, the goods are transparent and evildoers are hardly
there. Even the "cabaret" are so naive they'll make you daydream with nostalgia in
comparison to anything available on TV. Blier is fine, if a bit one sided. Louis
Jouvet is perfect, you just can't have a better copper. He has the best line: "My
dad cleaned other people's dirt, and I do the same". Susy Delair is unbearable, but
I guess in part it's the songs, wardrobe and hairdo. Simone Renant, on the
contrary, makes a great femme fatale, if a bit silent. I didn't realize she may be
a lesbian as IMDb user dbdumonteil and others rightly suggest.
Clouzot followed Le Corbeau, where no one knew who was penning the poison thus
everyone was suspected, with another masterpiece, Quai des Orfevres four years
later in which we know from the outset (or think we do) whodunnit. Top-billed Louis
Jouvet doesn't appear for forty minutes by which time Clouzot has established a
rich milieu of Music Hall, music publishers, etc and a fine cast of colourful
characters; Angela Lansbury lookalike (Lansbury appeared in Woman of Paris that
same year) Suzy Delair scores as the chanteuse whose desire to improve her lot
inspires the jealousy of her husband/accompanist Bernard Blier who follows her to
the home of an elderly letch only to find he is already dead. From here things go
seriously wrong, his car is stolen before he leaves the premises so his pre-
arranged alibi is out the window whilst meanwhile, unknown to him, his wife
confesses to the murder to the photographer neighbour, a closet lesbian in love
with her, who volunteers to return to the crime scene and retrieve Delair's scarf
and as long as she's there,thoughtfully wipes her prints of the murder weapon, a
champagne bottle. At this point investigator Jouvet gets involved and from then on
it's a case of keeping the plates spinning in the air. Clouzot's output was
relatively small but virtually all of it was, as Spencer Tracey said in another
context, 'cherce', with Le Salaire de peur and Les Diaboliques still to come. In
short this is a must for French cinema buffs.
Is it a murder mystery? Is it a police procedural? Is it a back-stage look at seedy
French music halls? Quai des Orfevres is all of these, but more than anything else
it's an amusing comedy of infidelity, jealousy and love, set in post-WWII Paris. It
may be surprising that Henri- Georges Clouzot, the director of such grim films as
Le Corbeau or such suspenseful nail- biters as Diabolique and The Wages of Fear, is
the director of this one. Clouzot, however, was a shrewd film-maker. "In a murder
mystery," he tells us, 'there's an element of playfulness. It's never totally
realistic. In this I share Hitchcock's view, which says, 'A murder mystery is a
slice of cake with raisins and candied fruit, and if you deny yourself this, you
might as well film a documentary.'" Quai des Orfevres is a wonderful film, and it's
no documentary. Jenny Martineau (Suzy Delair) is an ambitious singer at
music halls and supper clubs. She's a flirt, she's sees nothing too wrong with
using a bit of sex as well as talent to get a contract. Her stage name is Jenny
Latour. And she really loves her husband, Maurice Martineau (Bernard Blier).
Martineau is something of a sad sack. He's her accompanist and arranger. He's a bit
balding, a bit chubby and jealous to a fault. Then we have their neighbor, the
photographer Dora Monnier (Simone Renant). She's blond, gorgeous (think of Rita
Hayworth) and capable. She and Martineau have been friends since they were children
together. Dora, however, is definitely not thinking just of friendship when she
looks at Jenny. Then comes along Georges Brignon (Charles Dullin), a wizened, rich
and dirty old man, who often has Dora take "art" photographs of his young female
proteges whom he poses himself. He offers a contract for a film to Jenny, and
suggests a dinner at his home to discuss the details. Jenny is more than willing.
Maurice is furious and forbids it. Jenny shouts right back at him, "You're jealous
of the rich! Well, I want my share of their dough. I'm all for royalty!" "You're
dad was a laborer," Maurice shouts back. "So what? Under Louis XV, I'd have been
Madame de Pompadour! I'd have heated up their tights!" And after
Brignon is found dead with a smashed champagne bottle next to his bleeding skull,
there's Dora to try to make things safe for Jenny. But wait. Inspector Antoine gets
the case. Antoine (Louis Jouvet) is a tall, tired, middle-aged bachelor with sore
feet. He has seen it all. He served in "the colonies" with the Foreign Legion and
returned with an adopted baby and malaria. The child is now about eight-years old
and Antoine dotes on him. One of the first things Antoine discovers is not only did
someone brain Brignon with a bottle, someone shot him in the heart. Who did it?
Before long Jenny, Maurice and Dora all are making up alibis, lying and, at one or
another point, confessing. How will Antoine discover the murderer? Will we have a
chance to see some great music hall songs sung by Jenny Latour? Everything becomes
clear, but only with time and Detective Antoine's persistence. We are left with
many kinds of love leading to all kinds of motives, from hair-trigger jealousy to
longing glances...and all played with a nice mixture of Gallic amusement. Clouzot takes us to a Paris of seedy but not threatening neighborhoods, to
downtrodden music publishers where tunes are played on the piano for buyers, to
restaurants with discrete private dining rooms. Most of all, he takes us to the
music hall where Jenny Latour often performs. We can see Jenny as she sings, with
couples in the seats and single men wearing their coats and hats in standing room.
And everyone smokes. The first third of the film, in fact, takes place largely in
this milieu. With Jenny singing about "Her petite tra-la-la, her sweet tra-la-la,"
we follow her from trying out the song at the publishers to a rehearsal to a saucy
performance with Jenny in a feathered hat, a corset, gartered stockings and not
much else. Delair, Blier and Renant all do wonderful jobs, but it Louis
Jouvet who holds everything together. He was a marvelous actor who disliked making
films. The stage was his world, and he took on films only if he happened to like
the director and to make money to finance his stage work. Jouvet was tall with a
long face and broad cheekbones. He was not conventionally handsome but he had what
it takes to dominate a scene. For a look at how skillfully he could play comedy,
watch him in Drole de Drame. He's a fascinating actor. At one point he says, "I've
taken a liking to you, Miss Dora Monnier." "Me?" she asks. "Yes. Because you and I
are two of a kind. When it comes to women, we'll never have a chance." Jouvet
brings all kinds of nuances to that line, from rueful regret to a gentle amusement.
H.G. Cluozot had difficulties working in France after he had made "Le Corbeau" in
1943 which was produced by the German company and later judged by French as a piece
of anti-French propaganda. Louis Jouvet, an admirer of Clouzot's work, invited him
to direct a thriller "Quai des Orfevres" where he played an ambiguous police
inspector investigating a murder that happened in Paris Music Hall. Without each
other knowledge, the seductive cabaret singer Jenny Lamoure (Suzy Delair) and her
jealous piano-accompanist husband Maurice who is madly in love with her (Bertrand
Blier, father of director Bertrand Blier) trying to cover up (without each other's
knowledge) what they believe to be their involvement in the murder? Enters
tenacious policeman (Louis Jouvet) who is determined to discover the truth. Jouvet
practically stole the movie with wonderfully cynic and sentimental in the same time
performance. "His character, his eagle-like profile and his unique way of speaking
made him unforgettable." "Quai des Orfevres", witty and atmospheric observation of
human weaknesses was a great comeback of H.G. Cluozot, the fine director, "French
Hitchcock".
The extraordinarily adorable Suzy Delair plays a statuesque performer obsessed with
succeeding in the theater. Her husband and accompanist, played by Bernard Blier, is
a composed but jealous man. When he finds out in a less than preferable way that
his flashy wife has planned a rendezvous with a lecherous old businessman with the
intention of advancing her career, he loses all control and threatens the
businessman with murder. Now, at that point, I must stop describing the film to you
because it skates on such thin ice with its twists, revelations, ambiguities and
suspense that to imply any of it would endanger it. I am not sure how good or bad
that is for this French police procedural emanating from the song- and-dance
community, though it is certainly interesting that what we do know throughout is
who did not do it. We just don't know who did. The story depends upon
the procedure of following clues, where ideal alibis fail and where cautiously
created fabrications and deceptions disintegrate. Interestingly, this is a suspense
film in which suspense is generated in spite of the knowledge one would
traditionally think too much too soon. Quay of the Goldsmiths is the
least dark of Henri-Georges Clouzot's films. It's nowhere near as sinister as the
shocking Les Diaboliques, as tragic as the riveting Wages of Fear or as eery as Le
Corbeau. Maybe it is due to the vibrance of the dance halls and theater settings of
1940s France, which all work as the milieu of this crime thriller. Clouzot both understands and approves of his characters, even the more rotten
ones, where he has more of a vindictive streak with his other films. Where he may
have had understanding for the scheming women in Les Diabolique or the truck
drivers who sink to the level of risking horrible death in order to oust themselves
from miserable life in The Wages of Fear, there isn't necessarily support or
agreement on the part of the filmmaker, for these are characters who plainly made
the direct decisions that determine their fate. All the characters in this more
settling film have scenes and moments that endear us to them, even the harsh, cold
detective played by Louis Jouvet, who worries about his young adoptive son amid all
the trouble and despair that happens in his life at any time with the drop of a
hat. There is humor and unabashed sexiness, the latter mostly on the
part of Delair, that neutralize the pressure to a degree. Clouzot was quietly
practicing his craft, patient till he made his unrelenting later films, in which he
would permit his audiences no pardon from the tension.
A nice, humorous mix of music hall (in the first third mostly) and police
procedural mystery as the various suspects' stories start to collapse. The final
exposure of the murder may come as a surprise if you don't watch closely. A gritty
look at Paris of the time. You can ignore the final scene (the Hollywood ending).
Louis Jouvet is best as the police inspector who seems to be just passing through,
but is really on top of things.
The Director loves the actress and it shows. The actress inhabits the character,
whom we love at first sight and sound. The character loves her jealous
unprepossessing husband and he loves her. His childhood friend secretly loves his
wife and the fact that his friend is a beautiful woman makes the love tragic and
ironic. His wife is jealous of his childhood friend and thinks her attentions are
out of secret love for her husband. Then there is a murder and the
investigating police lieutenant, who loves only his bi-racial son, and resents
being taken from his company by the above characters, who have had some unpleasant
contact with the deceased and are all lying to one degree or another, unravels the
mystery with some of the most precise and authentic procedural detail ever captured
on film. And then there are the atmospherics of a post-war Paris, where
coal is in short supply, music is filled with erotic longing and wistful memory,
and innocence has long ago been washed away by the rain. All of this in
a milieu of magicians whose tricks don't always work, dogs who walk on their hind
feet and express music criticism, hungry news reporters and exhausted cops. And then there are many of the finest actors of their generation who have
been through some very bad years directed by, to come full circle, a man who is in
love with his lead actress and who, with full justification, was a respected friend
of Picasso. I've seen this film often and I love all of them and it.
hello, looking for a movie for the family to watch on a Friday night? Can't find
what your looking for? I thought this was an extremely enjoyable movie. Good for
the whole family. I found that it had a remarkably rare combination of it being
appealing to both adults and children alike. It was brilliant, to say the least.
Bruce Willis's acting was top-notch, there was a lot of humor in it and overall, a
great movie. In my opinion, it's a must-see movie. And I don't think that about a
lot of movies, believe me when I say it takes a lot for a movie to get me to think
that. It's clear that there was much work done by Bruce Willis and cast to get this
movie done. Excellent story, good acting, and again, overall a thoroughly enjoyable
movie.
First of all,there is a detective story:"légitime défense" by Belgian Stanislas
André Steeman whose "l'assassin habite au 21" Clouzot had already transferred to
the screen in 1942,with Pierre Fresnay and the same actress Suzy Delair.Steeman
complained about Clouzot's adaptation for both movies.The movie from 1942 was
excellent,but the "detective story" side had been kept,so why complaining?As for
"Quai des orfèvres",Clouzot was now in a new phase of his brilliant career.After
having directed "le corbeau" and been blacklisted,he had a lot more to say than a
simple whodunit.Steeman complained essentially about the poor detective
ending,which I will not reveal of course,but Clouzot focused on the social
vignettes,on his characters's psychology,and he did not give a damn about the
puzzle à la Agatha Christie.By doing so,he becomes the genuine predecessor of
CLaude Chabrol who has always been closer to him than to Alfred Hitchcock whom he
admires much though. Suzy Delair has great screen presence,and you will love the
song she really sings(she was a singer too)"avec son tralala".Bernard Blier
gives ,as ever,a sparing of gestures and words performance,and he really pulls it
off .Two characters are particularly interesting and disturbing:the first
one,Dora,the photographer:she takes pictures of female models ,and Clouzot,by
subtle touches,reveals us she's a lesbian.Of course,the word is never uttered(How
could it be in 1947?) The police chief (fabulous Louis Jouvet) tells her:"You and
me,WE are not lucky with women."The portrait of this cop is very detailed:we learn
a lot of things about him,not necessary connected with the Delair/Blier plot:he's a
widower ,with a son he adores and who runs into school difficulties,particularly in
geometry.So we get to know all the characters in depth.One of the most important
manifesto of post-war French cinema.
This is an exceptional picture with so much to recommend it. The acting and writing
are terrific and there are lots of great twists and turns in the plot. As a French
"Noir" film, its language is certainly a lot earthier than its American
counterparts, but to me this just added to the realism. Additionally, I liked how
non-glamorous everyone was--particularly the husband and the lieutenant. About the
only negative, and the reason the film gets a 9 and not a 10, is because there was
a glaring plot hole. Like another famous French film, Drôle de Drame, the confusion
between the cops and the accused could easily have been settled in the beginning,
but the characters made rather stupid decisions. For this, you just need to suspend
disbelief and keep watching--the payoff is well worth the wait. This is
simply one of the finest French films I have seen. Period.
"Quai des Orfevres", directed by the brilliant Henri-Georges Clouzot, is a film to
treasure because it is one of the best exponents of French film making of the
postwar years. M. Clouzot, adapting the Steeman's novel, "Longtime Defence", shows
his genius in the way he sets the story and in the way he interconnects all the
characters in this deeply satisfying movie that, as DBDumonteil has pointed out in
this forum, it demonstrates how influential Cluzot was and how much the next
generation of French movie makers are indebted to the master, especially Claude
Chabrol. The crisp black and white cinematography by Armand Thirard has
been magnificently transferred to the Criterion DVD we recently watched. Working
with Clouzot, Thirard makes the most of the dark tones and the shadows in most of
the key scenes. The music by Francis Lopez, a man who created light music and
operettas in France, works well in the context of the film, since the action takes
place in the world of the music halls and night clubs. Louis Jouvet, who
is seen as a police detective, is perfect in the part. This was one of his best
screen appearances for an actor who was a pillar of the French theater. Jouvet
clearly understood well the mechanics for the creation of his police inspector who
is wiser and can look deeply into the souls of his suspects and ultimately steals
the show from the others. In an unfair comment by someone in this page, Jouvet's
inspector is compared with Peter Falk's Columbo, the television detective. Frankly,
and no disrespect to Mr. Falk intended, it's like comparing a great champagne to a
good house wine. Bernard Blier is perfect as the jealous husband. Blier
had the kind of face that one could associate with the man consumed with the
passion his wife Jenny Lamour has awakened in him. Martineau is vulnerable and
doesn't act rationally; he is an easy suspect because he has done everything wrong
as he finds in the middle of a crime he didn't commit, but all the evidence points
to the contrary. The other great character in the film is Dora, the
photographer. It's clear by the way she interacts with Jenny where her real
interest lies. Simone Renant is tragically appealing as this troubled woman and
makes an enormous contribution to the film. Suzy Delair, playing Jenny, is
appealing as the singer who suddenly leaps from obscurity to celebrity and attracts
the kind of men like Brignon, the old lecher. The film is one of the
best Clouzot directed during his distinguished career and one that will live
forever because the way he brought all the elements together.
Quai des Orfevres takes too long getting going, with Clouzot so enamored of his
back-stage milieu that he is almost in danger of forgetting the story. However,
once it does, it's Clouzot at his best. Bertrand Blier (father of Bertrand Blier
and co-star of his Buffet Froid) is the worldworn pianist who married beneath
himself and who plans to kill the seedy studio mogul with designs on his wife only
to find that someone has beaten him to it. Not only that, but his carefully planned
but clumsily executed alibi falls to pieces, not least when a thief steals his car
at the murder scene The film really kicks into life with the arrival of
Luis Jouvet's police inspector, a rather wonderful creation half Alistair Sim in
Green for Danger and half world-weary Maigret with better dialog. In a neat running
gag, his investigation is constantly conducted at the top of his voice against
chaos and noise, whether it be the noisy typewriters of the police station or a
loud rehearsal. The police station itself is a wonderfully realistic creation, a
wealth of chaotic and telling small details that makes Steve Bocchco's once
revolutionary 80's US cop shows look like antiquated museum pieces by comparison.
 If Suzy Delair is a rather unconvincing femme fatale, the supporting
cast more than compensate, with the beautiful Simone Renant a standout as the
lesbian photographer in love with her from afar and constantly mistaken for Blier's
lover by Delair and other interested parties (only Jouvet, similarly unlucky with
women, understands and genuinely sympathises). With great black and white
photography by Armand Thirard, this is a terrific little thriller with a nice twist
ending and a lovely scene with a cab driver reluctantly identifying Renant in a
police station. (Trivia note: Pierre Larquey, who played the playfully
philosophical Dr Vorzet in Le Corbeau, turns up in smaller roles as a cab-driver in
both Quai and Les Espions.) The Criterion DVD is quite superb - great
picture quality plus an illuminating extract from a French TV show featuring
interviews with Clouzot, Blier and Renant.
And I love it!!! Wonder Showzen will pick up a cult audience and once it's
canceled, the DVD sales will go though the roof. This is a very funny show in it's
own ways. It's a parody of children's shows, namely Sesame Street. Our puppet
characters consist of Chauncy, a yellow furry monster with a hat, whose our host.
Clarence is a blue lizard like thing that does his own segments where he goes out
on the streets. Him is a weird dog like thing that refers to himself in the third
person. Wordsworth is the smart one whose brain always shows. Then there's the
newscaster and the pink puppet. It's a very funny show, not really as nasty as
you'd expect, but more the situations. They take 7 year olds out on the street,
tell them what to say, and have them make mean jokes that they don't understand. My
favorite segments are Clarence's videos, especially when somebody doesn't want to
be filmed. I prefer TV Funhouse, which was a similar show, but this is still a very
funny show that I hope lasts for years to come. My rating: *** 1/4 out
of ****. 30 mins. TV MA.
Sex, drugs, racism and of course you ABC's. What more could you want in a kid's
show! -------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------- "User Comment Guidelines Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on comments. The recommended length
is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Comments
which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may
only post a single comment per title. What to include: Your comments
should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only
whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to
mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to
them. Comments that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site.
Please write in English only and note that we do not support HTML mark-up within
the comments"
I love this show. My girlfriend was gonna get an abortion until we both watched
Wonder Showzen one night. Luckily, she killed herself before the baby was born.
Though technically I think it was considered a murder-suicide. My first
thoughts upon seeing Wonder Showzen? Now I know what God watches when He jerks off
all the time. Wonder Showzen is to television what a toaster in the
bathtub is to my self-esteem. You know how George W. Bush makes speaking
gaffes all the time? Tyler wouldn't. Tyler's good. Tyler cuts his nails. He's
Tyler. He's good. Tyyyllerrr...
Seeing this show gives me respect for MTV, though i imagine that MTV sees this
random, edgy material as its main selling point and is much less concerned with the
pertinent truths it expresses. I write and play music for a living and
this show gets me really emotionally riled up. For me, Wondsershowzen serves a
completely distinct function from most TV. Instead of dulling or distracting the
senses, (which can be often really nice at times), it awakens my spirit of right
and wrong. It makes me very uncomfortable, but in a very comforting way. I don't think a lot of viewers absorb most of this show's content, but if
they do, kudos to television viewers everywhere.
I'm torn about this show. While MOST parts of it I found to be HILARIOUS, other
parts of it I found to be stupid and simply shock for shock sake. The off the wall
parody of some of the cartoons are brilliant as indeed are a lot of the scenes with
the children. However, I don't think it's clever getting little children to say
rude things. It's not that I think "oh poor children, they're being exploited" -
it's just that it's really not clever!! It's something that ANYONE could do,
therefore making it as simple and pointless as making a paper airplane. In order to
make this show better they would have to stick to the natural responses from
children, which I think can be funnier than the scripted at time. By
far the funniest part of Wonder Showzen is Clarence, the blue puppet who wonders
around the streets talking to and annoying strangers. It's really funny and it's
mostly improvised. Seeing him in a long scene about the importance of patience test
the patience of an EXTREMELY patient man, was by far the funniest scene in my
opinion. You should watch this show though because all in all it's very
funny, even if it is stupid at times.
I was plagued by nightmares involving Sesame Street and the Muppet Show during my
childhood. I loved the programs, but when I slept, I'd dream about muppets not
unlike the ones on TV...but not quite the ones on TV. They would speak
gibberish and laugh and sing while eating each other and killing each other. They'd
take a bite of their cute felt flesh and it would tear apart followed by arterial
bleeding. NICE! But that was the past...I LOVE THIS SHOW! I saw Peter Jackson's
MEET THE FEEBLES years ago and wondered why there wasn;t similar work out there.
Well here it is, as sick, twisted and somehow socially potent the old Hobbit's
vision. If you like this show, and you haven't seen MEET THE FEEBLES,
get it on Amazon or some such film source. You're in for a treat. By the
way, Clarence would totally kick Triumph's dog ass.
Imagine you have the opportunity to see yourself again as a kid. Now think what
would happen if you had the chance to speak with your younger self, or even change
him/you. Would you try to influence or try to change your younger self's beliefs in
light of your future experience? Or perhaps the encounter would change your older
self's perception of life and reality? Walt Disney's The Kid tries to
engage this complex thought by putting "older self" Bruce Willis in a collision
course with "younger self" Spenser Breslin (from The Santa Clause 2 and The Cat in
the Hat "fame"). The result is a sometimes funny sometimes touching encounter,
which makes you ponder about your own past, present and future and truly believe
it is never too late to change your course.
This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of
tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It
criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the
arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious
hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity,
the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love
story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists
find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from
beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I
saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by
a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-
end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual
awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not
"turn homosexual". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two
characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the
movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that "without desire she was dead", and
the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite
completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to
not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek
comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear
that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are
bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case
of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this
had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their
desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film
ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita
and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in
America depicting a gay relationship between a man named "Jesus" and another named
"Paul"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is
strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any
rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a
very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a
long time after you leave the theatre.
Truly a wonderful movie. Bruce Willis gives his always-outstanding comedic-romantic
acting power to this message-movie and the movie brings hope to the losers many of
us know we are. A gift to everyone of middle age whose spent time seems both full
and yet empty: there is more around the next bend and it can be great, enriching,
and romantic. Leave the recent past and return to the lessons of the distant past,
and then take off on a favorite flight to your better future. If we could re-live
our youthful experiences, if we could really remember the events that shaped us,
wouldn't we find a special kind of freedom? See the movie, open the gift.
It is so nice to see Bruce Willis come down off his action throne and let us see
that he really is a talented actor. He shines in this film as the near-40-year-old
image consultant who has totally lost touch with his inner child--until he meets
him face to face. This is one of those rare films that doesn't talk down to its
audience and truly offers something for the WHOLE family. It is about caring for
each other, keeping some of the child inside you, and realizing that you don't grow
up exactly the way you thought you would. Willis seems to be building an impressive
track record for working with kids (just witness "The Sixth Sense" with Haley Joel
Osment), and he has great chemistry with Spencer Breslin here. There is some nice
photography and music, and the ending is wonderful and uplifting. A great film to
see with EVERY member of your family.
As a word of explanation, Disney's "The Kid" has absolutely nothing in common with
the Charlie Chaplin 1921 classic of the same name. What we do have is a pleasant
enough, though unbelievable, feel good family comedy as only the folks at Disney
can provide. Bruce Willis, in a change of pace, plays a self-centered
stuffed shirt of an "Image Consultant". He degrades, not only his clients, but
those close to him as well. You know that he is going to have to change before the
final credits. Into his life comes a chapter from his past in the form
of Willis' character as a nerdy 8 year old played with cutesy pie conviction by
Spencer Breslin (Disney always finds these kids somewhere). This forces Willis to
come to grips with his past and well..you know the rest. Appearing as
Willis' love interest is Emily Mortimer and Lily Tomlin as his Executive Assistant.
Both have little enough to do as most of the movie involves the inter-action
between the Willis and Breslin characters. "The Kid", though not the
greatest of Disney movies is one nonetheless that you can sit down and watch with
your family and come away from with a warm feeling.
While my kids enjoyed the movie (and announced afterward that they want to buy it
later) I think I got more out of it that they did. The scene in the airport shop at
the beginning is real life (I did not use the cutting comment aloud, but I thought
it). It is a feel good mid-life movie, a bit sappy and some scenes work less well
than others (why does the kid stay with Bruce Willis after he knows his Mom is
dying?), but all in all and good time. It also gave our family something to talk
about - did my kids think my life was boring? What do they expect at 40? How can
you not like a movie that gets a good conversation going with your kids?
Now for sure, this is one of the lightest-hearted stories that Bruce Willis has
been in to date and yet,-- it is still touching. I really like Bruce's style and
persona, I haven't loved everything he has ever been in, but he brings it to the
'Big-time' for me in most all his film endeavors. The story begins.....
He is power, confidence and style with a capitol 'S' . He drives a Porshe he lives
well, in a palatial estate with a grand view of the fair city. That's Russell
Duritz. He is an image consultant to those who are on the top or rising to it. His
acclaim, he is Russell Duritz, he knows what it takes to make it. It just seems
that as life is going along swiftly and foundation-ally set, there is a problem, an
intruder at his home, the alarm has been activated! Russell can't seem
to figure out (for the moment) what is happening to him. It's different and yet it
is somehow familiar. A small boy, who looks exactly like....-- him. As their lives
run smack dab into each other, there seems to be a reason that is screaming out to
him, "You have unfinished business to take care of, now!" Amy the
supporting young lady of the story is probably the best balance that he has seen
and has in his life. She works with him, puts up with his 'ego' and yet, she is
smitten with Russell. Very much so. With Rusty his past 'self' now in the picture
and talking a mile a minute, singing too late at night, everything that was
foundational is becoming like jelly! Willis is fun, egocentric and at
times out of his head in this lovable Disney modern times classic 'The Kid' and to
add his little heavy-duty side kick Spencer Breslin is a perfect addition to this
sparkling story of childhood to adult and back to childhood adventure. Chi McBride
is an inspirational supporting character, as he is the heavy-weight champ, teaching
'little' Rusty how to box to defend himself against the bullies on the playground.
 All in all this is a real winner of a movie with even Lillie Tomlin as
the secretary and aide to Russell. I originally saw this back in 2000' and then
again years later, with equal enjoyment. This is a shiny family comedy that has a
super ending that will warm the hearts of any Disney fan Recommended highly (*****)
When the first trailer for this film was viewed by myself, I was curious as to what
angle the storyline would take. After all the plot of having one's childhood self
return to the present leaves open many options. Bruce Willis however does a superb
job in the role he was given. I was surprised to see just how well he could act in
this part. This is also a good career move as many others have said but after
seeing it I now agree. This film is mainly about remembering the kid you used to
be, and coming to the realization that you aren't the adult you planned to be. This
is a wonderful story and a gripping tale that makes us all think. Usually we scorn
at "What if..." movies. For example, Waterworld attempted to answer the question
"What if the world were to be covered with water and...?" But truthfully, nobody
cared. This movie however effects everyone in the theatre. True, young children may
not fully grasp the idea of growing up and having all your dreams fizzle away, but
it leaves a great impact on the adults and parents of those children. This movie is
definitely worth seeing. Although, it will be better the second time around because
you won't be thinking so much (about how the kid got there, and why and all that
stuff) Just relax and have fun. And take something with you when you leave that
cinema. Take that piece of your childhood you've forgotten and enjoy it.
The Kid - At 39 years old Russel Duritz has a life that most men would envy - he
has a great job, is respected (and feared), has a beautiful house and makes buckets
of money. But everything comes at a cost, in this case no social life, no
conscience and a fear of spending the rest of his life alone. He just needs someone
to show him the way. As I watched the movie, I kept wondering why Disney
didn't pass this film on to Miramax - not because it's particularly daring or edgy,
but because it is clearly a movie for adults. This is exacerbated by the marketing
campaign which is clearly targeting children - it is lumped in with trailers for
"Rugrats the Movie", and "Pokemon 2000" (aren't they passe yet?). But I quibble. I was impressed by the sensitive treatment of the subject matter - rather
than the typical male midlife crisis that involves some pathetic sap buying a
Porsche convertible and acting like a moron, Willis' character undertakes some
serious introspection and takes stock of his life. His guide on this journey of
self-discovery is himself at age 8 (they never explain how Rusty arrives and
frankly, I didn't care). Young Rusty's innocence and unbridled optimism give him a
distinct advantage in divining the truth - he sums up Russell's job as an image
consultant thusly, "You teach people how to lie and pretend to be something they
aren't". In order for a good script to succeed, however, you need actors to bring
it to life. Not a problem here. Although Willis has thrice ignored W.C.
Fields' warnings about starring with children or animals he has lucked out once
again, meshing as well comedically with Breslin as he did dramatically with Osment.
Willis manages to balance Russell's cutthroat powerbroker traits with vulnerability
and confusion, without becoming ridiculous. Breslin meanwhile gives a dead on
portrayal of a kid from everyone's childhood - the one that always stuck out for
some reason and got picked on. We also get two bonus performances: Lily Tomlin is
great as Russell's levelheaded assistant and Jean Smart is perfect as an insightful
charming anchorwoman (I loved her in "Guinevere"). The Kid is charming,
heavy, and real. And it will appeal to adults of all ages.
From a perspective that it is possible to make movies that are not offensive to
people with strong moral values, this one is definitely worthwhile. This is the
second Bruce Willis film in a row that manages to tell its story with no nudity,
off-color humor, profanity, or gratuitous violence. (I refer of course to The Sixth
Sense.) Both movies are engaging on more than one level. This one is appropriate
for children as well, although as others have pointed out, it isn't a flick FOR
kids. I was bothered that the time travel device that drives this plot
is never explained, except that we know Russell himself initiates it as a 70 year
old. Also, why does his dying mother have to come to school to get him when he wins
the fight; why, if as his older self says, he has to fight that kid again and again
for the next few years does his mother not have to come and get him every time, and
why he doesn't learn to kick butt in the process. I also found the score rather
annoying and not always appropriate to the action on stage. Good use of
the red plane as metaphor, however.
The Kid is a really good family movie about a stuffy image consultant, Russ Duritz,
who has lots of money, a good job, nice house, etc. The only problem is he doesn't
have much of a social life as nobody seems to like him as he isn't always very
nice. One day though things are about to change when an eight year old version of
himself magically appears. This gives Russ a second chance to make things right.
Bruce Willis plays the lead role here and he gives a really good performance. The
Kid is a nice, heart-warming movie for everyone.
This is a totally awesome movie! If you haven't seen it yet, you damn well should.
Sure, the plot is slow to develop, the special effects are laughable, the acting is
ridiculous and the action is badly choreographed, but as wrestler DDP would say;
That's not a bad thing....that's a good thing! Everything about this movie is
hilarious, especially if you get the dubbed version, which has even worse actors.
It's countless laughs until you get to the end, yearning for the sequel, where the
mummy fights wrestling women. Thus, I give it ten stars. Unless you're one of those
'discriminating' and 'intelligent' people with good taste, who likes only 'high
quality' films of the highest calibre, I recommend this utterly monkeydellic movie!
This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with
its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent
the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about
the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and
small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the
end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by
cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot
we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a
future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion. Ms
Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream
cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond
the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the
Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film
to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon
days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor
Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her
competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two
bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but
merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for
something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada,
Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have
the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide
segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers. Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr
Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave
superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's
"Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das
sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all,
the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above
average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing
talents in her future screenplays.
What a film. Quite possibly the best I've ever seen, the Direction, the
Production,the score and the cinematography,absoloutley wonderful. The acting is
also excellent, and the Man/Robot scenes have to be seen to be belieived. I can not
recommend this film enough. Get it out on video now, turn the lights down and
enjoy.
This flick was the introduction for a lot of us to the works of K Gordon Murray.
That's because it was easy to find. It was on every public domain label in the VHS
era, and before that, a late night t.v. cult classic, double knee thigh slapper.
Besides, HOW do you resist the title? For late comers, a brief
explanation of it's merit: Florida wheeler dealer K. Gordon Murray imported Mexican
horror films, dubbed them into English, then made a mint with them at the drive in.
The Mexican ORIGINALS were weird enough to begin with; American boundaries and
accepted horror film conventions were cheerfully disregarded. Great, great set
design and lighting were placed beside weird or laughable special effects. NOTHING
in Hollywood was as close as these were to out and out strange. Now, mix in
Catholic influenced social conventions, Mexican folk lore, and we are not in Kansas
anymore. Add to THAT the English scripts they were dubbed into. Most
were written by Reuban Guberman, who wanted words to match movements of the actors
lips ON SCREEN, not the literal translation. As a result the American soundtracks
tended to run from overwrought to down right loopy. There's even a fan web site for
Murray that prints the best, most over the top lines for each movie. First time
viewers to the films complain about the pacing, the purple prose, the production
values and are told it's SUPPOSED to be that way..while the people laugh with
enjoyment over things normally considered fatal film flaws. It all must be very
confusing if you don't have a taste for it. This one was made back to
back in 1957 with the two previous films in the series; THE AZTEC MUMMY and CURSE
OF THE AZTEC MUMMY. All three are now available on the 3 disc AZTEC MUMMY
COLLECTION (BCI) and it's about time. It has the K Gordon Murray version on one
side, the original Mexican production on the other side. The contrast between the
two is fascinating. A lot of the times the original Spanish is not much
saner. ROBOT/MUMMY starts off with a nice long flashback bringing you up
to speed on the previous episodes, sort of..continuity was tossed out the window in
number two, and it's downhill from there, logic wise. You don't even get The Angel
back, or any mention of him in this final episode. Names, places, even family trees
switch between films. After a while, you start LOOKING for the continuity changes.
 By now, the series villain Doc Krupp is totally pig biting mad, nearly
drooling with dementia and STILL wants to steal the Aztec breastplate. Rosita
Arenas is sent back to the past with another nice edit of the AZTEC MUMMY floor
show, and wanders out into the dark in her nightie to help find that doggone
breastplate again. The mummy isn't any happier with this then he was last
time. The robot actually has a production credit. It was made by 'Viana
& Co S.A.'. I mention this, because it looks like the grips came up with it between
takes on a slow afternoon when the real costume went walkabout. Nope. This was PLANNED. Wait until you see the controller it runs from. X
box, where WERE you when Krupp NEEDED you??? The Robot LOOKS crushed to death at
the end, but actually came back in two more Mexican made movies..it had a FAN
BASE.. All in all, a funny quirky finish to a three movie series. Sit
back and enjoy.
This was a great movie for being only 67 minutes long. There was an aspect of film-
noir contained in this movie and I am glad that Nolan picked to film it in black
and white. The plot is simple yet entertaining that keeps you engaged. Even the
dialogue was good along with the acting. It reminded me of what was to come in
Memento by not being in chronological order. I liked how the main character tried
to use what Cobb taught him for example saying "everyone has a box" which he put
his personal things into. Also, on the writer's door was the batman logo which
seemed ironic because Christopher Nolan would later direct Batman Begins and The
Dark Knight, two other great movies. There is a great twist in the end which I'm
not going to spoil for anyone who hasn't seen it, even though I kind of figured
what would happen when Cobb gave the young man D Lloyds credit card. I also liked
how the writer had a copy of The Republic by Plato one of my favorite philosophical
books. This is definitely a movie you need to watch more than once to get the full
aspect of it, plus it only being an hour long. There is also a circular aspect to
it by ending where it began which I thought was pretty brilliant.
This film is superb, it has the same low-budget first film feel of 'Pi' and
'Clerks', but has the style of 'Memento' (also by Writer/Director Christopher
Nolan). The score, sound effects, photography and editing are almost 'Memento'
prototypes, and the story shows that Christopher Nolan is best when Writing and
Directing. Don't be put off by the low-budget look and acting, or even the short
length of the film, and just watch it!
Saw this at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, over three years ago. I went
in with no expectations since Christopher Nolan was a no-name at the time, but it
sounded interesting and turned out to be one of the best things I saw at that
festival. It worked well on the big screen, with the technique of cutting the
scenes out of sequence adding to the mood. Mr.Nolan gave a good account of its
making at the end, enough to put anybody off starting out as a film-maker! I liked
it better than Memento although this was, perhaps, due to the lower expectations.
And the fact that it was more of an art house movie.
I'm amazed that Memento (which is an excellent flick) is so well-regarded in the
Top 250 and this one doesn't even appear!! What the hell is that?? To be honest -
when this movie ended my knee-jerk reaction was that this movie is better than
Memento. After the euphoria of the fabulous ending wore off, I concluded that they
are equal in their excellence. I am just confused about why its not in the Top 50
along with Memento. I'm going to venture a guess that (sadly) it's because it's in
black and white or because (again sadly)that the characters all have British
accents ...sadly because that is no reason to not appreciate a great movie like
this. I'm telling you that if you loved Memento, you will love Following
as well. Brilliant!
Following is an intriguing thriller that requires constant awareness to be
completely understood. The plot has many twists and uses displaced chronology. The
event sequence complicates following Following. If you are willing to pay
attention, it is an exciting movie full of noir earmarks. With the running time at
70 minutes, there is a lot to take in, but the fast pace helps to keep the viewer
enthralled. Bill is a lonely, untidy fellow who takes up shadowing
people and seeing where they go-what they do. He is a bit too conspicuous, however,
and eventually gets caught by a well dressed, clean-cut bloke named Cobb. Cobb
entangles Bill in a world the poor boy is not prepared to live in. Cobb is a smart
rogue who seems to have complete control over the other characters. By the end of
the film the disjointed story is explained thoroughly. The film is an excellent
first effort from the talented Christoper Nolan, who would go on to make Memento,
one of the most original movies of our time.
This is an excellent film, but Momento (Nolan's other big budget film) is much
better . I would recommend people go to see Momento and then if they like that, see
this film. THe film is shot in black and white which I was a bit annoyed with at
first but once into the film you understand black and white is the best way for the
film to be seen. It is extremely gripping and reasonably easy to understand even
though the way it is made is extremely clever. Elements of the storyline i think
are a bit daft but the film is definitely worthy of a second viewing. To conculde
the film has a clever plot, clever twists and turns, very good acting and bearing
in mind the budget of the film I have to say that it is pretty amazing.
There are two things that I noticed in this film. (This is not a spoiler, just a
mistake in storytelling.) When Cole takes Bill to his first B&E, he finds the
"box". As soon as Cole finds it he says, "The box. Everyone's got a box". A minute
later, just before he dumps the contents on the floor he says, "We're actually very
fortunate. You don't see these often". Observation #2 (Spoiler
Alert!) I had to watch the thing three times, I couldn't figure a couple
of things out. Then I watched the Chronological version and saw that they were
having flash backs from the latter to the previous during the time changes. So at
some points we were actually watching three different times in about 1 min of wall
time. That was a good thing because I don't know how many more times I
could watch it before returning it to Netflix. Color me obsessive.
An excellent debut movie for the the director of Batman Begins, comes the
Following, a movie about a man who follows other people for inspiration of
characters in stories he writes. One man he follows, he decides to go further and
the man turns out to be more than he bargained for. Using a cast of non-
actors and his uncle, writing directing producing and otherwise completely making
this movie entirely on his own with almost no budget and produced independently,
this movie is much more than you'd expect. For anyone who likes Memento
and complex twists, turns, shocks, and messing around with time, this is definitely
a movie for you.
CONTAINS "SPOILER" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, "Earth", at some
point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different. A rare
feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets,
and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic
film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the "fire" of the
marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a
form of spiritual "adultery" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to
his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and
tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who
comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband
is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a
(unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife
loses her virginity. A servant lives in the house and he eventually
reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is
the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke.
However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her
displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by
pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much
she disapproves. In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the
two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an
emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife.
Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see
the two women united in the very last scene of the movie. The
writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us
individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to
really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on
surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.
Christopher Nolan's first film is a 'no budget' black and white film about a
unemployed writer who begins following strangers, which in turn leads to robbery
and also violence. It is very good. Like in his later film 'Memento' he
doesn't present the story in a linear way. Instead it jumps around somewhat so you
end up really sucked in trying to piece it all together and early, apparently
random, shots take on significance as the film progresses. This style also means
the twists are much more effective. Definitely worth seeing if you get
the chance (especially if you like his later work and/or Film Noir)
Brit director Chrstopher Nolan now has a career in America, and a reputation for
making movies both popular and critically acclaimed; but this small film was where
he started. And it certainly showcased his talent, with its striking black-and-
white cinematography and achronological storytelling that prefigures his later
'Momento', albeit in a less extreme way. Thematically and mechanistically, the plot
reminded me of David Mamet's 'House of Games', but the film still feels fresh and
sharp, right up to the final twist of the ending whose flavour was expected, but
whose pointedness is unexpectedly delicious. The acting, on the other hand, is not
quite in the same class - the film has a stylised quality, and possibly to a
greater extent than the director intended. But it's still a fine debut,
simultaneously claustrophobic and beguiling.
Great British director Christopher Nolan (Momento, Insomnia), directs this odd film
about a struggling writer obsessed with following people. This proves harmless at
first but soon turns dangerous after taking the game a step further after meeting a
like-minded man who shows him the ins and outs of breaking and entering. The two
men soon get in over their heads in a strange world involving the mafia and
prostitution. Jeremy Theobald plays the writer and Alex Haw the like-minded friend.
Both are great performances. This low budget movie was shot total guerrilla-style
with no permits for any locations and no big stars but has what a lot of huge
budget films don't have which is a clever script and creative direction. An
impressive debut by one of todays best directors. Good Stuff!
If Christopher Nolan had made Memento before Following, then all of the flaws in
Following would have been corrected. In Memento, Nolan constructed the switches in
time perfectly. We were able to tell when it was the past, when it's current, etc.
However, Nolan experimented with it a little, and it just doesn't work. Although he
had a small budget and couldn't use color (which is one way Memento worked), it was
just too hard to distinguish between time. On the DVD is a feature that allows you
to play the scenes in chronological order. I intended to write my review after
watching it, so hopefully it would make more sense, but, of course, it wasn't
working. You can't blame Nolan for not coming up with original ideas. A
young man, Bill (Jeremy Theobald), is bored, so he decides to follow random people
on the street. He finds one, Cobb (Alex Haw), that particularly interests him.
Soon, Bill becomes friends with Cobb and goes with him as he breaks into houses and
robs them. Then, a saucy young blond (Lucy Russell) enters, and the movie becomes
even weirder from there. The ending of Following is one of the most
shocking endings I've seen. Sure, Fight Club had an amazing ending, but the way
that Following's ending played out was amazing. I felt like someone had smacked me
on the head and given me a concussion. Nolan has a thing for making good endings
(well, maybe not, I could guess Insomnia's from a mile away), and can really
construct a great story. Following may not be the easiest to follow or look at, but
it's such a finely crafted, original story with a shocker ending that you'll
probably want to watch all of its 70 minutes again. My rating:
7/10 Rated R for language and some violence.
A suprisingly good film considering the circumstances of its production. Features
performances from no-name actors that rival the top talent on the planet (sadly
none have persued a career). Also features the the god-like ability of
Christopher Nolan to write perfect dialogue. Dialogue is what carries this story,
which is about a man who likes to follow people for material for his books. Well
shot, VERY well edited, even better written, and amazingly well performed. This movie has everything a great film needs, except people who have seen it.
9/10
This is definitely Nolan's most intimite,and thought-provoking piece. Not to say
that Memento or Insomnia are bad,but they were definitely up to more Hollywood
standards...while Following is more of an indie flick. The story is very
brilliant,and very well developed. Overall...watch this if your a fan of any of
Nolan's work,I'm sure you'll be able to appreciate it more.
Chris Nolan's labyrinth like noir about voyeurism and identity is amazing from
start to finish. A first film is as complex as "Memento" or "The Prestige", though
maybe a little harder to get a handle on. Still it smacks of originality and
creative drive, and has a "twist" as intellectually challenging as it is realistic
pulp. Few film makers have made as good of use of their editors and attention to
narrative that Nolan has. The story is about a bored writer who likes to follow
random strangers down the street, until he follows someone, whose noticed him
following others, and has been following him in tern, from there the complexity
escalates and identities begin to rearrange. More naturalistic and realist than
Nolan's later work but just as razor sharp.
Following is a little-known 1998 British film, which was made with a budget of
£8000 and has a running time of 70 minutes. When watching it, you'd never expect
its director to go on to make it in Hollywood and become one of the most acclaimed
and celebrated directors of the 21st Century well, everybody has to start
somewhere I suppose. The director of Following, as you probably already
know is Englishman Christopher Nolan, who directly after Following would go on to
direct the critically-acclaimed independent film Memento; a few years later he
would be hired by Warner Bros. to direct the new Batman series, which further
brought him acclaim, and so on and so forth. My point is, everybody has to start
somewhere even if it's not in the most astounding debut and Christopher Nolan
introduces himself to the world in 1998 with Following. When watching
it, I couldn't help but draw resemblances to another directorial debut, avant-garde
auteur David Lynch's Eraserhead. Following is not a surrealist psychological horror
film in that sense, but the similarities are noticeable; most notable, it's shot in
grainy black-and-white and has an atmosphere about it that makes it unique. It's
hard to describe in words, but it loosely resembles the smoky atmosphere you'd find
in the film noirs of old. Hence, it can be said that Following is a contemporary
film noir, or a neo-noir. Overall, it's an amalgamation of that and a psychological
thriller, and the story is most appropriate to these two genres. The
main character is nameless, and the movie's title stems from an early, obsessive-
compulsive trait he possessed randomly picking out people on the street and
following them, sometimes even for hours on end. During one of these 'stalking
expeditions', the main character becomes noticed by one of the people he is
following, and is confronted. Turns out that the 'confronter' is a man who is
willing to befriend our narrator, and he introduces himself; his name is Cobb, and
he's a petty burglar who invites the narrator to follow him on his
burglaries. From there, the main character becomes swept up in Cobb's
world, and he becomes embroiled in crime, passion and violence as he gets more and
more intimate with Cobb. Following is not so much a character study, but instead a
film which follows the tumultuous relationship between these two main characters,
and the devastating ramifications it has on our narrator. Nolan succeeds in making
the film resemble a film noir, and emulates the respective atmosphere well. As a thriller, Following is taut and atmospheric; however as a film in
general, it's somewhat of a disappointment. If not that, then one could definitely
call it underwhelming. The entire film is shot in a non-chronological and non-
linear fashion, and it makes the story and film-experience unique, to some extent
this style has been done so many times now it's almost commonplace technique and
the story itself is unique to some extent. However, Following is
ultimately underwhelming for the entire film, and is disappointingly unspectacular.
The story calls for more more action, more suspense and more thrills but it
becomes too embroiled in its own storyline, and instead focuses on creating an
intricate story. Following does succeed in doing that, but without any other
elements it's a film noir that doesn't quite work out; it's got a sense of
emptiness which isn't enormous, but still noticeable nonetheless. Furthermore, the
film's shocking revelation at the end almost a mandatory convention in film noirs
is one that makes us feel cheated; it's unpredictable and comes out of nowhere,
but in relation to the story it's disappointing, as it essentially makes the
preceding scenes, and the entire film, seem like an enormous waste of time. But the positives far outweigh the negatives, and in the end Following
turns out to be a flawed but satisfying film, Yes, everybody has to start
somewhere. Christopher Nolan does it with Following, and he does it in a fine
manner. A quiet, meek but fine manner. It's not the most astounding movie, and it
isn't quite worthy of the accolades the director would go on to receive in the
following decade, but it's still a good film nonetheless. When singling out
Following, you find a well-made, taut and atmospheric thriller, one which lacks
noticeable nuance or innovative style but still manages to grip audiences
nonetheless.
Given Christopher Nolan's string of successful films, it's a no brainer for me to
want to check out his filmography watch his debut feature, which is shot in black
and white back in England, running less than 70 minutes long, done with little
budget, but containing all the hallmarks that has made him a master filmmaker and
storyteller. Though short, the film is no less gripping with its
meandering plot that will leave you guessing, because the premise doesn't even
scratch the surface of this tale, which is pretty amazing considering the depth in
the narrative's structure and characterization. As told, we follow a writer wannabe
called Bill (Jeremy Theobald) who starts a habitual obsession with following random
people he fancies on the streets in a voyeuristic manner, which at first could be
conceived as research, before he starts to make up his own rules, and break
them. He meets up with charismatic Cobb (Alex Haw) who turns out to be a
robber with peculiar sensibilities and modus operandi, and soon finds himself
hooked with hanging out with him as they go about breaking and entering and
speculating about their victim's livelihood, as does the pursuit of a femme fatale
blond (Lucy Russell), a mobster's moll who rejects his every advance. Told in a non-linear fashion which comes with scenes that don't quite add up in
the beginning, this sets the film up for multiple viewings as you study just how
Nolan sustains that suspense and intrigue with you as the audience expecting and
wanting more, which gets duly delivered. There are enough twists here which spins
the film into a dizzying crescendo, where loose ends begin to come together, and
the brilliance of the stellar story start to shine through. It's also
amazing how, as a first feature shot on the cheap, that something that clever and
sophisticated can be conceived from his own experience in being burgled, with Nolan
involved in every stage of production, from writing to shooting, producing and
directing, having worked on the project for a year since shoots can only happen on
weekends. I guess here's an example of a successful filmmaker's humble roots, which
should serve as inspiration and spur new filmmakers out there. Now I'll patiently
wait for Christopher Nolan's Inception due out later this year, whose trailer is
already such a tease.
An untidy man, known as Bill, lives in a small dreary flat, with a poster of
Marilyn Monroe on the wall, and his typewriter for company. Only the man can't
think of anything to write. He wanders around the streets following people, just to
see where they go. Maybe this will give him some inspiration to write. He begins to
follow a well dressed man holding a bag. He follows him for a few days. While in a
cafe, the well dressed man sits down at a table on the opposite side of Bill, and
inquires why Bill is following him. The well dressed man says his name is Cobb.
Cobb then surprisingly informs Bill that he is a burglar, and even starts to take
Bill with him into houses to steal things; although Cobb insists he doesn't go into
other people's homes to just steal. He says he likes to let people know he has been
there, and interrupted the things they take for granted. He puts knickers from
another burglary into a man's trousers, for example. The film is told in
flashbacks at times too. The director used this technique in greater abundance in
his recent feature Memento. Bill eventually decides to cut his hair and dress in a
suit, on the advice of Cobb. He meets a Blonde lady in a club, who used to date the
owner, a bald man, who is very dangerous, she says. We see a scene where a hammer
is used by the bald man's hence men on a man's fingers in the Blonde lady's flat.
These are some of the many pieces of the puzzle that the director shows us, and
they will all fit into place when we arrive at the surprising conclusion.
Previous reviewer Claudio Carvalho gave a much better recap of the film's plot
details than I could. What I recall mostly is that it was just so beautiful, in
every sense - emotionally, visually, editorially - just gorgeous. If you
like movies that are wonderful to look at, and also have emotional content to which
that beauty is relevant, I think you will be glad to have seen this extraordinary
and unusual work of art. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it about an
8.75. The only reason I shy away from 9 is that it is a mood piece. If you are in
the mood for a really artistic, very romantic film, then it's a 10. I definitely
think it's a must-see, but none of us can be in that mood all the time, so,
overall, 8.75.
It is an interesting exercise to witness the early works of great artists.
Sometimes, even without the 20/20 vision that hindsight offers you can see the cogs
and wheels that make these people what they are. Following is one such look into
the past of Christopher Nolan, one of the great time-warping story-teller of
today. Christopher Nolan's style of film-making puts a great deal of
emphasis on the delivery of the story. Although people might complain it relies too
much on the back-and-forth shifting of time, I still find it fascinating to see how
he uses that one technique differently each time. Memento was probably the most
convoluted piece of story-telling I have ever seen. Discount the hardened cynics
who say it is an old piece of meat wrapped in fancy dressing. Memento shows how
even the simplest of stories can be turned into a mind-bender. The Prestige, which
was considerably stripped down in comparison, still showed creativity in how its
three stories were interwoven. Even in a jaded enterprise like the Batman series
did Christopher Nolan sprinkle some of his outstanding yarn-weaving tricks,
breathing new life into the dark knight. Following is an intense tale of
intrigue and mystery, where we see a dilettante writer, who becomes a reluctant
voyeur, who becomes an unknowing accomplice to a variety of petty crimes, and
finally sees an end no one could have expected. Having never heard of Following
before, I had no idea what I was to expect. At every point the film kept me
guessing as to where it was leading me. Since the mystery angle was clear, I was
constantly trying to figure out what was going to happen next. And that is where I
think the film succeeds so well. The film has many elements that led me off on many
wild goose chases. The film is entirely in black and white and told in
multiple timelines, both of which are considered gimmicky these days. Following
does all of this in the least formulaic or contrived way possible. There doesn't
seem to be a reason why the story is told in the way it is, but you don't feel like
you are being taken for a ride. The lack of pretension or self-aware arrogance is
what makes this style of story-telling work. Highly recommended!
Christopher Nolan's directorial debut is a memorable one. The film was very well
received and help land contracts for making 'Memento' and quite rightfully so.
 Following is an exquisite example of how films should be made. No fancy
effects or blood-dripping gore...just brilliant writing and good acting. Nolan
manages to captivate us once again with his writing. The actors, all unknowns to me
and I suppose most people, did a good job bringing the characters to live. They
were all believable and that's all they need to be. The film is confusing because
it plays with chronology a lot but it's very rewarding in the end. The film's a
little short to be a full-length feature but any additional length would've ruined
the style of the movie and the brilliance of the writing would've been diminished.
Though short, the film has every aspect that makes a film attractive (IMO): an
intriguing beginning, an exciting middle and a surprising end. I dare
say Following is almost as good as Memento, his best film by far. The scrambled
chronology is equally masterful used in both films, the amazing plot twists are
present and the acting is very good. This film was made with a mere
$6000 but the quality is much higher than most( almost all) million dollar box-
office hits. The use of b&w may be a hard pill to swallow for the big audience,
following is primarily Nolan showing off his skills to the studio bosses :-). And
what skills they are...rarely have I enjoyed writing so much as in 'Following'.
Even Pi doesn't even come close IMO, though it's also very good. This is
a film surely not to be missed by any self-respecting movie-lover. If you liked
Memento, 'Following' is definitely for you.
Even with only 6,000 bucks and a cast of part-time actors, Christopher Nolan was a
master. Nolan is in my opinion, the next great and our first taste of Nolan doesn't
contradict that. None of the problems that constantly plaque and
discredit the low budget independent picture haunt Nolan and crew. Our actors are
inexperienced and young but they deliver and engage us in this story. In all
honesty I think Following is Nolan's best screenplay because it is the one he had
the most control over. It's a beautifully imagined film. It takes us into a world
where we don't feel limited by the constraints of budget. The dialogue and
atmosphere is bold and intelligent. Nolan's trademark method of telling
the story out of continuity is applied for the first time here and here it is done
in a way that throws the story full out at you. With Memento and The Prestige you
have to think a bit to truly get a complete grasp on the genius but Nolan doesn't
try to confuse people with his prototype film. We can distinguish time by the
appearance of our protagonist. This method of telling a story is both creative and
engaging. I am Glad that Nolan has had so much success with it because his films
become more than what they could be with this method. The pay offs in the Prestige
and Memento would not have been thrilling at all if the movie was told in a
conventional format. This idea has been done with moderate success before but Nolan
has truly made it his own. The script here is Nolan's finest. I had some
doubts about his writing abilities, I all ways imagined that his brother Jonathon
was the writing talent but he proves me wrong with Following. It is a thought
provoking story which makes interesting observations of people and how they
function. Cobb's assessments about burglarizing and how it can lead you to discover
what makes people tick actually sounds plausible. My only real complaint
is the camera work gets shaky at times but it doesn't take away anything from the
story or the acting. Following is the first film of the man who will
personify 21st century film-making at it's finest.
Christopher Nolan had his goals set on Following in a very narrow direction, and in
that direction he pulled off something that reminded me of the kind of great little
'poverty-row' movies the likes of Ullmer directed back in the 40s. Only this time,
he's able to implement touches of homage- things like black and white photography
(a given due to the shoe-string budget but also essential to the dark crevices
these characters inhabit) and casting of the actors (the John Doe lead, the slick
male counterpart, and the beautiful-in-a-gritty way femme fatale)- while keeping it
in the realm of the 90s underground indie where for several thousand dollars and
specific choices in locations and music and such anything could be possible. That,
and as well in the film-noir mood Nolan also puts together a cunning web of a plot,
maybe even more so than Memento. Where the latter was a work of a psychology
unfolding by way of a plot enriched by looking to the past inch by inch, here the
non-linear structure serves the purpose of showing how far someone like Bill can go
through as dark a path as Cobb, only in an environment where keeping on your toes
is not for someone who's not really twisted and into the deeper mind games Cobb
is. Of course, the whole act of following someone becomes the main
thrust of the story, and going into it I wasn't even sure where it would lead, if
it might be some kind of stream of consciousness ala Slacker where Nolan would lead
his character along to one urban British person to another. But the establishment
of the ties of Bill to Cobb are done in a quick and excellent way, as we see right
when Cobb approaches Bill at the café to ask what he's doing following him tells
almost all we need to know about both- that, and the first robbery he brings him
along for. What seems to soon be a good score on the horizon is really all one big
set-up by Cobb and his lady (just called 'The Blonde', maybe a too-obvious homage
to noir, but why carp). But this is revealed in a way that actually truly had me
guessing, as the manipulation of the narrative worked all the more to arouse
questions not so much of why but of how. The density is brought out all the greater
due to the actors understanding of their essential points as characters, with Alex
Haw being brilliant as a true sociopath who can barely mask his 'deep' ideas about
what it is to really take pleasure in a burglary, and Theobald with that demeanor
of someone who can never be as smart as he is in what he really does, but is more
intelligent in that naive way that stands no chance in the dank environment such as
this; Russell almost makes it too easy, even with a face that would send Ana Savage
shaking her head. Meanwhile, Nolan is also on the ball with his style as
a cameraman, keeping nothing in that doesn't add to ambiance and suspense, with the
fade-in/fade-outs not too quick to leave a lasting impression, but enough to add to
the 'this-could-lead-anywhere' logic of the script. He follows it in hand-held form
as if he knows where his limitations lie, and yet is fantastic at keeping the
essentials: close-ups when need be (one I loved is Russell's face in a small
mirror), and a fairly simple techno track that never detracts. Sometimes, as
mentioned, the line between seeing something in 'present-day' and seeing something
that is as everlasting as a solid pulp story of low-level criminals with mind-games
and moral ambiguity is always never totally clear, which for me is practically
irresistible in its dark way. Simply put, this is one of the great calling cards
I've seen from a filmmaker in recent years, and should hopefully be something that
future fans of Nolan's other work can look forward to to discovering. Or even to
those who think that noir has gone to the rapid-editing and big-gun-firing dogs of
the mainstream (even in independent films) it's a bright little 71 minutes.
Bill, Jeremy Theobald, is an inspiring writer who hasn't gotten anything published
as of yet. Bill also has an odd and strange habit, he likes to follow people. Bill picks out some stranger in the streets diner or on the subway, metro,
and follows them as if he were their shadow. Maybe Bill does this to help him in
inspiring himself to write the great novel that he's been dreaming about or get an
article of his get printed in a major magazine? Maybe it's because it fills Bill's
lonely life with a purpose and even makes the person of his curiosity a face in the
crowd with meaning and substance by his paying attention to him or her? Or maybe it
gives Bill someone to look after and care about and be responsible for besides
himself? Bill has a simple rule that he follows religiously when he follows someone
: after you follow him or her to their home or place of work you stop. One day Bill follows Cobb, Alex Haw, home and instead of following his rule of
stopping he still keeps following Cobb. Bill will soon realize how right he was
with that rule he set for himself in following people and at the same time how
wrong he was by breaking it. Amazingly good low-budget movie made by
Christopher Noland in 1998 before he hit it big in Hollywood with his ground-
breaking and original motion picture classic "Momento" some two years later that
has already become a major cult movie. "Following" is actually a much
better movie then "Momento" because it's a conventional and easy to follow story.
Compared to "Momento's" which was at first confusing and then when you realize what
the movie is telling you in it's backward storyline very complicated. Whats makes
"Following" so much better is just by it being simple but at the same time brainy
in it's affect on those who watch it. The movie is far more direct as well as
devastating and you don't have to see it over and over to get just what it was
trying to tell them like "Momento" did. "Following" is a story within a story
within a story with one of the most surprising as well as simply manipulated
ending, if you watch the movie again and notice the clues, that you'll ever see. Made with an unbelievably small budget of $6,000.00, thats less then what
most Hollywood movies budgets out for coffee-breaks, with a no-name cast in black
and white and just over one hour, 71 minutes, long. Hollywood as well as the motion
picture industry outside of Hollywood can learn a lot from Chris Noland in how
someone with nothing more then talent and imagination can achieve what millions of
dollars in most cases can't; make an intelligent and at the same time penetrating
film with next to nothing in money and no big name stars.
Just watched this on DVD three times - Once the 'normal' way, once with the scenes
in consecutive order (in this doozy of a film noir, the beginning, middle and end
of the story intertwine), and once with the director's commentary running. Quite
amazing. A bare-bones tale, told with more flair, energy and substance than most
big-budget overblown features being released today. I think this is an
even more accomplished film than the subsequent Memento, which turned me on to
Nolan in the first place. Can't wait to see what he does with a bigger budget (and
bigger box-office stars) in his next film, Insomnia.
Great film. No gratuitous gimmicks like in most Hollywood films. Everything
supported the suspense of the plot. B&w gave it a basic, no-frills feel also. In
short, it was visceral in its simplicity of cinematography and cast. Following serves as an interesting contrast to Memento. Characters in both used
manipulation and subterfuge extensively. In that sense, both reminded me somewhat
of "In the Company of Men," also highly recommendable. One difference between
Nolan's two films is that Memento was a little easier for me to follow, given that
the b&w scenes progress in a constant chronological direction, and so do those in
color. I don't think that was true of Following, where scenes seemed to be shown at
random. If you have the choice between VCR and DVD, I'd highly recommend DVD, since
that gives you the option of watching the movie a second time in chronological
order, not just in the scrambled (albeit ingenuous) order presented by Nolan. It
also makes it easier, upon a second viewing, to piece the order together for
yourself, if you want to. As another viewer noted, one of the best
things about both this movie and Memento is that none of the cast were famous. They
were characters, not big-name actors who brought in personas developed in other
movies. Given certain similarities in the plots, I wonder if Memento is
sort of a remake of Following, but intended to reach a bigger audience, like Edward
Burns made She's the One in the mold of -- and with largely the same cast as -- The
Brothers McMullan.
I just finished watching Following and I thought it was great. I rated it 8 out of
10. I plan on watching it again with the director's commentary and then again in
chronological order. I rented this movie because of my fascination of
Christopher Nolan's more recent movie Memento. Following has some similarities;
this movie was probably the blueprint for Memento. Even the music in some parts is
very similar. Shooting the movie in black and white gives it a
mysterious feel. The story and dialogue is really good. The performance of the
actors is believable. Christopher Nolan made this movie on a really low
budget. I look forward to his next release Insomnia, a big budget movie with my
favourite actor Al Pacino.
The debut that plucked from obscurity one of the brighter stars of contemporary
noir is an assured, if limited, stab at the con game and obsession. Filmed for zero
money, Nolan couldn't have chosen a better subject than the drab and seamy
underside of London to ply his trade, given the lack of funds. This short (67 min)
is at its best in playing with the audience's and protagonist's expectations about
who is scamming whom, though the initial set-up does ring some alarm bells in the
credibility dept. The muddy cinematography (he often used natural lighting due to
budget) can be mostly chalked up to noir stylization, though the limitations do
show at times. One can easily see Nolan's style developing in this
fledgling effort; many of the same themes of blurred identity and expectation
smashing recur in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA. Not a masterpiece but good and certainly
worth a look for modern noir and Nolan fans.
Christopher Nolan's first directorial effort, a year before he did "Memento," and
this is almost as brilliant as that classic. He uses time differentials in a
similar manner to tell his story, and it's a very clever one. Bill is
this young writer who begins following complete strangers around just to see where
they live and what they're all about. One day, he follows this man, Cobb, who turns
the tables and confronts Bill, who breaks down and confesses what he's up to.
 Cobb is a burglar and he takes Bill along on a few jobs to teach him
the ropes. Both men are voyeurs of a sort and a bond begins to grow between the two
of them. But there's an ulterior motive for Cobb nurturing this
relationship, and it all ties in very smartly at the end. No, I won't spoil it but
this is a very cool movie and I'm beginning to think Christopher Nolan is a
genius. If you like suspense films with surprise endings, this one is a
must see.
It's worth boning up on the Hindu pantheon before watching this film. Three main
female deities -- wise Sita, nurturing Lakshmi and Kali the Transformer -- as well
as three main male deities -- grave Rama, playful Krishna and Shiva the Ender --
are all alluded to. Knowing the folklore as surely every Indian member of an
audience does lends a richness to the telling of the present-day story. In fact,
one folktale is enacted first on stage, as part of a lesson in spirituality, and
then in the movie's "real life." "Fire" speaks out against the misogyny and
homophobia in the society to which its producers are native, and it does so with a
beauty that weaves the message into multiple levels of the viewer's awareness,
making it a deeply satisfying presentation. This is the finest film i've seen in
the past ten years; very highly recommended!
Christopher Nolan's first feature film wowed critics who saw it when it first came
out. Shot on a micro budget of $6,000 this is a student film with real class. The
film is shot in black and white, and features people who you assume are friends of
Nolan's appearing in the movie. This is not to say they are bad actors because they
are quite good. You could see Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw appearing in other
projects but unfortunately they haven't since this was made 6 years ago. Nolan's thriller, much like Memento, does not play chronologically, it
shifts the scenes around much like Pulp Fiction. The writing is fantastic. It is a
great twisting thriller but because the temporal order of the film is shifted
around it makes it even more interesting. I thought the last ten minutes in
particular when everything starts to become clear were excellent. For a
film of such a small budget and with no recognizable names at all, this is so good.
It is superior to most that Hollywood studios offer and Nolan after three films
(this, the superior Memento and the not quite as good but still excellent Insomnia)
has cemented himself as the most exciting new talent of recent times. I can't wait
for Batman. This film is short and sweet and certainly a great watch. It
is very professional and the twists are fantastic and completely surprising. I also
thought that the score from David Julyan was also excellent, very atmospheric and
had a chilly quality to it. He has gone on to compose Nolan's other films. Overall I would recommend this, I intend to get all of Nolan's films. This
is a low budget gem. ***** 
"You were on your way up and you tripped on a skirt !" Gilligan says to Jim
Leonard. That sums up the plot of this story of up and coming Leonard (a YOUNG
Humphrey Bogart) when his dream gets sidetracked by the bombshell heiress Carol,
played by Dorothy Mackaill. Leonard has been working on a new and improved motor,
but now his love life and motor company both have their ups and downs in this 68
minute shortie. Bogart hadn't developed the quiet, brooding style yet. Good
performances by most of the supporting characters - her butler, his co-workers, a
sister, interlopers along the way. Some adult themes, since it was done just before
they really enforced the film code, but it's still tame compared to what is on TV
today. Directed by Thornton Freeland, a year before Freeland directed the
incredible "Flying Down to Rio".
Humphrey Bogart in his first starring role looks very young, acts well, but has a
pronounced lisp only hinted at later in his career. Still, he's very good and very
appealing as the idealistic young inventor of a new airplane motor. Dorothy Mackaill is the real star here, playing a once-rich woman who's torn
between her real love for Bogart (he's broke too) and the comfort and security of
marrying an older man (Hale Hamilton). Along for the ride are Astrid
Allwyn as Bogart's trampy sister, Bradley Page as her would-be producer, Barbara
Leonard as the cosmetologist, Jack Kennedy as Gilligan, and Halliwell Hobbes as the
faithful (and wise) butler). Both Mackaill (whi had been a star in
silent films) and Bogart were trying to gain a toehold in talkies in 1932. Bogart
was a slow-rising actor from the Broadway stage; Mackaill was slipping and would
soon appear in skid-row production like PICTURE BRIDES. Yet they are both very good
here. Mackaill wasn't even 30 when she appeared in this film!
I saw this episode of Masterpiece Theatre and immediately came to IMDb to look it
up. I was greeted by a comment from another user, who believed that it was nothing
special, a 6 out of 10, and underwhelming. I would feel morally remiss if I didn't
disagree. Now, I am an avid fan of Masterpiece Theatre, but oftentimes
the stories can be a bit silly on television, for example, "He Knew He Was Right"
was absolutely horrendous. "Carrie's War," however, is probably the best I've seen
so far. The entire cast does an excellent job, and it held my interest more than
any other piece I've seen recently. The character Mr. Evans is of particular
interest, and through subtle images of, for example, an untouched birthday cake or
a garnet ring, my opinion of him went from bad to truly good. Truly. His ultimate
demise, and the story of how everyone around him left him a cold hard man, is what
brought out the bittersweet in this story for me. The end is gratifying
in every sense but one; that everyone did not get what they deserved, but overall
things worked out. I absolutely recommend this to everyone.
A delightful story about two evacuees, has been turned into a nice little film, by
the BBC. Most children who like a good story will enjoy this. The characters are
played really well by a very good cast. Not sure whether our American friends will
appreciate it, but they do get a mention, as Aunty Lou runs off with a gorgeous
American soldier.
Having seen other Bollywood flicks with Salman Khan in them, I can say this is my
favorite of the more recent ones. The songs are all quite fun, especially 'O Priya
O Priya' which seems to have a nice mix of Beatles, Indian music and (dare I say
this) a bit of Prince. The love stories are a bit more believable than, say, Chal
Mere Bhai. The occasional focus on Prem's use of alcohol is at times troubling as
it doesn't really seem to make sense to me, but it's played well by Khan--although
his voice does become squeaky when he's portraying drunkenness.
Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye is a great family movie. Salman Khan is looking handsome
and great than ever! There's even a scene where he takes off his shirt! What a
surprise!!! Rani Mukherjee is great too. Pooja Batra had very few lines to say but
I'm glad she has been acknowledged for her role because she definitely has
potential. It's about Prem (Salman Khan) and he is a wedding singer. He
is about to marry Nisha (Raveena Tandon) but gets stood up. Prem goes to Nisha's
house and asks her why he was ditched and it's because her brother is ill and she
needs to marry an NRI, Rahul (Inder Kumar), to get the money to get him treated.
Prem moves on and in comes Priya (Rani Mukherjee). Prem falls in love
with Priya but it's a shame she's about to get married to an NRI! Who could this
NRI be?! Priya falls in love with Prem too while Rahul is there with her. Prem
gives Priya an insulting comment one day and she goes off and sets off to Agra for
the wedding with Rahul. Will Prem stop her? Watch KPNHJ to find out! The
film was very funny! The songs were great especially the song "O Priya O Priya"
It's a shame the film flopped in India and I don't know why?! Every film in India
is going flop nowadays!! This film deserved to be a hit. The only problem I found
with the film is that they had an obsession about NRI's! They think ALL NRI's are
rich! The film deserves a 9/10!
This movie was made only 48 years after the end of the Civil War--most likely in
anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. In the film there are
recreations of battles and the people of the era that look rather impressive and
realistic. It also provides a different and more balanced view than just its
contemporary, BIRTH OF A NATION--a patently absurd and racist film. Because of
this, this short film would be excellent for use in the classroom to discuss the
war and tell the story of a very young man that runs away to enlist as a drummer.
The boy makes good and is a hero, though the film ends rather melodramatically--a
definite convention of the day. Not a great film, but a decent plot, decent acting
and little of the over-the-top acting you often saw in other films of the
day. One annoying aspect of this film was the too frequent use of title
cards to describe or set the stage for stuff that was really obvious. It got
annoying from time to time.
I really liked this movie. One thing I have noticed is that Korean TV drama's are
way better, as far as giving you the whole story. I watch movies when I do not have
the time or feel like going through 16-30 episodes. Movies are seem to be rushed
and if you do not watch carefully, you may miss something. I do feel
this one was rushed and I had to rewind a few parts to try and find what I missed,
especially towards at the end. If you like nice love stories, I still think this is
cute, and if yo have the extra time, I still think this is worth watching. It is always nice to go back follow the actors in different movies as we do not
get to follow them from when they begin, as we do the actors producers and
directors in our own countries.
I was geared up to not like this movie, and the first 10 minutes or so did nothing
to allay my fears. It starts off with 2 high school gangs squaring off against each
other with bad kung-fu. A scenario found in countless other Korean films. Ho-hum.
Add the fact that the story was written by the same guy who wrote "He Was Cool"
(which was barely passable) and, well, I thought I was in for a nondescript 2
hours. But don't give up so quickly! "A Romance of Their Own" was
directed by Tae-gyun Kim, who also did "Volcano High" (which I thought was loads of
fun). Anyway, "Romance of Their Own" soon takes a turn much for the better. A high
school girl, just having moved to Seoul, finds herself in the middle of attention
from two prospective suitors. Each guy has his own merit, and it is not clear which
one (if either) would be the right pick. What follows is not your usual
teen love triangle. The emotions are complex, and while you may not agree with
certain choices or actions as the film develops, you can certainly understand why
the characters make them. The movie asks questions of the characters and
the audience. Who does one choose? At what point is one obligated to even make a
choice (and is it unfair to one if it seems he is being strung along)? After you
(or your heart) has made a choice, how do you react (and how *should* you react)
when new information comes up that sheds new light on the situation? There is one
scene, near the end, that is very subtle but perfectly captures what I think would
be a real-life reaction instead of over-the-top "movie reaction." The subtlety is
in a character in the background of the scene. Recent events and revelations have
left him confused and emotionally overwhelmed. Basically, he doesn't know what to
make of things. Instead of having him "act out" something, or look all gape-mouthed
dumbstruck, he just stares off at some fixed point unable to react or say anything
at all. It's like someone just pulled the plug on him. His reaction rang true to me
and I appreciated the scene. Like most Korean films, there is a mix of
action, bravado, slapstick, and melodrama. Korean films often take abrupt turns
(see, "Sex Is Zero" for a great example), which can be quite a shock for the
uninitiated. Go ahead and initiate yourself with this one. Like it, love it, or
hate it, I think most viewers will be able to relate to and appreciate the
characters' actions and reactions.
This intelligent, moving and beautiful film is a study in the ways people react to
tradition (reminds me of William Faulkner's novels). The characters all
feel trapped by the weight of the roles they are expected to assume, and seek for a
way to live within those roles rather than throw them off altogether. But as the
story develops the two wives, trapped in loveless marriages, draw together. Drawing
on the strength of their friendship and love, they give each other the courage to
abandon their roles. They have found that living within their traditions
is no life at all, it is a sort of living death: without passion, without true
connection to others, without fulfillment. Although they know there will be a price
to be paid for their rebellion and freedom, it is a price much less dear than the
sacrifice called for by a comfortable, predictable existence. The
screenplay is wonderful, the acting marvelous. Near perfect!
I was pleasantly surprised to find this movie showing as a sneak preview in my
local theater. We have all seen this plot line before (Top Gun, GI Jane,
An Officer and a Gentleman) but a good script still works. This story is basically
about the training of a Coast Guard rescue team with a couple of side story lines.
Kevin Costner plays a highly successful rescue team leader, Ben Randall, who is
forced into heading the training team after a tough mission. The movie takes us
through the rigors of the training process and the personal stories of both the
Costner character and that of Jake Fischer, played by Ashton Kutcher. I am happy to
say that Ashton is great in this part. There are no great surprises in
this movie and you will probably realize what is coming long before it arrives.
However, the use of humor, the exploration of the toughness of the training and the
fun of watching Ben Randall "do his own thing as a trainer", kept me riveted and
thoroughly entertained. I really enjoy watching a movie that makes the entire
audience laugh out loud, gasp here and there, and clap at the end as a tribute to
the movie. We all had a good time (despite a couple of tough moments in
the movie)and, I think, you will too.
Let's face it. This movie is incredibly cliché, as Korean romance dramas
and movies go. First of all, there's a pair of long-lost siblings, one of which
falls in love with the other. Second, there's a not-so-popular girl and two
gorgeous, popular guys who fall for and fight over her. Third, one of the
characters suffers from a tragic disease, which, eventually, takes his life. Still, I like this movie. Without the right actors, this movie
would probably have disappointed fans of the novel. But because the actors fit the
roles perfectly, the movie is engrossing--I honestly couldn't stop watching. Kang
Dong Won, despite his pretty face, gives an awesome, heartrending performance, not
to mention Lee Chung Ah and Jo Han Sun, plus all the supporting actors. I'd definitely recommend this movie to everyone.
I watched this because a friend told me it was damn good, and I watched a video on
it, so I was really into watching it. I watched it, and, damn, the fighting scenes
are REALLY good. If the guys can't fight like that in real life, they sure fooled
me. There isn't as much fighting as I would like, I have to say, but the fights
that are in the movie are pretty spectacular. They don't show much, but you can
tell it's violent and cool. But there's also the plot, that goes around a love
triangle between the main characters, though it's a bit twisted. Tae-sung is a
carefree guy who seems to love getting into trouble, as well as fights. He's the
leader of his school, and is the rival of Hea-won, who's the leader of his own
school - a bit of a playboy, hot-headed and a rich boy. Then there's Han-kyung, a
girl with not a lot going for her - her father just passed away and she moved back
with her mother, the guy she liked is dating her old friend -, and then she meets
Hea-won, who goes to her school, and Tae-sung, who calls her "nuna" (older sister).
Eventually, she discovers Tae-sung is her brother, fruit of one of her father's
affair, and he loves her despite of their blood relation. Meanwhile, Hea-won falls
for her, and takes her as his boyfriend. But she is torn between her boyfriend and
her little brother, who confesses her love to her. Overall, it's a wonderful movie,
but if I was really depressed after the end, and I just couldn't help but think,
Damn, are all Korean movie I watch about fighting/death/depressing stuff/incest??
'Cause that sure was the case with Old Boy, and Temptation of Wolves. It's a very
good movie, but people have to be ready to cry at the end.
It's nice to see a romantic comedy that does not have the prissy man lead, this has
solid acting from both male leads and also from the female lead and although the
story is a little long and a little cliché you cant help but like it. I
think the story was a little rushed at the end, but extending that would have made
the story even longer. Superior to other romantic comedies such as 100 days with Mr
arrogant, and possibly tied with my tutor friend. It would make an
interesting introduction to Korean cinema, not as great as My sassy girl, but still
good.
GLORIFYING not GLAMORIZING World War II. We've had quite a few
documentary series about World War II on the regular Television programming.
Without looking up any information in some encyclopedia or film book, it seems that
this old memory can recollect most names entirely on it's own. There was
CRUSADE IN EUROPE,which was the title of the war memoirs of one General of the Army
and later the 33rd President of the United States of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
It told the story of the conflict in Europe as viewed by the Supreme Allied
Commander. Then there was a CRUSADE IN THE PACIFIC(subject matter self-
explanatory),which I don't remember much about. Newspaper Man/Author, Jim Bishop
was the host/navigator of BATTLELINE. And there was the excellent
WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS.* The Series was a co-production of the
British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting Company. It first
aired in 1960-61 season here in The States and boasts of having Richard Burton's
speaking the words of Sir Winston. It is the 1952 NBC Television
Network's Production of our subject matter today, this VICTORY AT SEA that wins the
cigar, hands down. To begin with, this had to have taken the production
several years of carefully and literally sorting through thousands of hours of
film. The movie footage referred to here was the official filmed record taken by
members of the Armed Forces of the United States, independent newsreel film, Motion
Picture Record of our other Allied Partner Nations,as well as captured Axis
pictures from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Once that
was accomplished, the various corresponding film had to be cut and edited into a
series of 1/2 hour installments. This was done with great skill, being that there
were so many scene changes, whether done abruptly or as a dissolve. The look of
ever episode appears as smooth as if it had been a single motion picture
project. The writing of the Spoken Word to accompany this finest of real
life film was no less amazing and unique. The highly polished and meaningful
eloquence wastes not a word and at times even understates the description of
action, rather than exaggerating it. The narration goes to Mr. Ralph Graves, who
was a talented Actor of Stage, Film, Radio and Television. He certainly gained a
measure of immortality by way of his golden toned voicing of the written episode
descriptions. Lastly, VICTORY AT SEA enjoys the luxury of having an
original score, both opening theme and incidental music, penned by Richard Rodgers
of Broadway fame.(Rodgers & Hart, Rodgers & Hammerstein) His compositions are
intricate, full, variable and even "classic" in the true sense. The
Classical Arrangement was played by the NBC Sympphony Orchestra under the Direction
of Robert Russell Bennett and as a soundtrack record/cassette tape/compact disk, it
has been continually available and in demand ever since its first release, 55 years
ago! And, really small wonder, for it is this musical score that is so mesmerizing
to the viewer/listener. It truly puts the frosting on this cake. * SIR
WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS also had a beautiful and highly memorable
original score. This also was composed by Mr. Rodgers. ** We had in
additional "Ace in the Hole" in our house in the person of our Father, the Late
Clement J. Ryan(1914-74). Dad had been in the U.S.Navy during the war, being
inducted in 1943 or'44. Our Pop was always on hand to explain and further elucidate
any of the situations that were depicted in the series. He and our
Mother the now 90 year old Bertha (nee Fuerst)Ryan already had my older sister,
Joanne(1942-90)as a Dependant.
I just found the entire 3 DVD set at Wal-Mart in the bargain bin for $5.50, so I
thought I would take another look. Total of 13 hours to watch it all (26 episodes).
I was born in 1948 and saw most of them on TV in the sixties. Many independent
stations repeated them for many years. Better than I expected actually,
time has been kind to the obvious sincerity of it's creators, and to the obvious
gratitude and respect they give to all the Allied fighting men and women. More
abstract and arty than a straight forward documentary, but very truthful in it's
depiction of the causes and final results of WWII. That war was greatly dependent
on sea transportation, and the final victory was dependent on who achieved the
final mastery of the world's oceans. The Allies were the ones who were able to do
it. Interesting too, to see how they try to strike a balance between big
events, and the individual soldiers and sailors that made them happen. The score is
impressive, if a bit too much by today's standards. I read somewhere that Robert
Russell Bennett contributed just as much as Richard Rodgers to final score. I
imagine that Rodgers provided all the major themes, and it was up to Bennett to fit
them to the images. Great job! Should be seen by every ruler, or
potential ruler. A warning to tyrants that wars are eventually won by ideals,
determination, and the supplies to back them up. Logistics: their quality and
delivery will determine the eventual victors. The Allies outproduced and surpassed
the material quality of the Axis, attacked their very source in the process, and
insured their eventual defeat. Sorry to see that the producer, Henry
Salomon, lived a very short life. IMDb's facts were rather skimpy, I have to find
out more about him. He did a few more outstanding documentaries before his early
death. Might have more to say at a later time Trivia: I had all 3 LP
records made of the background music, pretty good overall. Unfortunately, the
producers decided to add sound effects to the last one, relegating immediately to
just novelty status, rather than for serious music listening. Too bad too, because
it contained some interesting but more minor themes in the series. Silly stuff like
16 inch guns firing, torpedoes being fired, bulldozers, planes...just for kids
mainly. RSGRE
I spotted this film in a branch of the Duane Reed pharmacy in New York on holiday,
and it seemed like a bit of silly fun. And sure enough, the whole premise is
ridiculous beyond words - but it turned out to be a thoroughly enjoyable action
film for kids, and their parents too. 10-year-old Ricky Bernard (Jordan
Garrett) has his head in the clouds most of the time, much to his father's (Larry
Miller) dismay. As a member of his school orchestra, Ricky and schoolmates fly to a
concert performance ... and once again Ricky's mind 'takes off' and suspects some
criminal plot is happening. Reluctantly aided by best friend Sashi, who
is a fan of hot sauce (what a strange plot device that was) and others they try to
get to solve the mystery. Oh yes, and Ricky's skills 1,000 hours of flight
simulator experience prove to be handy when he is called on to save the day in the
film's thrilling climax! It was good to see Eric Roberts and Mark Dacoscos play
parts in a family film. And watching the DVD interviews everyone seems to have had
great fun taking part. I totally liked Junior Pilot; charming and good-
natured performances, funny plot line and a real; sense of enjoyment and sheer
silliness. If you are looking for an entertaining family film, you could
do far worse than buy this one.
Definitely worth renting! Good clean family entertainment. My 4 and 5 year-olds
(and I) loved it. Kept them on the edge of their seats. I recommend parents sit
with their younger children to watch this, as it can be quite suspenseful for them.
It's not too often you can find movies that you can watch with your children, and
so this is a rare find. Some of the acting / realism isn't quite there at times, or
maybe is a little corny, but children don't seem to notice or care, they love it.
Parts are predictable, but other parts are not - like trying to figure out who the
good guys are and who the bad guys are. The movie doesn't have any really
scary/creepy stuff, and so I doubt it will give children nightmares. It does
inspire children to dream, which is something we need to encourage and foster more
in our children. Rent and be blessed!
This was a great movie. It had one "sot-so-nice" outburst. Plus there were some
very intense (drama) scenes which might make it inappropriate for younger viewers,
under 6. For a under the radar film, the acting was quite enjoyable, and
touched down in our family room for a near perfect landing. It held the attention
of our whole family and we were kind of sorry to see it end. This movie
had elements of spy kids with young people saving the day, but was given a somewhat
more believable scenario. The dream scenes were a distraction at first, but did a
great deal to establish the plot. The pranks and hi-jinx were also quite
amusing. We hope you like as much as we did.
This film is titled "Junior Pilot" here on IMDb but "Final Approach" at Netflix. Go
figure! The movie is a delight for both the target youth audience and for adults
who can suspend their maturity long enough to watch this film through the eyes of
their own youth. For the adult, the story is quite predictable, and perhaps trite
and melodramatic; whereas the tale may seem new and creative to youngsters who have
not yet seen or read many films or books with such a story line. In any
case, credit must be given to the film's creators, particularly the director James
Becket and the cinematographer Denis Maloney, for making this most entertaining and
visually interesting film. The cut-aways to the young protagonist Ricky's fantasy
thoughts are hilarious as well as delightfully filmed. The young actors
give uniformly believable performances, seemingly quite invested in their roles--
silly as many scenes are. Jordan Garrett plays the protagonist "Ricky" with quite
well, having excellent camera presence. Jeffrey Tedmori creates a delightfully soft
and sensitive "Shashi" who of all ridiculous things thrives on hot sauce. Skyler
Samuels and Adam Cagley give solid performances as well. As is typical
of his always fine acting, Larry Miller creates a solid parental figure around
which the children's part-real, part-fantasy world revolves. Compared to his
father-figure, the other major adult roles appear to be shallow and one-
dimensional, intentionally and quite humorously so, to be sure. This
movie is a simplistic youth-targeted story, of course, yet it is quite
entertaining, perhaps repeatedly so to the targeted youth crowd, but also for at
least one viewing by adults who retain the ability to view such a film from their
once-youthful perspective.
I've just watched this with my three children - 12yrs (boy), 10yrs (boy) and 8yrs
(girl) and this film was good old fashioned family action adventure. Although
definitely aimed at the kid market (I'd say 5 to 13)it was certainly watchable and
as a parent it is a pleasure to find a movie that appeals to a broad range of ages
whilst still being suitable for the whole family to watch - particularly younger
children. The story revolves around Ricky, a bit of a nerd with a vivid
imagination (this can definitely be seen in his daydream sequences) who foils a
kidnapping and major art theft while on on-board a flight to Washington for a
school trip. Ricky's dad is an airplane mechanic, so Ricky not only knows the
structure of the aircraft inside out but is also a top-gun on his computer flight
simulator. This comes in handy when the pilot and co-pilot are out cold through a
series of misadventures and there is no-one left to fly the plane. I don't want to
give away any more of the plot.
The thing which makes "Fire" even more appealing to watch apart from its magical
artistry, is its touch of femininism and rebellion. To my mind, the very character
played by Shabana Azmi is a symbol of the Indian feminine protest against the
Indian society. The name of the movie and the scene when Radha walks through flames
in her kitchen are symbloic of Hindu Mythology's Lord Rama's wife Sita's walking
through fire for the proof of her immaculacy, as per the same narrative which
appears in the film too. The film could be a great inspiration for women,
particularly those in the subcontinent, to search for their liberties and to attain
control of their lives.
I never heard of Mishima before I watched this film and although parts of it are a
little tedious, I still find myself drawn to watch it when it is repeated on the
box. At the beginning of the film, we are told about a celebrated Japanese writer
behaves like a lunatic and commits seppuku in public. As the film progresses you
are gently inducted into twisted logic of Mishima's mind. The stages of his life
are are presented in four chapters. Each chapter itself is a blend of two
contrasting narratives, the first continues the story with scenes from Mishima's
life and appear in black and white. The second narrative is an adaptation of scenes
from a novel and these are staged like a play and filmed in vivid colours. There is
a different novel staged in each chapter. Between each chapter, the narrative
returns to the present, as Mishima proceeds towards his eventual ritual suicide.
This means that the drama and tension is maintained until the end. I
suspect that many people will find this film to be boring pretentious and art-
house. I respect that, this is not a film for people who want action and a strong
story line. If on the other hand you are the kind of person who relishes the
opportunity to penetrate the mind a bizarre man while watching his life story told
in collage of beautiful pictures set to music by Philip Glass, you will love it. I
loved it. 
I saw this originally on Channel 4 (UK) and it was a fantastic film that left a
great impression on me. However I saw it on Irish TV recently and there was an
added narration by Roy Scheider ("we're going to need a bigger boat!"). This ruined
the film for me. His droning monologue adds absolutely nothing to the film, and if
anything takes from the films brilliance. I wonder at the new DVD version that has
no Roy (due to legal reasons?) would stop people from buying it. Well believe me,
the film is much better for it! Cheers Damian
This movie is a haunting telling of the life of the author and poet, Mishima. It
jumps around through his past, through his last day, and through some of his
stories but is expertly constructed as it moves from section to section. It
captures the flavor of the man, his work and of his times...the difficult 1960s. I think the most wonderful parts (literally, full of "wonder") are the
excerpts from his works. The sets (especially designed to work with the camera) are
amazing....stylized, beautiful and effective. They could be used as exemplars for
any set designer. I woke up at night dreaming of the Golden Pagoda. The
stories were powerful explorations of the nature of man and of art. After watching
this film, I wanted to learn more about the works of this artist. I
highly recommend this movie for anyone interested in art, poetry, theater,
politics, or Japanese history.
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters is an art-house biography about Yukio Mishima,
celebrated Japanese writer, who bears resemblance to Paul Schrader's earlier
character Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver): both of them are lonely people searching for
their place in their society and when they realize that world doesn't need them,
they try to destroy their surrounding universe. If you want to learn
about life of Mishima, then you won't find a lot of information here, because it
shows that he didn't live a very interesting life (except for his final day), but
if you want to understand his personality, then it is the best movie of its kind,
as most of the movie is adaptation of his novels and also provides a guide to his
thoughts. This movie shows that Mishima was a person, who witnessed the fall of
Japanese culture, which he was very fond of and with his final act he tried to save
traditions and prove to himself that he is a real warrior, but he realized that as
a person he was just a man with no power to change the events.
Paul Schrader and his brother Leonard wrote Mishima, and in so doing, clearly drew
parallels between the life of Yukio Mishima and his work. The film is divided into
four sections: beauty, art, action, and the fateful day when Mishima held an army
general hostage and spoke to the garrison, only to have it ridicule him and his
Bushido ideals of the samurai code. Mishima committed ritual seppuku on November
25, 1970, and he planned it as a meshing of beauty, art, and action. Schrader edits
scenes recreating that day with three different scenarios from Mishima's novels:
Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House, and Runaway Horses. The moment of
seppuku is perfectly realized in relation to its shocking climax via pulling back
the camera while simultaneously zooming in. Black and white sequences
are intermingled with the colorful moments depicted in Mishima's novels. The black
and white scenes represent memories from Mishima's childhood and youth. Schrader
correlates some of these autobiographical moments with scenes from the novels that
often parallel Mishima's real life, such as his stammer, development of his
bodybuilding obsession, and his fostering of the samurai code. Each of the three
themes of beauty, art, and action is exemplified in the chosen depictions from the
respective novels. The color sequences are reminiscent of early, stagy Technicolor
films, giving the film, perhaps, an intended surreal quality considering the
subject matter. Ken Ogata plays the real Mishima with unfailing
determination, headed to the general's office on that fateful day and resembles the
real Mishima. Schrader took tremendous risks with this film in focusing on the
novels he did and with tying them thematically to both Mishima's personal life and
his literary ambitions. The editing of the film between the three main sections of
November 25, 1970, the black and white growing up segments, and the colorful novel
scenes clearly point to the deliberate intersection of these elements of beauty,
art, and action in Mishima's life. At times, it is difficult to follow, and there
may be little to recommend for the uninitiated viewer. *** of 4 stars.
This is a movie that should be viewed and treated as a piece of art. This is an
oblivious labour of love by the Schrader brothers about the life of Yukio Mishima
that is full truly artistic elements. The movie jumps from color to black and
white, past to present, fictional works by Mishima to him. All without being
confusing in the least bit. The only thing that gets me is that the entire movie,
with the exception of the narrator's spoken parts is in Japanese. Still a
masterpiece that deserves an audience but hasn't found won. Criterion, if you are
reading this, this is a film that should be released under your imprint with as
much extras as possible. This film truley deserves more. 10/10
"Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters" is a visually stunning production that handles
complex issues with evocative ease. It is based on the life of controversial
Japanese author Yukio Mishima, who committed suicide in the 1970s. It is not really
a biopic - at least not one in the traditional sense - but an exploration of
Mishima's iconoclastic oeuvre. The film succeeds in presenting abstract concepts in
an unembroidered, totally engaging manner. Paul Schrader makes you sympathize with
Mishima without having to deconstruct him or his work. It doesn't quite solve the
puzzle but it does make you understand it. An added bonus: As we see Mishima's fury
over the lack of tradition in a morally vacant modern society, Schrader gives us an
excellent demonstration of the dichotomy between thought and execution in cinema.
John Bailey's cinematography is spectacularly good. The grandiosity of composer
Philip Glass' work is perfectly suited for the project. "Mishima" is the best film
I've seen this year, so far.
Mishima - a life in four chapters is in my opinion the best Paul Schrader film to
this day. Mesmorizing cinematography, accompanied with Philip Glass mystical
musical score added a completely magical aura to the story of one of the Japan's
greatest novelists, whose originality and picturesque narrative are beautifully
portrayed in this picture. As any gifted character, Mishima was troubled with
severe self conflicts, the main of them being the conflict between the "pen and a
sword" as the director puts it in his final chapter, or the struggle between the
sensitive poet with homosexual feelings, living in a notoriously masculine society
with centuries long warrior traditions, thus widening the gap between the sensitive
and the militantly traditional side of Mishima himself. All Schrader's
films (and the ones he wrote scripts for) are basically stories of the inside
conflict within a man that doesn't belong in an environment he lives in. That also
goes for Mishima, who, apart from Japanese military school upbringing is brought up
with love for theater and words. His demise consisted of both of these key points
in his life, it was about words and theatrical ending in a life long play. Film
like this comes along once in a long while, and most will have to wait a lifetime
to reach this beauty. 20 out of 10!!
The only pure life, is one that ends with a signature in blood. So says
Mishima anyway, a young sheltered boy who becomes a celebrity author. The life of
one of Japans most celebrated literary voices, is told from three perspectives, his
life just before he and four members of his private army take over a Japanese
military base and commit ritual suicide(shown in color), flashbacks(shown in black
and white), and scenes from his novels(shown in a kind of dreamy Technicolor set
design somewhere between traditional Noh Theater and "the Wizard Of Oz". These
stories are often told at the same time, but are edited to reinforce, the slow
fusing of Mishima's life with his fictions, until the end(or the beginning) when
like the ancient samurai he so admires, he will be at a balance of pen and sword
(when his words and actions are the same, and he is a full and "pure" being). Paul Schrader wrote the screen play for "Taxi Driver", and directed "Cat
People"(a bizarre erotic horror film, which left strange impressions on me as a
boy), and in Mishima, he comes closest to making a really excellent film. Whats interesting is to watch the poet, the homosexual, the shy and awkward
man with a low body image who overstates his Tuberculosis to get of of WW2 (of
which he seems forever ashamed), become a body building, samurai obsessed, a-
sexual, media phenomena, all the while still writing prolific amounts of novels,
plays, and short stories. A short and sweet version is to say Mishima
has no father, and becomes obsessed with masculinity, beauty, sex and self
destruction, in some tragic attempt to feel connected to something bigger than
himself, that he was always missing. Watching him with his fellow suicidal cadets,
you see him happy, delivering his big paternal speech, giving orders, and loving
the control...until the speech itself, the point where pen and sword meet? Of
course, this ignores the subtlety of the story telling craft here which makes this
transformation so natural and remarkable. Though the story, fascinating
at times, really isn't this movies greatest success. The cinematography,
performances, editing,music(by Philip Glass), and set designs, are really what make
this worth seeing, and more than a traditional bio-pic. One day I will
pick, up a Mishima book, he does seem to have an ear for prose, and for staging
ideas, but for now I'm satisfied with the film. Those interested in
Japanese Literature, and post-war culture, should check out. Fans of inventive
combinations of facts and fictions, should enjoy as well.
This is my favourite film and I think it is perfect. Unlike virtually any other
film I can name, I never watch this film and think it would have been better if
they'd changed this or that or whatever. Is this the definition of a work of art? I
think so. Every brushstroke in Mishima is perfect and it all flows from the
Schrader's script. I've always sort of liked Paul Schrader's work (you can't argue
with Taxi Driver and Light Sleeper is an amazing film), but while his writing often
seems to border on the bombastic, his directing style is usually non-existent. This
is deliberate, I think, because his films usually deal with a search for redemption
and are set in the real world; ugly and harsh. His style suits his themes as he
presents his characters in a simple and realistic way, and lets them show the
audience the truth of the situation. Imagine if Schrader had directed Taxi Driver
or Bringing Out The Dead, instead of Scorsese. But like the protagonists of those
two films, while Mishima the man was ideal Schrader material, right-wing, vain and
at odds with society, his works were subtle and beautiful. In fact he had a
secondary writing career as a woman's writer, churning out what can reasonably be
described as romantic potboilers. So you wouldn't necessarily imagine that Schrader
was the ideal man to capture that subtlety and beauty on film. I think the film
shows that he was. The script he helped fashion splits Mishima the man into three
parts; his life, his death and his mind. His life is represented in black and
white, still camera, formal compositions. His death, for which he will always be
best remembered, is handheld documentary style. And his mind is represented by the
dramatised extracts from his novels, each one revealing the thought processes of
this complex man, who hardly ever wrote a character that wasn't a reflection of
himself. These dramatisations are beautiful to look at, thanks to Eiko Ishioka's
remarkable production design and Schrader's imaginative staging. In all parts, the
acting is superb, especially from Ken Ogata as Mishima, who captures the essential
charm, arrogance and narcissism of the man. The photography is excellent throughout
and contains images that the viewer will retain forever. Finally, the music is
simply superb, perfectly matching the images, although written and recorded before
shooting, adjusted during the editorial process and then re-recorded. How much the
music influenced the shoot I do not know, but it bonds perfectly to the image. I
have seen many ideas of what various people think the theme of the film is, what
Schrader is trying to say. You know, the big stuff about life, death etc. But I do
not think the film is saying anything. Mishima has already said it, the film simply
repeats.
A fairly interesting look at some characters from India's burgeoning middle class.
Although India is rapidly modernizing, her culture is not keeping up. This film
involves the patriarchal society, where women are not yet truly free citizens. A
land of arranged marriages, men who dally with mistresses with total impunity, and
women who are expected to tolerate all this, will eventually come up short. I was
impressed with Nandita Das, who was quite attractive, and played her character with
total earnestness. But I was even more impressed with Shabana Azmi, who I
understand is a long-time fixture of Bollywood. Her quiet beauty and low-key
psychic suffering was excellent. The lesbian subtext of this film was never
particularly erotic, and never titillating. (Darn!) Worth a look for those
interested in vastly different cultures.
There are very few films that are able to tell such a complicated story on so many
levels as well as Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. One of the most difficult
aspects of story telling is the ability to flashback and forward without losing the
pace of the film. This film not only flashes back and fourth with the greatest of
easy, but it also flows through some of Yukio Mishima greatest stories. This film
exceeds in every aspect and is a joy to watch. Not to mention the incredible Philip
Glass Soundtrack.
Movies are something you see on Saturday night and forget by Sunday morning. Motion
pictures are works of art that stick with you forever. Mishima falls into the
latter category. This is the type of thing that should win Academy Awards, a
brilliant, visual peice of film that is both depressing and uplifting. Instead of
doing a straightforward look at the life of Yukio Mishima, director Paul Schrader
interweaves three adaptations of the author's stories into a look at his past and
final day on Earth, the day he tried to lead the Japanese military into rebellion
in the name of the Emperor. Failing to do that, he commits ritual suicide in an
ending that hits you like a ton of bricks. The three short story adaptations allow
a look into what led him to this and are presented in an experimental way that
makes them appear to be filmed stage plays. Ken Ogata is magnificent as Mishima.
Despite his eccentricities, he comes off as very sympathetic, a man who is quite
willing to die for his beliefs and does. This makes the ending that much more
devastating and the sense of loss more meaningful. Of the three story adaptations,
Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House and Runaway Horses, it is the last
that is the strongest and most emotional. It also is the story that most closely
matches Mishima's mood in his final years and illustrates what truly led him to the
events of November 1970. This review cannot be complete without a mention of Philip
Glass' striking musical score. Not since 2001 has a film score been such a perfect
compliment to it's visuals. Paul Schrader crafted one of the most beautiful movies
of the 1980s or any other decade for that matter. Have the hankies at the ready
because the ending will leave you in tears. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters
reminds you that sometimes film can still be an art form and as art it is
brilliant.
It has taken several viewings for me to fully appreciate this film. Initially, I
was struck by the stylized sets, but found the rest slow going and dull. I thought
that such a sensational subject needed the Ken Russell treatment to take it way
over the top. I now find the enforced restraint (placed on the production by
Mishima's widow) to be an asset. Some of the more lurid aspects of Mishima's life
are reiterated and dramatized by corresponding themes from his novels. I think it
helps to be familiar with the novels - that's what finally made the difference for
me. Still feel the film overall could be a little tighter and warmer, but it's
genuinely unique, and deserves serious attention. Love the fact that the Japanese
characters speak Japanese - not English. The Philip Glass score is mesmerizing.
Mishima is one of the greatest films ever made. Now I think Paul Schrader is the
greatest screenwriter of all time, but I don't really like the films he's directed
of what I've seen (with the exception of this and Affliction), but this is an
amazing, disturbing, and highly 3-dimensional character study. It follows the life
of Yukio Mishima, Japan's most celebrated writer, combining the last day of his
life with flashbacks and his stories. I don't know how, but Paul Schrader manages
to combine all of those in a very artistic way. The acting is great, so is the
photography, and a perfect score by Philip Glass. Although confusing the first
viewing, this is one of the few films that becomes richer with each viewing. Truly
an underrated gem of a film.
One would think that a film based on the life of the Japanese author Yukio Mishima
would be a daunting if not impossible task. However Paul Schrader has indeed made a
film "about" Mishima that is both superb & complex. While it is not a literal
biography, Schrader & his co-screenwriter Leonard Scharder (his brother) have taken
several incidents from his life, including his sucide and crafted what can best be
described as incidental tableaus that are visually sparse and stunning. Mishima's
homosexuality is almost not there, due to legal threats from his widow, but in
spite of this, the film is still terrific, and one of the best films I saw in 1985.
I should also mention the important contribution of Philip Glass who did the score,
which adds an additional texture to the film, and is superior to the one he did for
Scorsese's Kundun. Also notable is John Bailey's fine crisp beautifully colored
cinematography and the great production design & costumes by Eiko Ishioka who went
on to do the memorable costumes for Coppola's Dracula for which she received a well
deserved Oscar. Hopefully this film will soon be available on DVD.
The first season told pretty much how all elements of the Marine Corps would
operate (i.e. ground, air, helicopters and jets) as a team. That's the season I
give the high rating to! (True, there are still a lot of "liberties" taken in
season 1, but the stories were more believable.) The subsequent seasons
were a gawd-awful attempt of Melrose Place meets Top Gun! I was a
Marine stationed at Miramar at the time and I remember them shooting the show
around the San Diego area. I got to talk to Rod Rowland and James Brolin. Rowland's character was good to go. Brolin's character was good
in the first season only. For some reason he slacked off after the first ep of the
second season. If you want to see a LITTLE of how the Marine Air Ground
team operates, then season one is the one to watch. If you're into
Melrose Place and soap opera like plots with an attempt to merge them into Top Gun,
then see the last two seasons.
I would just like to point out (in addition to pleading for the series to be
released on DVD) that a show does not have to be realistic to be entertaining.
These days, with all the blood and gore in the news and in crime dramas, reality
shows, etc. it's nice to get lost in a good, cheesy show with entertaining
characters. PWOG fits the bill. Was it Emmy material? No, but it was awesome just
the same. I also have to put a vote in for the second cast - they were
more charismatic than the cast of season one. I would definitely agree that the
first season had a more serious vibe than the second two, but I was definitely more
sucked in by the latter cast. Even though the series has been off the air for
years, I'll never stop hoping that it be released for purchase.
I heard that after the first Oceans movie, the sequels begin to go downhill. I
believe that this is not the case(at least not for this film). This movie is even
better than the first film! The original crew returns three years after they
successfully robbed Terry Benedict's casinos. Now, Benedict is visiting each one of
them personally telling them to get the money back within two weeks. To do that,
they must do a couple heists in Europe to get the money. The acting is
very good. The all-star cast exceeded expectations. Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and
Catherine Zeta-Jones were probably the best in this film. There are some
confusing moments in this film. But that does not matter because there are only a
few confusing moments. Anyway, this movie is only made for harmless fun. Overall, this is a great heist movie. I rate this movie 9/10.
Ocean's twelve is probably better than Ocean's eleven. I know most people would
disagree, But I actually liked it more. After three years, it was good seeing the
gang return. The reason behind the heist is a bit more inspired the second time
around. I see why they stole from Benedict(Andy Garcia) in the last film. This film
they have a bit more motivation the second time around. Ocean's twelve is more
entertaining, and cooler than Ocean's eleven. With a funny cameo by Topher Grace
saying "I just walked in that new Dennis Quaid movie" and other things. I think
Ocean's Twelve is probably the best in the series. The Plot: A year or
so after Ocean's Twelve, Terry Benedict(the guy they robbed in the last film) is
back and says that if Ocean's eleven doesn't pay him back the money they stole,
he's going to call the cops. So Danny Ocean and the gang go to Europe, where Rusty
meets his old cop girlfriend Isabelle. After she meets him again, she begins to
follow them around. Also, the gang learns that they have an enemy who is also a
thief who is a little better than they are. With many funny scenes like
when Tess(Julia Roberts) goes to Europe and pretends to be Julia Roberts, Ocean's
Twelve is a pretty clever film. It's cooler, funnier, and more entertaining than
Ocean's eleven.
Ocean's 12 'If you steal fifty million dollars, they will find you.'
(Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber, Die Hard) This adage certainly rings true
in this sequel. Terry Benedict has been informed that Danny Ocean and his compadres
were the ones who ripped him off and now he wants it all back. The Ocean gang need
a lot of money and fast, but cannot work in the states as Benedict has made it
impossible for them. So it's off to Europe to perform acts of death defying
thievery, whilst trying to avoid Catherine Zeta Jones' super cop, an old flame from
Rusty's (Pitt's) past. On their first heist in Amsterdam they find out
that who ratted on them was the 'Night Fox', a super slick thief with a legend
complex. He issues them with a challenge that could write off their debt in full or
land them in some kind of Uma Thurman-Kill Bill II-buried-alive-type-sequence.
Interesting? Well, yes. Slow? Sort of. Entertaining? Mostly. Unnecessary scenes of
character development? Plenty. Ocean and his band of merry men are
charismatic, if nothing else and as this is a sequel and we are all old friends we
see plenty more 'pally' situations and conversations. Too many. Damon's Linus is
more nervous than before; the cousins are bickering as we knew they would; Bernie
Mac talks too much and Don Cheadle's cock-er-ney accent is as bad as ever (I really
like Cheadle, but could not abide this). Pitt and Clooney talk like old friends,
filling each other's glasses and reading each other's minds. However, what worked
so well in the last film was the lack of character development versus how slick the
whole damned op was. And as much as these actors work well together, Zeta Jones
fits into this film like a big square peg in a tight 11 sided hole. She simply
doesn't fit and her chemistry with Pitt is non-existent. The stars of
this film for me, however, were Vincent Cassel as the Night Fox and Soderbergh's
choice of locations. Cassel plays pomp and wealth as if he was born into both. His
Night Fox is arrogant, 'awfully cavalier with other people's lives' (Danny Ocean)
and a total contrast to the Ocean gang. This is where I think the film loses its
way. Cassel and the European locations provide an all too realistic contrast with
the American actors and the style of the first film. We want slick, brash and
quick-witted; not gritty, considered and intellectual. This is where the film
doesn't work. Admittingly, you cannot repeat the same formula twice to
the letter, but going to far left or right usually does more damage than good in a
mainstream film like this.
This film powerfully demonstrates the struggle of two women in love in a culture so
deeply entrenched in ritual and tradition. All this against a backdrop of an India
which itself is struggling for freedom from these same values. This film is both
political and personal and never too preachy or idealistic on either front. It is
easy to see why "Fire" has caused riots in India, but tragic nonetheless. A true
film such as this one deserves to be seen by all people of the world, not just
privileged westerners.
With a cast like this, I knew the acting would be amazing. Still, I was cautious,
as I always am of sequels. Would it sustain the feeling of the first film? Could
they possibly replicate the tension and thrill of the masterful heist of Ocean's
11? We'll never know, because they didn't try. At least, not in the way I expected.
Instead, they made a light and truly funny parody of the heist genre. If you want a
gripping, logical heist, don't watch this. If you want a good laugh, with witty
dialogue, quirky characters, and an absolutely genius scene where Julia Roberts has
to impersonate herself, then you'll love Ocean's 12.
Film certainly can be a narrative medium, but by no means is it the ideal medium.
Literature best carries a plot, because the reader can supply the imagination
necessary to complete the structure. Film is appreciated best when viewed for what
it is: a series of images grouped together. What Soderbergh does in Ocean's Twelve
is combine impeccable film-making technique with the free-flowing form of American
movies from the 1970s. From looking at the comments posted recently, most people
went in expecting a standard-issue heist movie, a la Entrapment; it seems people
actually miss the tiresome clichés of romance disguised as tension between the
leads and ridiculous plot twists designed to keep the audience awake. Soderbergh's
directing prowess is reason alone to see this movie, but close-ups of Pitt and
Zeta-Jones forty feet high on the screen don't hurt either. A true treat for those
who love the flickering of lights on the silver screen, and a disappointment for
those trying to make film something it's not.
Soderbergh is a fabulous director, but nothing he could conjure could beat the
amazing cast he gathered for this zenith of sequels. Clearly, he knew this from the
get-go. The term "star-vehicle" has traditionally been used to refer to a movie
that builds itself around one star. What this film does is net a whole herd of
Hollywood hot shots and make them shine even brighter than before. The last scene
says it all--all the stars sitting around with NOTHING happening and NOTHING being
said. We just get to see them socialize as though it were a scene from a reality
show where George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Don
Cheadle are just hanging out, being themselves. So the story's not important at
all--at least, that's not where the films' greatest pleasures come from. If you
want a clever heist movie, better stick with 11. But if star-gazing turns you on,
this will make your day.
I felt cheated out of knowing the whole story. While there could be a twist, this
twist was so significant, that I felt betrayed. I believe it could have used a
better writer who could weave all the elements of the story together better. The
writer could have revealed more of the 'twists' throughout the movie, rather than
all at once at the end. That aside, I believe that the actors did very well with
what they had, particularly Matt Damon, who actually had a little character in his
character, little quirks that weren't egotistic or like a smooth criminal who
always knows what he is doing. The other main characters were their own separate
entities who just happened to converse with one another. The cohesiveness of the
group in Ocean's Eleven was gone.
Despite what its critics ensue, I enjoyed immensely for precisely what it is.
Eyecandy for both sides of the gender spectrum. Soderberg has done the artsy hard
edge stuff before, won Oscars, is at the top of his game. Ocean's 12 is light,
commercial, fluffy, Steve's day at the Midway if you will. I am generally not a fan
of Zeta-Jones but even I must admit that Kate is STUNNING in this movie. It's
ending screams of an upcoming trequel and I will be one of the millions who flock
to see 120 minutes of George and Brad and Matt parlay through Clooney's digs in
Lago di Como as they swindle some rich bad guy again and again. If we tolerated 3
installments of the Lord of the Rings, I ask if we can drool over Clooney's salt
and pepper lid just one more time?
"Strike Force" or "The Librarians" is a fun action movie that doesn't it take
itself too seriously. William Forsythe stars as Simon, who is looking for a missing
daughter of a wealthy client. He meets up with Sandi (Erika Eleniak) who is also
looking for someone-her sister. But there are evil bad guys afoot. The most evil of
them all is Marcos Canarious (Andrew Divoff). Marcos likes to kill people. So now,
Simon and Sandi have to team up to bring down the villains. The whole cast is
great, with Divoff stealing the movie. There are also cameos by Ed Lauter and Burt
Reynolds. If you are looking for a good action film, watch this and have a good
time.
I just called my brother Paulie on the phone and he said he was watching Hoods and
it was funny. So, like I said, never go against the family! The demand for more
lines is OK since I like to express my own opinions quite frequently. If something
is misspelled it's most likely my eyesight and not my brain. This gives me yet
another chance to take my shots at "The Departed". When one knows exactly what is
going to happen in the last scene with no prior knowledge, that usually means it
wasn't all that suspenseful. All you need is a good directer,the same guy I believe
who did my favorite mob movie, "Goodfellows), but in a completely different way.And
then just throw in Jack the great and you got yourself an Oscar. Easy as pie. I
have to see hoods to make sure it wasn't better than "The Departed" Gibbs
Hey what do you expect form a very low budget movie!?!? Although I haven't seen
"Dahmer" (2002) I can say that following what the media put out about Jeff this is
a pretty accurate depiction. I have studied the Jeffrey Dahmer case and learned all
I can about this man. This is a low budget movie but it shows the mentality of a
serial killer. If you can get past gore and see what the underlying story of a sick
mind. I loved this movie! Just brace yourself for low budget and no blood. Its a
story as seen through the eyes of a killer and his actions and thoughts from
childhood up through his arrest. My favorite line is : "If they had bothered to
look in the back seat it might have saved a lot of lives" Enjoy!
This film is the most traumatising and painful horror film I have ever seen in my
life. To know that this film is based on a true story and watching Jeffrey
Dahmer(Carl Crew) brutally murder his victims is enough to bring a tear to my eye.
I admit this was a low budget film with not the best dialogue, however it explained
why Jeffrey Dahmer was a Psycotic maniac. As he was so selfishly/inwardly emotional
his emotions and selfishness went so far deep into his brain that it resulted into
him becoming a murderer. Every person that he lured back to his apartment, he was
attracted to and had feelings for, and the reasons why he murdered them wasn't only
for the thrill of killing them but because he couldn't cope with the fact of them
leaving him. In the scene when he killed his first victim by bashing an object at
the back of the guys head from what I noticed wasn't because he wanted to kill him
but because he was devastated with the idea of the guy leaving him. It was from
thereafter that he got use to the homicidal behaviour and made killing his hobby -
for both evil and emotional reasons. The scene when he was talking while
crying on the phone with his mother and telling her how much he loved her and the
love he showed to his grandmother and how he didn't want to move out of her house
did show that he did have love in his heart. One scene that I found quite spooky
and strange was when a priest overheard Jeffrey in a pub inviting a guy back to his
apartment and then phoned Jeffrey up in a phone booth within the pub so that the
guy would lose patience and change his mind on going home with Jeffrey. When the
guy left the pub, the priest then hung up the phone and was was laughing at
Jeffrey. I also found that Carl Crew played a remarkable acting performance as the
role of Jeffrey Dahmer. His evil and cold blooded facial expressions before he
massacred his victims were so real, I was shivering in my seat. His facial
expressions reminded me of the way Vincent D'onofrio (Private Pyle/Leonard) in the
film 'Full Metal Jacket' looked just before he gunned-down the General in the
toilet barracks. If your an emotional person I wouldn't recommend you to
watch this film but if your not, than go ahead and watch it.
This is a tough film to review, since several factors need to be taken into
account. Let's filter the more judgmental..Ok, are you interested in the facts
concerning the serial killer of Jeffrey Dahmer? Can you withstand an independent,
low-budget film? Are you objective enough to NOT dislike a film solely due to its
lack of stars or professional look? Well, if you said yes then you should have a
mind open enough to handle this one. This film is an almost 100% accurate
dramatization of Dahmer's adult life and subsequent murder spree, and is styled as
an autobiography. It isn't a glamorized, unrealistic account that unfortunately the
theatrical film "Dahmer" (2001) was. The movie begins with Dahmer, played quite
convincingly by Carl Crew, sitting in the police car as they raid his apartment.
His thoughts of what got him there are presented to us in a past-tense, narrated
style that accurately explains much of Dahmer's psychoses and motives which led him
to commit murder almost 20 times. We get to know the character, both the devious
side as well as the side that came moderately close to living a normal life. It
isn't anyone's fault but Dahmer's that 17 people died, but being a criminal
psychology student, I was pleased to more than just his animalistic side
represented, truthfully, in this film. You see him having a loving relationship
with his grandmother as well as trying to find companionship, but of course we
witness the side of him that everyone remembers. It should be noted that there is
little actual onscreen violence, with much of it suggestive in shots such as
spattering of blood or a body being struck through a blurred curtain. You do see
two deaths that I remember, one being a pretty bloodless throat slash and the other
being a man shoved alive into a barrel of acid. While you don't see anything
graphic, this cruelty and the convincing acting of both Crew and his victim make
this a disturbing scene. And while the actual onscreen mutilation is kept low, you
will see the results. There is a prop hand and head or two, but it seems as if this
was to disturb the viewer and doesn't look to be exploitive. Besides, these fake
anatomical pieces are where the budget limitations are visible. Although
acceptable, they look enough like fakes to not be too disturbing. The film actually
concludes before Dahmer's death in 1994, due to the fact that it was released a
year or two prior. That's about the only big difference from the real story, and
the information that remains is, as I've stated, very true to the facts. The film
quality could be better, the dialogue often sounds a little too quiet, and the
acting of several characters IS a bit hammy, but it's not overboard. In my opinion,
this is a flawed but ultimately honest and serious look into one of America's most
remembered serial killers. I think it's safe to say the film is memorable as well,
and I respect it for overcoming its limitations to deliver the story in a
believable manner, aided by a thoroughly excellent Carl Crew as Dahmer.
SPOILER ALERT! Don't read on unless you're prepared for some spoilers. I
think this film had a lot beneath its shell. Besides the apparent connections with
"Oldboy" (and Park-wook's other films), an incestuous relation in this one really
disturbed me, and also the subtle erotic theme that hung around all the vampiric,
physical action. The main actor, Kang-ho Song, is terrific in the rôle
of the priest Sang-hyeon - coincidentally, "sang" means "blood" in some languages -
who truly loved Tae-ju, played by OK-bin Kim. Their relationship reminds me a lot
of that between Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek in "Badlands", where the girl appears
psychopathic and the man is basically wrapped around her finger. Their
relationship is one thing, but the girl's mother is entirely different. While
moving, she is stiff, one-dimensional and taut, but paralysed, she says all through
not moving, or through the wink of an eye. Park-wook has really, really
mastered his cinematography in this film, and owes a lot to Stanley Kubrick; there
are a whole lot of beautiful shots strewn throughout the film, some for simple
effects and some that require several glances and probably repeated views to fully
catch. The music is quite stock, using mostly strings to accompany the
main thespian's monoreaction; it's a very good thing that the character is as
withdrawn as he is. While he does very little and loses at that, he seems to
instead be a person who thinks a lot. While his love-interest says and does a lot,
her actions display very little thought behind it. In my humble opinion. All in all, a very disturbing film that is not made for action, which isn't
even in the same dimension as most things that are about vampires these days; it's
magnificent, and repellant at the same time.
This was one of my favorite shows when I was a kid. It had it all--music, stories,
a talking squirrel, and chuckling daisies. I wanted to be one of those hippie
chicks singing and swinging on a swing. I'm 35 and I grew up in South Jersey, but
we got three New York channels with our cable hook-up, and I think it was on
Channel 11. They just don't make shows like this anymore (I know that makes me
sound really old), and it blows my mind that I grew up with only 9 channels on our
TV, but I could always find something cool to watch. I've only talked to one other
person who actually heard of and watched this show. She's three years younger than
me, and she grew up in North Jersey. I would love to see this series on DVD, so I
could show it to my 5 year old daughter, and she could see what silly (but great)
stuff her mom used to watch! I just found a VHS tape of a few episodes, and a music
CD from the show on ebay, and I bought them right up, even though they were a
little pricey. I can't wait to get them to re-live the great memories!
When I was five years old, it was my favorite television show. I remembered it was
on channel 11 at 2PM everyday. The show's premise was simple with Carole and Janis
as the hostesses of this children's television show. They sang songs and read
stories to us as children. It was done in a studio with only 54 episodes which was
re-broadcasted over and over. I remember Sherlock, the puppet, in the tree. The
show taught us how to count, add, subtract, and the alphabet. For thirty minutes a
day now, I learned something new with Paula and Janis. I remember those days as
pleasant memories and now I hope the children of today can learn to love simpler
things like hearing stories, inexpensive props, riding the swings, and talking to
puppets. The set was ideal and simple but it was Carole and Janis who made it worth
while while. I miss my childhood and those days where the most important thing was
watching the Magic Garden. Life seemed so much simpler and better. Now, I hope the
kids today enjoy the show.
I grew up in New York and this show came on when I was four-years-old. I had half-
day kindergarten and this was on WPIX Channel 11 in the afternoon. I just loved the
music and stories and remember humming them around the house when playing. I just saw part of an episode on YouTube and for a moment I could remember how it
felt watching those shows as a small child. I, of course, stopped watching when I
got in 1st grade because it was on before school got out (no VCR's or DVR's back
then). I grew up, not realizing that the show was still on until I was in 11th
grade! I also had no idea that there are DVD's and wish my nieces and
nephews were young enough to enjoy this show, but now they're all past the
demographic, or I'd buy all of them DVD sets. This was so much better than a lot of
the kid shows today.
One of the best memories of my childhood. Should be on DVD. It captured everything
we grew up with in the seventies - peace, mellowness, flower power and great
acoustic music. The two hosts, Carol and Paula, were the definitive peacenik
hippies, with long hair, peasant blouses and bell bottoms(they looked like a
Katherine Ross(ala "The Graduate") and Ali McGraw(ala "Love
Story"),respectively.) They made us happy with jokes from the daisy
"chucklepatch", gave us lessons on being nice through conversations with the
crotchedy garden squirrel, and entertained us with music from their guitar. They
were the best, and Carol was also the original Sandy in the original production of
"Grease"(cool). This show should be in a time capsule from the era that
would also include, "The Yellow Submarine", "Arrow to the Sun", and Marlo Thomas',
"Free to Be...You & Me.", also, "Sunshine", and "The Point." And last,
but not least, that theme song, "See ya, See ya, Hope you had a good, good time, ah
ha, Glad we got to say good mornin' to ya , Hope we get get to see ya again, See
ya, See ya, Glad that you could stay awhile, ah ha, hope we get see ya again, see
ya, see ya.
It's hard for me to explain this show to my grown friends. I have a bunch of Shasta
Daisy's in the back yard which I lovingly call my "Chuckle Patch." My friends laugh
at me and look at me like I have 2 heads. It would be great to see this series on
DVD for us folks who remember it fondly with our other childhood memories, or to
show our friends that there really WAS a chuckle patch! Where kids TV today is
compiled of violent cartoons, characters who do magic, or a talking sponge who
lives in a pineapple under the sea, The Magic Garden was real in the respect that
it taught us good values. I will hold fond memories of Carole and Paula,
and the Chuckle Patch.
OhMyGAWD!!! THE MAGIC GARDEN is perhaps one of my most vivid '70s childhood
memories. Two hippie chicks with ponytails, Carole and Paula would swing on swings,
tell jokes they picked off the chuckle patch, dress up with costumes they found in
a giant chest called The Storybox, and argue with a pesky pink squirrel named
Sherlock that lived in one of their trees. They also could strum a mean acoustic
guitar and sing a pretty melody. This was a great childhood show. Very 70s feeling.
But that's the problem: They don't MAKE shows like this anymore. Pity that. You
could tell these two girls really had hearts of gold and loved kids, they were
really sweet. MAGIC GARDEN is one of those shows that if they came out with a box
set people WOULD buy it, because its such a MELLOW walk down Memory Lane.
I saw this last night in Fort Lauderdale. In general it was funny and I liked the
characters especially Sabrina. The acting is good and the story line was OK except
for the ending which left way to many strings dangling and we were like (what?) I
wanted to know what happened to the characters and it was a strange ending that
could have been done so much better. The film did portray rule life
really well and we laughed throughout. It has flaws that is for sure but for a
first time film for Ash Christian I thought it was good. You might want to wait for
the DVD on this one. But if you get a chance to see it give it a shot
My friends and I saw the movie last night in Austin at a showing for AGLIFF (a film
festival). This movie was one of the best I've seen this year. It was a great
comedy - very original and heartfelt - and FUNNY AS HELL! Everyone in the audience
was laughing throughout the entire movie. Texas is a big state - with LOTS of small
towns - and of course, plenty of teenagers who grew up as "fat girls." I know a lot
of people will relate to this film on a personal level. Ashley Fink and Robin de
Jesus were awesome - they were so great in these rolls, it was like the script was
written with them in mind. And speaking of the script, it was very well written
(very believable), and Ash is a great actor (his facial expressions alone made me
giggle). It IS an independent film - but don't let that fool you...It's a good one!
Seeing this caliber of work from someone so young is truly inspiring.
I caught this film at an OutFest screening in Los Angeles in July, 2006. It's rough
around the edges (sound recording in particular is wobbly) and often very funny.
The script is rather jarringly episodic and ends abruptly, but Ash Christian
infuses the film with lots of genuine heart. It's also a refreshing change of pace
to have a gay film that doesn't star underwear models obsessed with partying and
chasing straight guys. Props to a warmly sympathetic Jonathan Caouette as Mr. Cox,
a kindred spirit to Rodney (Ash Christian), the lively and spirited Ashley Finke as
Rodney's best friend, and Deborah Theaker as Rodney's mom, who is given the best
one-liners in the script and steals her every scene. The film is like its
writer/director/starlumpy and a bit odd, but also very sweet.
This is a movie, that has all the basic elements of its genre. It makes you wanna
cry, it makes you laugh, it disgust you, it makes you angry etc. The
topic of the story is fortunately not about some disease or drugs, what is the
common trend in gay themed movies in these days, but it focuses on the social
interactions between characters what could be considered not to be in the high
school elite. The play and the direction could be a little bit more sophisticated,
but on the other hand it's somehow better so, because it really shows the distress
of the characters, that they are experiencing. If this was intended, then this is a
remarkable job and assuredly an achievement, specially for such an young director.
 It's actually a good story that gives you a little inside into, how it
is to be a fat girl and to acknowledge it to yourself.
(This has been edited for space) Chan-wook Park's new film is a complex
film that is not easy to classify. Nominally a horror movie, the central character
is a vampire, the film actually has elements of comedy, theology, melodrama,
cultural invasion (and its analog of viral invasion of a body), romance and few
other things as well. It's a film that has almost too much on its mind. The film
takes its own matters and mixes them with classic European literature, in this case
Emile Zola's "Thérèse Raquin". It's an odd mix that doesn't always gel, but none
the less has an incredible power. Here it is almost 24 hours since I saw the film
at Lincoln Center (with a post film discussion by the director) and I find my cage
is increasingly rattled. Its not so much what happens is bothersome, its more that
its wide reaching story and its themes ring a lot of bells in retrospect. The plot of the film has a will loved priest deciding that the best way to
help mankind is to volunteer for a medical experiment to find a cure for a terrible
disease. Infected with the disease he eventually succumbs and dies, but because of
a transfusion of vampiric blood (its not explained) he actually survives. Hailed as
a miracle worker the priest returns to the hospital where he had been ministering
to the sick. Unfortunately all is not well. The priest finds that he needs blood to
survive. He also finds that he has all of the typical problems of a vampire, and
its no not possible for him to go out during the day. Things become even more
complicated when he becomes reacquainted with a childhood friend and his family.
The priest, some of his animal passions awakened becomes taken with the wife of his
friend. From there it all goes sideways. An ever changing film, this is
a story that spins through a variety of genres as it tells the very human story of
a man who finds that his life has been radically altered by a chance event and
finds that he is no longer who he thought he was. It's a film that you have to stay
with to the end because the film is forever evolving into something else. Its also
a film that has a great deal on its mind and the themes its playing with are
constantly being explored in a variety of ways The film has enough going
on that one could, and people probably will, write books discussing the film. The two of the strongest parts of the film are its vampiric elements and
its romance The vampire part of the tale is brilliant. There is something about how
it lays out the ground rules and the nature of the "affliction" that makes such
perfect sense that it kind of pushes the old vampire ideas aside. Sitting in the
theater last night I found myself amazed at how impressed how well it worked. I
think the fact that it played more or less straight is what is so earth shaking.
Here is a vampire who just wants to have a normal life. It's contrasted with what
happens later, it makes clear that living an existence of hunting humans really
isn't going to work. Its not the dark world of Twilight or Lost Boys, rather its
something else. I personally think that the film changes the playing field from a
hip cool idea or dream into something more real and tangible. (The sequence where
the powers kick in is just way cool) The romance is also wonderfully handled. Sure
the sex scenes are steamy and well done, but it's the other stuff, the looks, the
talk, the gestures outside of the sex that makes this special. I love the looks,
the quiet stares as the forbidden couple look at each other hungering for each
other and unable to act, the disappointment and heartbreak of betrayal both real
and suspected, and the mad passion of possible consummation. This is one of the
great screen romances of all time. It perfectly captures the feeling and emotion of
deep passionate love (and lust). If you've ever loved deeply I'm guessing you'll
find some part of your hear on screen, I know I did. The statement "I just wanted
to spend eternity with you" has a sad poignancy to it. It's both a statement of
what was the intention as well as the depth of emotion. The tragic romance will
break your heart. I won't lie to you and say that the film is perfect
and great. Its not, as good as the pieces are and almost all of them are great
(especially the actors who I have unjustly failed to hail as amazing) the whole
doesn't always come together. The various genres, thematic elements and tones
occasionally grate against each other. Frequently I was wondering where the film
was going. I hung in there even though the film seemed to be wandering about
aimlessly. I liked the film a great deal. I loved the pieces more than
the film as a whole. Its been pinging around in my head since I saw it, and I'm
guessing that it will do so for several days more. Like or love is irrelevant since
this is a film that really should be seen since it has so much going on that it
will provide you with enough material to think and talk about for days afterward.
One of the meatiest and most filling films of the year.
I had read up on the film and thought it would be cute, a feel good Saturday night
movie. I wasn't expecting anything great, figured it would be mostly fluff but
hopefully not a totally bad experience. I have to admit I was pleasantly
surprised. The dialogue was pitch perfect, most of the actors were
exceptionally good and it flowed nicely. Ash Christian was perfect, his ability to
turn an awkward moment into something touching was nice to see. He could have
turned this character into something we've all seen before but instead strayed away
from stereotypes and focused on the wittiness of the character. It was wonderful to
see Jonathan Caouette again, I didn't know what he would do after Tarnation. Ashley
Fink is gem, a great young character actress that hopefully will get more
work. There are moments in the film that could have used some work, but
all in all not a bad time at the cinema. My friend described it as a gay
Angus/Napoleon Dynamite but it's something more than that. It's a character study
into what it's like to grow up gay in a small town, the pain is there but the humor
behind that pain (that only age can make clearer) is magnified. I look forward to
seeing more of Ash Christian, Ashley Fink and Jonathan Caouette soon.
A good entertainment but nothing more : in this western we are between the classics
and the spaghetti ones. This provides us a good a conventional story but it's
always a pleasure to see Robert Mitchum with his legendary flegma although he isn't
as fit as in the forties or the fifties. And don't forget David Carradine is the
son of John Carradine
Burt Kennedy both wrote & directed this western taken from a novel. Kennedy was a
well known good writer & director, mostly westerns. Robert Mitchum was a
star for over 20 years when he made this. This role was like many he had made
already,One can see why he was a big star for so many years. He filled
this role easily like a well used glove. The title character is played
by Robert Walker Jr. (his father a fine actor Robert Walker--died tragically at age
32---his mother is noted actress Jennifer Jones). Robert was of slight
build & even though he had talent only made a few films. (he was in Rita Hayworth's
near last film. ROAD TO SALINAS ---the same year & was very good). He looked very much like his father, but seemed to lack his fathers charm.
He made only a few more movies. He is still living & I wish him well. Most of his scenes are with another son of a Hollywood great. John Carradine's
son David, who is still making movies. they made a nice team. In
westerns you always have a female character & usually she is a dance hall
performer. (today they call them hookers), Angie Dickinson assays this role nicely.
also featured are western stalwarts, John Anderson & Jack Kelly. It was
film in Old Tucson )outside of downtown Tucaon Az,. & the scenery is
gorgeous. Typical of the older westerns, there is not too much
action,there is some good humour & the usual ending shoot out. It is a
fast enjoyable 89 minutes. Ratings: *** (out of 10) 84 points(out of
100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)
The title role of this western is played by Robert Walker, Jr. He's a young gun who
with partner David Carradine gets separated after doing a contract hit on a Mexican
general. In eluding their pursuers Carradine and Walker become separated. Walker
comes upon the camp of lawman Robert Mitchum who takes a liking to Walker and makes
him a protégé and reclamation project of sorts. This is the first of two
films Robert Mitchum did with writer/director Burt Kennedy. The second was the more
humorous The Good Guys and the Bad Guys. Not that Young Billy Young
does not have its moments of hilarity. But it is a tripartite story involving the
Walker reclamation, Mitchum's hunt for the bad who killed his son and a romantic
triangle involving Mitchum, Angie Dickinson, and town boss Jack Kelly. The film abounds with nepotism. David Carradine is John's son. Dean Martin's
daughter Deana is in this, Walker is the son of Robert Walker and Jennifer Jones
and Mitchum's son Chris plays Mitchum's son in some silent flashbacks. Robert Mitchum got his start in westerns and always looks right at home in them.
Angie Dickinson essentially repeats the role she had in Rio Bravo. Walker had a
brief career playing rebellious youths and doing a good job at it. I've often
wondered what happened to him. He looks hauntingly like his father. Maybe he didn't
want to come to such a tragic early end like his father. And it that
wasn't enough, Mitchum fans get to hear old rumple eyes sing the title song at the
beginning of the film.
If Sicily is a territory of the baroque, with its doubling of perspective, that's
part of this movie's challenge to realism. And it's an exuberant pleasure here,
outdoing Fellini with not one but three film directors, plus of course the actual
Bellocchio, who has made some really great movies and shouldn't be touchy about his
honor. There is a variety of takes and casting improvisations on Manzoni's "I
promessi sposi" with, somewhere there, actual marriage. Sicily is also taken to be
a territory of skulduggery (You already know this version of the island, so there's
no spoiler involved), a comic version of which makes the picture worth seeing for
Sergio Castellito's work with guard dogs on the floor of the great hall of a
palazzo.
There is something that one of the characters (the aging film director who pretends
to be dead) says which may summarize all the film: "In Italy it's the dead who
rule". True! This is a country without a future, in the hands of old and jaded men.
And Bellocchio's cryptic portrait of the country, pivoted on the apparently
senseless story of a director who has to film marriage parties to earn a living,
manages to say a lot about what is not working here. But foreigners may miss the
point, as it's not clearly expressed. I understand that Australian or Canadian
people who watch this may get bored and wonder if there's a meaning--well, there's
a meaning, but it's clear only to people who live here today, and keep their eyes
wide open... like Bellocchio. Surely it's not one of his best films, and it's not
as powerful as Buongiorno, notte, but it's worth seeing... for Italians who live in
Italy.
This film was a wonderful romp, intelligent, playful, mysterious, full of
surprises, with humor in odd places and a tremendous energy. The famous film
director (the protagonist) and the events he tries to manipulate through film all
become entangled in fascinating ways as he is nearly out-maneuvered by a prince who
has never heard of him. There are wonderfully rich images throughout and paths
suggested but not followed (exactly what is going on with the somber wife of the
pedestrian tourist wedding director?). The ending is so much the better for being
untidy. Realism and logic are not what you should be looking for here. If we are
going to turn our weddings and our imaginative lives over to film directors, we
should be prepared for a wild ride, this film seems to suggest.
This is the last episode of the Goldenboy OVA series. Kentaro finds himself working
in an animation studio, which is rather interesting if you don't know anything
about the way anime studios were run. Besides episode 3, this was probably the
least risqué, but it had a nice girl interest, as well as a surprise reunion from
others in the previous episodes. My only complaint about this episode is it seemed
a little too short, but at the same time this may have only been because it was the
only original script for the show that wasn't based on one of the manga chapters.
but it ended well, leaving us with the nice feeling that Kentaro is permanently 25,
studying on. Definitely watch the rest of the series all the way through, you can
buy the whole series for like $17, you can watch it all the way through in about 2
1/2 hours, or watch your favorite episode if you have 20 minutes free time (which i
do if i have a lunch break at school.) good series, check it out.
Finally! Other people who have actually seen this show! It is the funniest anime I
have ever seen, but most people have even heard about it. It is just hilarious.
'And so kintaro will continue to ride his trusty bike and maybe one day, he will
save the world....or maybe not'. tare just some classic bits in it 'and so he will
ride onto the next city...because he has no choice since his brakes are broken
(study study study)' And some of the lessons that he writes down in his little
notebook, 'today i had a very educational experience. I tried to look backwards,
but unfortunately I was already looking that way. It hurt. Todays lesson, the human
head cannot turn 360 degrees.'
Someone says this anime could be offensive for girls... not really. Embarrassing
situations are funny; first time i see this series i was in the video store, people
around me started laughing, doesn't matter the age or gender. A teacher said that
in order to guarantee the attention of someone in a book the beginning must be
entertaining and the ending shouldn't be obvious by just reading the last page.
During the first minutes in the series the boy is hit by a car, during the last
moments of the series, the same car appears.. Episodes had a touching and funny
ending, specially last one. I don't regret to buy these series.
The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when
it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled
with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to
tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because
it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire
mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to
stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He
doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror. Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-
wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted
to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version
of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few
obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me,
but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two.
The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as
well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is
unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's
films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception.
While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall
atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly. The middle portion of the
film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though
as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's
hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut.
Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film. Chan-wook Park bites
into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist
on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the
following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of
psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending. Thirst
delivers on all fronts and will hopefully get more of the attention it deserved
during its theatrical run on DVD (and eventually Blu-ray, hopefully).
Endearingly silly anime, only six episodes in duration, about a hapless delivery
boy called Kintaro (well, he's called a delivery boy, though he is meant to be in
his 20's), and the adventures he has on his travels. Each episode sees him arriving
in a new town, acquiring a new job, developing something of a love interest before
each episode ends with him leaving. Gently sexist, juvenile, very
immature at times, this is the kind of anime that just puts a smile on the face. Not one to start with if you are not a fan of anime, as this certainly
won't convince you about the genre, but for those who are already converted, this
is entertaining fluff.
Golden Boy is in my opinion one the sleeper / lost treasures animes out there. A
sexy comedy, about a young man quest to find his nitch in life and he blunders into
all sort of odd jobs that somehow has this rather sexy girl who ultimately falls
for him but he not really realizing it! Its truly something that you can easily
miss if you at the name, but once viewing it...will fall for the comedy/silliness
that lies inside. Truly a crime that only produced 6 OVA episodes and pilot movie
were made. However, being unique as it is. I'm surprised it survived to produce
that many. If you want a good laugh, with high quality anime that is (100% CGI
free), check this anime out. Boy who one day may save the world....or maybe not.
I liked this quite a bit but I have friends that hated this. There's no sex, but
there's very little nudity in any of the episodes - which is a good thing. Also,
Keitaro has a toilet fixation that's explored in at least half the episodes.
(Toilets are way more advanced in Japan.) Hmm, I'm wondering why I rated this so
high myself...? It certainly isn't that I like naked cartoon girls. In some ways,
Keitaro Oe (the main character) is analogous to Johnny Bravo except instead of
being an obnoxious, musclebound jock, Keitaro is a hyperactive nerd. Or you can
think of him as Japan's answer to Leisure Suit Larry. He's easier to take if you
watch it subtitled rather than dubbed, but he grows on you either way if you give
him a chance. He IS the Goldenboy. The formula is the same for each
episode. Boy meets girl, boy tries to win girl's heart despite being a dorky
pervert, boy somehow succeeds against all odds. Typically, the girl doesn't realize
she likes Keitaro until after he's beaten to a pulp and/or pulled off some
spectacular stunt like engineering a modern operating system in one week or winning
a race against a gasoline-powered motorcycle using his bicycle. Episode
#1 features a rich software tycoon. I think animating her boobs put a major dent in
the budget because she's the only female that has this kind of animation. She also
dresses completely unprofessionally. Most people who rate this negatively probably
never got past the first episode. Episode #2 has the rich, young
daughter who likes to tease. She's only 16 but that's legal age in Japan (and in
some states in the US, I might add). Her father is also a brutal yakuzza type that
has a reputation for killing guys interested in his daughter. Girl #3
is the sweet innocent daughter of a noodle shop owner that's mixed up with a bad
boyfriend. Aside from Keitaro running interference for the maiden and being kissed
by a guy, there's almost no ecchi of any kind in this episode - a sharp drop from
the previous two. Nevertheless, Keitaro and the evil boyfriend really pound each
other. Episode #4 has Keitaro trying to impress a top-notch swimming
coach. Keitaro seems more 'direct' about his intentions with this particular girl
than any other... and she's pretty direct in return... Girl #5 is the
biker babe. She's probably the most top-heavy of the 6 (although not super-buoyant
like girl #1) and 'raciest' in terms of sexuality and vulgarity. This particular
episode is easily the most over-the-top in terms of (lack of) realism. Keitaro
should have broken every bone in his body at least twice during the race against
the biker babe but I think the producers and writers said, "It's just a cartoon! We
can do anything!" This lapse in realism makes it a fan favorite. Finally, episode #6 introduces a new girl (that's works in animation) and the
previous 5 girls help Keitaro as he tries to cope with impossible time and resource
constraints to get an OAV out the door by the deadline. In terms of ecchi, this
one's very tame as well, but there's plenty of humor. The ending has all 5
extremely pretty girls from the past team up to hunt Keitaro, who slips away
unnoticed, ostensibly with the intention of gang-raping him. Yeah, that -ALMOST-
happens in real life. Someone crossed Ukyo Tachibana (ala Samurai Shodown) with
Steve Urkel(ala Family Matters)... All in all, there's no middle ground
for this. You'll either hate it or love it. If you're new to anime, you probably
don't want to start with this. At the same time, if you can stand characters like
Happosai (from Ranma 1/2) or Johnny Bravo... or you like comedies that lean more
heavily towards silliness but have very sexual overtones, you should give it a
shot.
Simply put, there are two parts of this series that made me cry till my eyes fell
out. First: The part where he was set to wash the toilet, but ended up drinking the
toilet water while imagining it was the hot director giving him a golden shower!!!
(I laughed so hard!) Second: The part where he tried to prove worthy of
a swimming school instructor. He seemed like a pro diving in, but as expected, he
couldn't swim (proper at least^^). However the funny part of this was when he
finally reached the end and said "how was that" or something. That was so friggin
hilarious, I couldn't stop laughing. If you get the chance to see this
anime series, I strongly recommend it. One of the best I've seen. Definitely the funniest!
Believe me when I say this show is just plain hilarious. The basic story is about
Kintaro Oe who travels from town to town taking part time jobs, chasing women, and
learning all he can about life. Kintaro has to be one of the easiest to relate to
characters ever made. He takes everything to the extreme, and it's just laugh out
loud funny every time. From his constant never ending quest to study life, to tiny
things he instantly blows up into life or death matters. One of the
funniest things about this show is simply Kintaro's constantly extremely over the
top expressions and reactions. He spends a great amount of time in various super
deformed modes like Dragon Half or Trigun. Other times in less then 0.1 seconds his
face will turn not just serious, but manga-fighter-style life or death expressions
like a weight lifter trying to benchpress a new record. It's hilarious. If that wasn't enough, the writing is superb and the english voice acting
couldn't possibly be better. Kintaro's English VA is just perfect and will have you
rolling around when he's not even really saying anything. The one thing to mention
though is this is without a doubt an Ecchi series. It practically defines the word.
If you're an adult anime fan who can get a laugh out of movies like American Pie,
you'll love this. - Rirath_com
Golden Boy is ecchi humor (bordering on hentai) in the guise of "educational
moments." The main character, Kintaro, wanders around getting himself into the
silliest situations involving women... It's just that he's shy on the surface but
analyses everything until he can learn something from it. The most striking feature
of the series are the circumstances surrounding his "education", which are outright
embarrassing, yet funny at the same time.
Although I'm a girl, thankfully I have a sense of humor and realize that this
really IS a funny anime! Watching it does give you an overwhelming feeling that
it's definitely a guy show but that doesn't take away from the fact that its
hilarious! 10/10
Story involves ancient demon being released upon a small town on Halloween night.
In all my life I have never seen such a cheesy film, but it is so d**m entertaining
you can forgive its bad acting, effects, direction, and script. This is the best
movie created for the Halloween season since the original Halloween. And when they
introduce Linnea Quigley's character for the first time, she is butt naked in the
shower for like 5 mins. Goodness they just don't get any better than this. Rush and
buy this tape right away. 5/10
Man, I can't believe the largely harsh and negative comments for this movie. Okay,
it sure ain't no sophisticated work of cinematic art. But it is a good deal of
entertainingly tacky fun. For starters, the titular pumpkin-headed supernatural
killer dude has to be one of the single most laughably silly and unscary things to
ever stumble in front of a camera; he looks like something you would see in a
fourth-rate carnival spookhouse. Secondly, the moderate gore is ridiculously fake
and unconvincing, with the definite highlight occurring when this annoying uptight
ultra-conservative woman gets electrocuted by a toaster. Then there's the always
welcome presence of the ever-lovely Linnea Quigley, who's memorably introduced
taking a nice, long, utterly gratuitous shower that goes on for two minutes.
Amazingly, we also have appearances by deceased schlock picture legends John
Carradine as an evil warlock and Cameron Mitchell as a horror TV show host.
Moreover, scream queens Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith have fleeting cameos.
Lead child actor Ryan Latshaw projects all the charm and acting ability of a moldy
old tree stump. Pretty brunette Rachel Carter pops her top and bares her cute
little breasts. The cruddy special effects are decidedly less than special. The
score is suitably overwrought. Yet this film overall has a certain endearingly
hokey appeal to it which in turn makes this honey a real delectably cheesy hoot to
watch.
My buddies and I spent the majority of a Saturday afternoon watching a selection of
"bad" movies. Among the flicks we watched, the strongest contender (for quality
bad-movie fare) was easily Jack-O. It's ludicrous that movies such as "Gigli",
"Glitter" and "You Got Served" are listed in IMDBs bottom 100. While they're
certainly bad movies, they don't belong in the bottom 100. They're robbing "Jack-
O", and "Keeper of Time", etc, of the Bad Movie Greatness they so richly
deserve. So what makes Jack-O so great (in bad movie terms)? For
starters, Steve Latshaw, the director, decided to cast his son, Ryan Latshaw, in
the role of Sean Kelly. Unfortunately for Steve, Ryan Latshaw was dangerously close
to being out-acted by a block of wood. The kid, seriously, has no ability to emote
whatsoever. The end result: unintentional comic gold. The kid could be listening to
a joke, or just moments away from getting his head smashed asunder, and his
expression is one of stony "emotionlessness". The other aspect of the
movie that we found awesome was the sheer number of "double dreaming" sequences.
What is a double-dream? Well, it's when a character wakes up from a nightmare, and
then something equally nightmarish happens, and then the character wakes up again.
Basically: they wake up after dreaming about waking up from a nightmare. Clever
device, no? I believe the character of Sean Kelly experienced no less than 3
double-dreaming sequences. Let's see... what else? Oh yeah! This movie
has a veritable cast of thousands. It's truly stunning to see how many speaking
roles are introduced throughout the course of the movie. Best of all: almost none
of the characters have anything to do with the story. They're either killed by
Jack-O, or they serve no purpose whatsoever. Jack-O himself was pretty
sweet. Like most other B-movie monsters, Jack-O has the amazing ability to,
seemingly, teleport over great distances. He's invariably hanging-out, somewhere in
the background, whenever you're dealing with a major character. What's puzzling,
however, is that when he's actually chasing someone he moves at a
shambling/stumbling speed, and yet he's able to keep up with people who are
sprinting. That's all for now. Closing remarks: if you're looking for a
unintentionally hilarious bad movie, you can't go wrong by renting this
beast. Bad Movie Score: 7/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5/10
I wasn't expecting much because of the harsh reviews, and proceeded to enjoy the
movie a great deal as a result. Softer colors and less stunning compositions of the
shots than some of his previous films, in my opinion, allowed the narrative to take
the focus. Though the religious conflict in a vampire flick was commonplace, I felt
like many of the other things were not. For example: how his powers were
often revealed through interaction with her. the very strong and well
acted love scenes. the symbolism of the man they killed to get closer to
each other actually separating them even more. Their strong differences
of what it means to be 'vampire' created by their prior life experiences. the lack of scores of other vampires appearing or being created through the
movie. I've heard and read several things about 'tricks used in other
films'. Of course. However, i feel that tricks are used to emphasize what is
happening in the scene and I feel that he does this well. I don't need a director
to use new tricks. I prefer that the tricks that are used are used well and
appropriately, which i feel is the case with this film. I recommend it.
Crazy Scottish warrior race, stranded deep in outer-space, low on food and budget
free, started ten now down to three, who will help these men of pluck, with visual
effects that semi suck, but I kinda liked the freaky being, if I met one then I'd
be fleeing, but not if I had Scottish mates, we'd f'n swear and avoid that fate, so
in the end it wasn't botched, it was a DVD I'm glad I watched, but if they ever
make a sequel, dump some actors, not all were equal, some were good, with gritty
acting, some were wooden, and should maybe pack it in, but the action kept me
watching all, the shooting, shouting, didn't stall, I'll tell my friends not to
fear, and watch again in another year.
I believe this film was made for the not so princely sum of £8000 but that didn't
really show. There wasn't anything amateurish about the production or the acting,
the characters were gritty and real and the location could have been any desert
area in the world instead of a not too warm beach just north of Aberdeen. The
actors were quite easily acceptable as a bunch of mercenaries stranded on a
mysterious, deserted and uncharted planet, none of them seemed to be particularly
friendly with each-other but were willing to fight to keep themselves and their
comrades alive. There weren't any great explanations of what was going on, which
can be really contrived, so a lot of the plot was left to your imagination rather
like The Big Empty which was a film I also enjoyed. I found that I quite warmed to
most of the characters, there were some perhaps unintentionally amusing moments,
the men were so ordinary that you felt you could empathise with them and the film's
climax and ending were quite poignant. I think Mr Stirton and his crew should be
quite proud of themselves I've seen worse films with a budget of millions.
I have to confess that I know some of those involved, I was in the forerunner to
The Planet, Evil Unleased, however this was more than 10 years ago and I had since
lost contact with them. I happened to be watching BBC Scotland News and a piece
regarding Scottish Cinema, this mentioned and showed clips from The Planet and
comments from it's director Mark Stirton, this prompted me to order a copy of the
film on DVD. Now to the film, the level of acting, writing, directing
and sfx is up there with some of the best around, OK it's not Star Wars but I've
seen many a Hollywood product that is far inferior. It is very strange watching a
film spoken in my local North East Scotland accent but that soon passed. ^Mild Spoilers^ The Planet draws on several sci-fi classics;
Star Wars, Alien, Pitch Black, Forbidden Planet and Predator, a handful of the
merchant crew of a deep space transport ship survive their craft being attacked and
destroyed by unknown ships, they escape onto a deserted desert planet, one by one
they are killed by invisible attackers, the ships only passenger, a mysterious
prisoner also makes it to the planet, a battle ensues as the crew fight to
survive. The Planet is a brilliant piece of sci-fi film making that
certainly hides it's limited budget, well done to Mark, Mike and all those
involved, I look forward to your next work.
People seem to be expecting Citizen Kane here! The Planet is a B-monster movie and
as such is good fun and different enough to be enjoyed. The director clearly has
something to offer - not so sure about some of the cast. As for the effects? £8000
ain't a lot of effects budget.I for one would happily recommend this outing to a
sci-fi head or anyone who doesn't take monster movies too seriously. If so? Watch
3colours blue instead.I noticed one review saying it had ripped off Alien. Like
Alien didn't rip things off. The best thing about the film? The director. The worst
thing about the film? The cast. Maybe it's time for the Director to move from
Glasgow to London and find some talent. In the meantime - well done. At least
you're trying to do something.
Got this the other day from the Creators on DVD. I saw this advertised in a free
magazine whilst family were stopping in a hotel, had never heard anything about it.
After reading it was filmed on Balmedie beach i just had to buy it. I used to take
the kids to the dunes in the film all the time whilst living in Aberdeen. 1st off Im not a big Sci-Fi fan (baring Star Wars) I was really just
wanting to see what they had done with this film location, I was presently
surprised. This didn't turn out to be a standard Sci-Fi, more like a mix of sci-fi
and survival horror. Had a good storyline, which was different, had
great special effects for the budget that it was produced with £8000. Acting was
better than average for a low budget film. The way they have edited out the whole
coastline to make it feel like the dry desert planet that they are on was
nice. Weapons in the film were realistic and the creatures were cool
kinda like predator in invisibe mode. All in all I will buy any future
releases from these guys, maybe a all out horror next (Hint Hint). The extras on
the DVD were very informative on giving background for the producers, I would like
to see some of them shorts included as extras on a next DVD release. Excellent work keep it up
I loved this movie! Yes, it is rather cheap and I'm sure plenty of reviews will be
snooty about that. But my goodness what a lot they pack in for the cash involved. I
was reminded of the early work of Sam Raimi. Yes it is rough, but has good energy
and plenty of fun. The acting ranges from the very good in Scott Ironside and Shawn
Paul Hasser, to the not so good in some of the lesser parts. Is it a cult movie?
Well it grew on me. First time I liked it but by the 3rd viewing I was loving it.
The movie is probably a 7 out of 10 but I'm giving it 8 for sheer cheek. Anyone who
can pull this off for 8 grand is worth watching. Almost makes me want to visit
Scotland!
i was having a horrid day but this movie grabbed me, and i couldn't put it down
until the end... and i had forgotten about my horrid day. and the ending... by the
way... where is the sequel!!! the budget is obviously extremely low...
but ... look what they did with it! it reminds me of a play... they are basically
working with a tent, a 'escape pod', a few guns, uniforms, camping gear, and a
'scanner' thing. that is it for props. Maybe this is even a good thing, forcing the
acting and writing to have to step up and take their rightful place in film, as the
centers of the work, instead of as afterthoughts used to have an excuse to make CGI
fights (starwars). The cgi is fine. It is not exactly 'seamless'... but
imho it still works. why? because there isn't too much of it, and what there is, is
not 'taking over' with an army of effects house people trying to cram everything
they can into the shot. it prompts the imagination... it's some relatively simple
stuff, with decent composition (especially the heavy freighter shot.. there is one
long shot that must be at least ten seconds...that tracks the entire length of the
ship... it must be a record for sci fi battle sequence film making in the past 10
years, to have an action sequence that lasts longer than 0.75 seconds), and some
relation to the story. it might look old or not 'state of the art', but it doesn't
look stupid and it doesn't take away from the story. The acting is good,
except the characters die too fast to get to know them. The captain was great, but
a few of his scenes could have used another take. I also got confused with his
character losing his cool and stomping on a corpse, I like to think captains are
calm cool and in control... what was going on in that scene? did the other crew
worry about him losing it at that moment? did he feel himself losing control?
 Now, as for the plot.... mostly it is good... why? Because it doesn't
try to explain itself. It just happens. It's called 'the planet', its a mystery,
get it?? Nobody knows why there is a statue, and they don't find out either. The
mysterious cult? The weird scientist with the tattoo? What do you expect to find
out in less than 90 minutes? This isn't War and Peace. And, thank god, it's not
star wars/trek either. No midichlorians, no 5 minutes of expository boring dialog
that has no purpose in the story. The characters are stranded, and are only able to
figure out a few basic things... it is not a star trek episode where they find out
it's leonardo davinci or a child like space wanderer. It is mysterious, and i liked
that. I don't know why, maybe I can identify with these guys more , since they
don't know whats happening, and i don't either... they don't talk a lot of space
gibberish or have magic boxes telling them what is happening. In fact,
I would argue that one of the weakest moments is when the 'traitor' turns on the
crew, and tries to 'explain' the reason for the planet, the cult, etc. This
coincidentally has some of the weakest dialog, imho, in the whole movie, and it
interrupts the flow and some of the characters look unnatural in that scene. OK, sometimes I felt it was a little too mysterious, though. Like, why did
the guy get fried through his eyes with lightning? That was odd. Just weird. The
'hamlet' ending... again I would have liked to have known some of these characters
better. And would it have been so hard to have a 30 second rescue scene at the end?
This is not a serial show, it was a film, and we like closure in films, even if
they can have a sequel. Imagine Hamlet with no 'flights of angels sing thee to thy
rest' Anyways. What can I say. This was well worth the dollar I payed at
the 'red box' machine at the supermarket. It was also, imho, a better piece of
storytelling than starwars parts 1 2 or 3. Like I said, it sucked me in, wanting to
know what was happening, and I couldn't stop watching until the end.
OK, so maybe it's because I'm from the North East of Scotland and I talk just like
the guys in this film, but I found this great fun. Cheap fun to be sure, but plenty
of effort has gone into making the film look great and the actors certainly give it
all. I was actually quite effected when they died. In particulare when the Captain
finally fell. The script? Well it;s a game of 2 halfs. The opening half of the film
is well written and sharp. The last half hour is not so great, with many questions
left unanswered. This will doubtless annoy others as it annoyed me. But
nevertheless, good fun and a very smart first feature from Sturton.
On many levels it's very good. In fact, considering that this was a low-budget
British indie by a first time feature-director with a largely neophyte cast, it's a
magnificent achievement. I don't know how much it cost. The figure of £8,000 was
bandied about in publicity but you never know how reliable a figure like that is.
The point is that this film looks like it cost a couple of million quid and it
clearly cost a tiny fraction of that Great special effects, terrific production
design, effective props and costumes, excellent photography, good acting and
direction, an impressive score and an absolutely stunning sound mix. Even having
said that, much of the script was great. The characters were clearly identified and
all had something to do. This is a movie about ten men all dressed roughly the same
in one location and it would be easy for them to be nameless, faceless blanks but
these were ten characters - mostly that was done through the dialogue and the way
they reacted to things. Throughout the middle act, when the plot was developing,
the script told the story well and showed how it affected the characters. If the
whole film was like the second act, it would be stunning. Before the
ship blows up, twelve people make it to individual escape pods or 'e-pods' which
blast away from the ship. They're not much more than automatic metal coffins and
the poor sods inside are trapped, cramped and have no real idea where they're going
- but that makes sense. I like the e-pods - they're an excellent idea done very
well and make more sense than a nice, roomy escape capsule. I also like the way
that we are specifically told, later, that they are designed for ship-to-ship
escape but can just about make planetfall in an emergency - because, let's face it,
these guys were bloody lucky that their ship was blown up so close to a planet.
That said, it doesn't look to me like there are 116 unused e-pods still on the
freighter and you have to wonder how the prisoner is able to get into an e-pod -
but in he gets. (And it has just occurred to me: shouldn't the Captain have gone
down with his ship rather than being the first guy out of there?) Anyway, the e-
pods all land on a barren planet with nothing but sand and sparse vegetation - or
at least on a sandy, sparsely vegetated part of the planet which may have icy
wastes and lush jungles elsewhere. Nah, it's a planet in a sci-fi movie - it will
be exactly the same all over. We have to accept that all the e-pods come down
within a few miles of each other so that the ten survivors are able to meet up,
firing flares into the sky to locate each other. The Captain, a muscular
mountain of a man who could have a pretty good career in action flicks if he gets
the right agent, decides that they should try and contact 'Captain Behan' with whom
they were intending to rendezvous. But they cannot do this from the planet, they
need to get into orbit. The engineer says that if they combine the power units from
two e-pods they can probably give one of them enough juice to lift itself on anti-
grav doodads high enough to blast above the atmosphere. It can all be done on
automatic but it will need a 'pilot' to send the signal. The captain valiantly
volunteers for this but in a commendably sensible move the engineer points out that
putting the heaviest man into the somewhat dodgily repaired e-pod is ridiculous and
that it needs to be the lightest member of the team. That's Kid. I really liked the
way that he now points out that his name is David and the Captain starts using it,
treating him with dignity and respect. That was good storytelling and good
characterisation.
I was trying to work out why I enjoyed this film?? Its not because of money spent
on it that's for sure!! Did I see a painted water pistol in there? Maybe they don't
have the same sort of visual effects houses in the Scotland? Or maybe they just
didn't have any money? The making of clearly shows a gang of very plucky guys
making a movie against the odds. Awesome! But what I really liked was the grit of
the performances. Mike Michell and Patrick White play the lead parts like 2 normal
guys. No Hollywood histrionics here. OK, so the effects work isn't very
good. The spaceships just don't look as good as they should in todays FX world and
I've seen much better free stuff on youtube. But the film holds together very well
once they get to the Planet. Was this filmed in Scotland or just by a Scottish
crew? Or is it just better effects work? Did they edit out the water? By the end I
kinda loved this film and was disappointed when they all died.
Anything Park Chan-wook creates is guaranteed to be unique, brilliant, and very
twisted at a minimum. Well, anything that isn't I'm a Cyborg at least. Park's
newest film titled Thirst is a vampire romance-erotic-thriller-dark comedy-drama
yes, that is a lot of adjectives inspired by the 19th century French novel by
Emile Zola titled Therese Raquin. Park creates a uniquely Korean, and uniquely
Park, vision of the vampire mythos and asks the audience to explore the dilemma of
a Catholic priest discovering himself having a thirst for blood and the moral and
spiritual crisis that would develop. Park delivers on the elements you would hope
but definitely falls short of masterpiece quality like Oldboy or even that of Lady
Vengeance. Heavily bloated with a narrative that often loses itself much less the
audience, Thirst desperately needed another trip through the cutting room. It
crawls when it should be running but luckily brings it back home before losing the
audience completely. As negative as it may sound the positives definitely outweigh
the negatives and another volume has without a doubt been added to the dark and
twisted Zeitgeist of Park Chan-wook film. Check out the rest of our
review at www.thefilmstage.com
I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!! I did buy this film for a dollar and I've
seen much worse for much more!! This is a Scottish sci-fi film from Mark
Stirton and according to the Making of (hysterical by the way) the production only
cost $8000. Eight grand!!! That wouldn't pay for half a minute in Hollywood!!
Nevertheless ---- This is top fun film making. If you like things gritty then
you're in for a treat. These are some rough character with rough voices and harsh
swearing. I didn't mind, but my girl friend did!! The actors do a fine job and it's
interesting to see people that I've never heard of or seen before. It meant I had
no idea who was going to die first. If you watch a movie for it's
'latest of the latest' visual effects then watch a Star Wars. The effects here are
OK, but kinda weak in space. But the monsters are very well done if a bit pred
like. Stirton does an amazing job with not very much and I'd love to see
his take on a real Hollywood movie. It least it wasn't predictable and I almost
fell off my chair when one dude got his head blown off!!! OK, so it is a little
derivative of other sci-fi, but for this budget it is an amazing attempt and anyone
who thinks making a sci-fi film for 8 g's is easy or happens a lot clearly knows
nothing about the film industry. Good marks for a good film, extra marks
for working so hard, extra extra marks for a really interesting Making of. No
standard bull here, all the problems of production are gone into making it like
Lost in Mancha only with a film at the end. But why no commentary? KEEP GOING
SCOTS!
The '7' rating is not necessarily a smear-- this movie was done on a low budget--
but done well within its limits. A usual pot-boiler plot-- Ship carrying
a prisoner is destroyed in space, people and prisoner escape in pods, land on
unknown planet where their presence wakes something up. Mayhem ensues, a lot of
ammo is expended. The special effects were spare and properly done,
emphasizing future technology with holographic displays and controls instead of
relying on bulky, cheap looking plastic props. Plus the pacing of the story moved
without allowing the viewer to lapse into boredom where they start picking things
apart. I peg this one as a lite Saturday afternoon flick. You can get up
and hit the fridge without pausing it and it'll still be enjoyable. Even better,
your girlfriend can talk all the way through it without damaging your enjoyment--
and she'll be happy: after all, she got to TALK to you! It's THAT type of movie. Anyways, the actual story line has s few holes in after they hit the
planet, but hey, this is a Guns 'n' Ammo action movie. Cohesive story lines are not
necessarily required so long as you have Beer and chips at hand. So don't get get
yourself into a brain-cramp over the ending.
Got the chance to see this at a friend's house today, and was impressed with what
it achieved on such a small budget. Not that this ever bothered me anyway, since I
love low budget sci-fi like Dr Who, Blake's 7 and Dark Star. Hell, even Outland
wasn't a big budget affair, so whilst money helps, it takes more than throwing cash
at things to make them good. The story is straightforward at first, with
a group of mercenaries paid to escort a prisoner through space. Their ship is
attacked and they are forced to land on the nearest planet. They then discover the
prisoner has made it too, he's a stone cold nut case and that's only the start of
their problems. The effects, except for the gunfights, are minimalistic
and add to the film without overwhelming it. Computer effects look a bit dodgy at
times, but serve their purpose well and add to the story, lending a futuristic feel
to the proceedings. Films like I, Robot could have benefited from this approach
instead of being largely style over substance and substituting special effects for
a plot, like all too many of Hollywood's offerings. Whilst none of the
actors get Oscar material, it's tightly scripted and shot and at an hour and ten
minutes doesn't outstay its welcome. The characters don't get fleshed out much, but
then they didn't in Predator either, which it resembles in feel. Big man Mike
Mitchell is a good stand in for Arnie and is a good combination of brains and
brawn. Some people may be annoyed at the lack of explanation towards the
end, but I like it. Unlike a lot of films and shows which leave things unexplained,
it is not so obscure that you can't get a handle on it at all, and I'd like to see
a sequel where the nature of the aliens is explored further. A cracking
little film from an enterprising team, done on the cheap but a fun way to pass an
hour. If this is what they can do on a shoestring I'd like to see what they would
do with a bit more cash, and hope the film industry and the talentless armchair
critics don't knock all the creativity out of them first. Recommended.
WOW!! Talk about a film that divides the audience! This is a real love it or loath
it kinda movie. Personally I really enjoyed it. I noticed that other reviews are
comparing it to Pitch Black - this is kinda dumb as the only thing they have in
common is SAND! People can be real stupid. No, this film is far more in common with
The Thing (how people fail to notice is amazing - they even have the same basic
music) Lots of Carpenter touches are there, blue collar heroes, sharp humor,
endless rolling landscapes full of death and things not understood. Perhaps what
stops this film being a real classic is it's deference to other Carpenter works.
Not least Dark Star which it has something in common with. I'd be interested to
know how much it REALLY cost? $8000? Is that even possible? Maybe it was based on a
short film that cost $8000? But I did find myself strangely moved when the various
space dudes died. They are so underplayed that it's like watching a documentary at
times. Having said that the script is kinda clunky and only about half of them can
act however and I'm not sure the big guy playing the Captain is one of them. But
his gun is AWESOME!! Give it a chance, if you like early Carpenter you might fall
for it, just don't expect 2001.
Every once in a while you stumble across a movie that takes you by surprise and
this is one of them. On the surprise scale this would rate as sharing a hot tub
with Jessica Alba whilst a band consisting of Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon,
Phil Lynott and Keith Moon play you music for the night. The reason why this film
will surprise you is that for the meagre budget they had (£8,000) and that this was
done by a bunch of mates who just wanted to try it out they have produced something
very slick and looks easily 100 times more than its budget. The plot is
simple a crew of mercenaries carrying a dangerous prisoner through space come under
attack and are forced to crash land on a nearby desolate planet. After some checks
not only does the planet not exist according to star charts but they are not alone
as it seems and something very unfriendly begins to pick them of one by one. It
sounds like very standard Sci-Fi fare mixing elements of Aliens. Predator and Pitch
Black but it takes all these and makes them into something that feels fresh and
original. The Location shooting in this is fantastic, utilising
Balmeddie beach in Aberdeen to the maximum and you genuinely feel that you are one
an alien world. The seemingly never ending sand dunes and clever lighting effects
give it a very bleak feel , you truly think the crew are stranded on an alien
world. Also the action sequences are superb, the opening assault on the freighter a
great showcase of what special effects can be achieved on a budget and the
firefights as well as the stunning finale all showcase the inventiveness of the
film. As for the team of mercenaries the cast excels themselves. For a
low budget independent movie the casting here was done via local media outlets and
they seem to have picked some possible stars for the future. Local body builder
Mike Mitchell whilst not a natural actor slots into his role as the Arnie-Esq
leader of the mercenaries. From the rest of the cast there are two stand out
performances Patrick Wright as second in command McNeal and Scott Ironside as the
rough and ready engineer Vince. Both have some the best lines in the movie and
Scott injects a good bit of humour into the movie with his performance. Patrick
gives a well rounded performance as the cool as ice second in command. Director Mark Stirton can be very proud of what he has achieved and shows that
Scottish cinema need not all be 'Kilts and Ceilidhs' or 'Slums and Drugs' Scottish
films can be fresh, inventive and most of all a lot of god damn fun. This film is
Scottish (with a north east flavour) to the core and praise to the actors and
directors for keeping the accents intact which adds to the charm of the piece.
Although the budget limitations show from time to time (the only fault i could
find) that is to be expected. This film, its cast and crew deserve all the success
they get and then some more. I for one wish Mark and his crew every success and
theirs is a career to keep a very close eye on. Rating - 9/10 The first
Scottish sci-fi is bold, fresh and inventive a real triumph. Movie
reviews, news and opinion like no other plus the kick ass bi-weekly pod-
casts. www.fightrunner.co.uk contact@fightrunner.co.uk
"The Planet" is an astounding piece of film making. For a mere £8000 Stirton
Production have turned out one of the most original sci-fi films for a long
time. Starring the physically intimidating Mike Mitchell, the film is a
mix of great special effects, strong storytelling and well planned action. From the
opening space battle, to the pounding finale, everything about this film appears
well above it's budget. To start with the special effects, while
certainly not "Revenge Of The Sith" standard, they are on level, if not above, the
likes of Babylon 5 and Farscape. And for a snip of a price as well. The detail and
the movement is superb, and captures the imagination from the off. The design of
everything, ships, weapons, entities is second to none. The imagination and
creativity involved is a real surprise for a film of this budget. Another surprise was the strength of the story, and the arc it takes. There are a
few twists and turn, most of which are well written into the script, surprising and
well played out. I was surprised that, two years in the making and first imagined
15 years ago, how relevant some aspects of the story are to today's society. With
the happenings around the world, there may be a certain resonance with the lengths
the mercenaries are forced to go to in order to survive. Even the sounds
effects are spot on, as is the atmospheric music. The use of light and costume add
further to the professional look. Balmedie Beach in Aberdeen looks a desolate and
lonely place. In all honesty this film looks 10, if not 100, times the
budget spent, and that's testament to a creative, hard working team of people, from
the director, to the cast, to the effects via the producer and sound team.
Wonderful effort, I recommend you get your hand on a copy ASAP
GZSZ is the longest running daily soap in Germany and it's cult! I started watching
it from the first day on and I got hooked on it right from the start. Over the
years so much has changed, the old characters like Heiko, Elke, Tina, Saskia etc.
left, and new ones appeared like Marie, Kai, Cora or John. I have to say that I
liked GZSZ better in the years 1995-2000 because today the show focuses too much on
the younger characters. My favorite character is Sonja Wiebe because she is the
most scheming person that has ever been on that soap and she is also one of the
most interesting characters on the show. Tina Bordihn was great as the first Sonja
but as Tokessa became the recast of Sonja the character got even better.
Okay, I'm just going to disagree with the past comments that criticized this show.
I happen to think this show is awesome. (I mean when Jasmin Weber was still on and
Franzi was still alive, so addicting!). And I was surprised to learn that this was
categorized as a soap, because it just doesn't carry the same look and feel as
soaps in America. Soaps here are absolutely horrific! At least GZSZ films on
location, features real music and more plausible story lines. Moreover, the acting
on GZSZ, for the most part, is quite believable especially with Josephine Schmidt
and Felix Jascheroff. (Plus, soap actors are some of the hardest workers around in
the business as they have the most demanding work schedules). If it's ratings are
that high, it must be doing something right; soaps in America are shown in the day-
time and, historically, have always had rock-bottom ratings. Give GZSZ a chance!
Trust me, it's good!
An on screen caption informs us that it is 'the Caribbean Sea, May 1891'. A small
lifeboat drifts aimlessly at sea containing six convicts from a shipwrecked prison
ship, and the ship's Doctor a Lt. Claude De Ross (Claudio Cassinelli). It's night,
a strange current takes the boat towards a strange, unnamed and uncharted island.
The boat hits some rocks and is torn apart. One of the prisoners is killed by what
appears to be a slimy mutant fish-man creature. The next morning morning Claude
wakes up to find himself washed upon a beach. He finds a pool of white bubbling
water and one of the prisoners dead beside it. Claude warns another surviving
prisoner Jose (Franco Iavarone) not to drink the water as it will kill him. They
both eventually meet up with the other surviving prisoners, Peter (Roberto Posse),
Francois (Francesco Mazzeri) and Skip (Giuseppe Castellano). Francois wanders off
on his own to try and catch an animal for food, he finds and kills a large water
bird. But in turn he is killed himself by one of the fish-men. Claude, Jose, Peter
and Skip continue to explore the island as they put Francois's death down to an
animal attack of some sort. Soon after Skip is killed when he is impaled on a spike
at the bottom of a pit. Now only Claude, Jose and Peter are left. They stumble
across a cemetery with lots of empty graves and signs of recent black magic
rituals. Claude spots a snake on a nearby rock, suddenly a shot is heard and the
snakes head explodes. A woman on horseback named Amanda Marvin (Barbara Bach) is
revealed to be Claudes saviour. She tells them to leave the island immediately as
it is owned by a Edmund Rackham (Richard Johnson) and he doesn't like visitors.
Claude, Jose and Peter decide to carry on regardless, eventually finding Rackham's
large house in which they are invited to stay. That night Peter goes after Amanda
and tries to rape her in a swamp, Peter quickly becomes food for the fish-men. And
a Voodoo priestess called Shakira (Beryl Cunningham), who lives with Rackham,
performs a black magic ritual involving slitting the throat of a chicken at the
cemetery. The next day Claude and Jose decide they should leave the island as they
feel very uneasy about Rackham and think he is lying to them. Jose rides off on
horseback and is lost. Claude is saved from one of the fish-men by Amanda and is
again told to leave. Claude wants to confront Rackham again. Rackham reveals that
he has a scientist, and Amanda's father, named Professor Ernest Marvin (Joseph
Cotten) who he needs to be kept alive. Rackham says that the longer Ernest stays
alive the chances of his own survival will dramatically increase. Rackham tells
Claude his plan. Rackham has found the lost city of Atlantis at a depth of over
2,000 feet. He is using the fish-men as a means of getting at the lost treasures of
Atlantis, and needs Amanda and her father to control them. He claims the fish-men
are descendants of the original inhabitants of Atlantis. Rackham offers Claude a
share of the treasure if he will help him keep Ernest alive. Later Claude remembers
the name Ernest Marvin as a scientist who was condemned for experiments
transplanting animal organs into human beings. Finding Ernest's secret laboratory
he discovers Rackham had lied to him and the fish-men aren't descendants, their
actually genetically altered people turned into amphibious creatures by Ernest's
grotesque experiments! Rackham has finally had enough of Claude and decides to put
an end to his meddling by sticking him in a large tank and slowly filling it with
water, as the islands volcano starts to erupt and send lava flying everywhere.
Rackham wants to leave the island with his treasures and Amanda, will Claude escape
almost certain death to save Amanda and get off the island before the erupting
volcano tears it apart? Directed by Sergio Martino I really liked this film that
mixes various genres. The script by Sergio Donati is fast paced, interesting and
entertaining. The plot is revealed bit by bit, which kept me interested in watching
it all the way through. I must say at this point that I've seen the original
version and not the one with added scenes inserted for it's US release by Roger
Corman. Barbara Bach makes for an extremely attractive leading lady, but I hated
the way she was introduced by shooting a snakes head off, I thought it was more
than a little distasteful. Richard Johnson makes a great villain and Claudio
Cassinelli a likable hero. The fish-men themselves look a little fake when the
camera lingers on them too long but their cool looking and I've seen worse. Some of
the miniature effects look a little poor too, but overall again I've again seen a
lot worse. There's no real gore, violence or nudity in it, but that didn't really
bother me actually. The photography by Giancarlo Ferrando and the production design
by Massimo Antonello Geleng combine to create a very nice looking film. Period
costumes, props and sets like Rackham's house and Ernest's lab with it's old
scientific equipment. The lush green jungle settings also add to the visual
splendour on show. I really liked this film and I was entertained throughout it's
running time. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it too as it mixes various genres, I
guess someone who maybe fancies something a little bit different and generally well
made. If you can find a copy give it a go, I'm glad I did.
This movie is based on the novel Island of dr. Moreau By H.G. Wells. It's a fairly
good one too, it's at least better than the version by John Frankenheimer.
Although at times I was the only one in the cinema who was laughing, this is the
main pleasure I took from the beautifully shot "Thirst" - laughter. Although
sometimes it seemed that the movie had an identity crisis and didn't know whether
it was a tragedy or a comedy, the blackest of black humour shone through at regular
intervals. It helped of course that it the standard of acting by
everyone concerned was wonderful, and that I was slightly obsessed by the at times
wicked leading lady, who was gorgeously elegant no matter how blood soaked and
malevolent she became. I read reviews that suggested this movie was
overlong. I didn't think so. In fact the last scenes, moving and hilarious (I mean,
the brown shoes....) by turns, were among the best in the film.
1891: Stalwart, morally upright military doctor Lieutenant Claude de Ross (solid
Claudio Cassinelli) and several other shipwreck survivors wash ashore on a remote
tropical island that's governed with an iron fist by the ruthless and sadistic
Edmund Rackham (superbly played to the deliciously slimy hilt by Richard Johnson),
who lives on the island with the feisty Amanda Martin (a winningly spunky
performance by the ravishing Barbara Bach) and her unhinged rogue biologist father
Professor Ernest Martin (a marvelously dotty portrayal by Joseph Cotten). Moreover,
de Ross discovers that Professor Martin has control over a dangerous race of
fishman beasts who are being exploited as slave labor by Rackham. Director/co-
writer Sergio Martino relates the lively and absorbing story at a constant snappy
pace, offers a flavorsome evocation of the lush and remote tropical setting, does
an expert job of creating and maintaining a creepy and mysterious atmosphere in the
spooky opening third, further spices things up with a nice line in dry humor, and
stages the exhilarating action-loaded climax with considerable rip-roaring aplomb.
While the central premise is obviously inspired by "The Island of Dr. Moreau," the
story nonetheless is given a great deal of freshness and intrigue because of
Martino's artful melding of such diverse elements as voodoo, the lost underwater
city of Atlantis, a rousing mondo destructo climactic volcanic eruption, buried
treasure, unscrupulous genetic experiments, and even some exciting rough'tumble
fisticuffs between de Ross and Rackham during the thrilling conclusion into an
altogether dynamic, imaginative, and often immensely entertaining whole. The sound
acting by the sturdy cast qualifies as another substantial plus: Cassinelli makes
for a likable hero, Johnson essays his juicy villain part with supremely lip-
smacking aplomb, Bach rates as a quite fetching damsel in distress, plus there are
neat supporting contributions by Beryl Cunningham as sinister voodoo priestess
Shakira, Franco Iavarone as the superstitious Jose, and Roberto Posse as surly
troublemaker Peter. Giancarlo Fernando's sumptuous widescreen cinematography
delivers a wealth of striking visuals while Luciano Michelini's throbbing tribal
score hits the funky spot. The amphibious humanoid fishman creatures are pretty
gnarly-looking, too. An extremely fun flick.
Watching this odd little adventure movie, it's hard to believe that it was directed
by the same man who brought us such high quality Giallo classics as The Strange
Vice of Mrs Wardh and The Case of the Scorpion's Tail, but it has to be said that
despite it's low quality production values, Island of the Fish Men is an
entertaining ride and one that surely deserves more praise than it's getting. Like
many Italian films from the seventies, this is one is a rip off of a successful
American film, the one in question this time being the critically panned Island of
Dr Moreau. Sergio Martino's film takes ideas such as mutation, greed and adventure
and moulds it into one slightly compelling film, which makes up for what it's lacks
in coherency and logic with a load of mostly intriguing ideas. The central plot
follows a boat which crashes on a small island. It quickly becomes apparent that
not everything about this place is normal, and it soon transpires that half of the
population has been turned into "fish men" - a cross between a man and a fish,
which exist for purely selfish reasons... The truth about this movie is
that it's a lot more fun if you ignore the trashy production values. The central
monsters look completely ridiculous, and much of the movie takes place on sets that
look like they cost someone a few pennies - but the movie is well shot in spite of
this, with the underwater photography being a particular highlight and the pacing
of the movie is well done in that the film never becomes boring. The way that the
plot comes together isn't exactly genius, but it takes in a lot of ideas and I've
seen films made on plots with much less thought put into them than this one. The
biggest location standout in the film is definitely the lost city of Atlantis. To
be honest, I'm not a massive fan of adventure movies, and therefore don't see this
lost city get mentioned much - but it is always nice to see it in a movie. The
central island location is good in that it provides an apt setting for the story
and also provides the movie with the right amount of mystery, as Martino makes good
use of the voodoo theme. Overall, this isn't exactly a classic and there are
certainly a lot worse trashy adventure movies out there than this one.
Lt. Claude (Claudio Cassinelli) and several prisoners from his sunken ship wash
ashore on an island owned by Edmond Rackham (Richard Johnson). Following a few
random prisoner deaths, Rackham takes in Claude and his two remaining prisoners.
Luckily for everyone, Barbara Bach just happens to be on the island too! Unluckily,
there are some crazy fishmen who like to kill people. This Italian
produced exploiter seems to have it all - a touch of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON
mixed with DR. MOREAU with a dash of WHITE ZOMBIE voodoo and Atlantis stuff.
Despite some wonky looking fishmen costumes, the film does benefit from some
beautiful location photography and a nice twist about halfway through. All of the
actors are good and Joseph Cotton even pops up as a old biologist. Director Sergio
Martino handles himself well enough as there is action ever 10 minutes or so. That
can't be said for his belated follow-up THE FISHMEN AND THEIR QUEEN (1995), easily
one of the wackiest and most off-base sequels since HIGHLANDER II.
I saw this movie on television as SCREAMERS and loved it. I heard an interesting
story about this film. When Roger Corman released it to drive-ins in the summer of
1981, his trailer department sent out an advance trailer which was not actually
footage from the film. It was allegedly footage of a naked woman being chased
around a laboratory set by a monster. During the film's opening at drive-in's,
irate customers complained the did not see the movie they paid to see. Theater
owners called Corman and said their customers felt ripped off. So Corman had to run
off copies of the footage, and send the positive film to theater owners to splice
into the film themselves. Since the footage was never part of the film negative, it
has not appeared in any video, DVD or television broadcast. Has anyone ever seen
this footage? Anyone who saw this film at a drive-in in the summer of 1981 remember
this?
action packed,with my favorite type of creature.I won't give any of it away if you
have'nt seen it,cause it's worth taking the time to sit down and unravel in the
mystery of things as presented in this film.It did gets slow at times and those
were the moments my mind wondered which does easily anyways but moist of it kept me
quietly thrilled,where you keep it in your head instead of letting it out,probably
the mood I was in at the time.Special effects and action sequences you could feel
made up for the occasional lulls.Of course there'es a duschload of movies out there
exactly like this,the film still has it's own style and flavor,which I respect from
underground independent horror movies anyways.
Although the video box for many copies of this film claims it is about people
turned inside out, this is a total lie. In fact, apart from the opening segment,
the film isn't even a horror movie. With its sunken treasure, legions of fish
people, and mad scientists, it's a lot more like a Doug McClure adventure movie.
Obviously, this film is no work of art, but it's kind of fun to watch... Just be
warned that the beginning is quite gory.
When a group of escaped convicts manage to flee to a remote island,they soon find
that their new home is inhabited by a strangely menacing doctor(Richard Johnson of
"Zombi 2" fame),a mad scientist(Joseph Cotten),his beautiful daughter(Barbara
Bach)and a horde of superstitious natives.The tribesmen say that the doctor has
created grotesque half-human,half-fish creatures for evil,secretive purposes.And
though at first the prisoners do not believe this,as they disappear,one by one,they
begin to change their minds."Screamers" is a very entertaining mix of "Mysterious
Island" and "Humanoids from the Deep".There is plenty of gore with really cool
decapitation scene and throat tearing to boost.The acting is so-so,but the film is
fast-paced and entertaining.Give it a look.8 out of 10.
Fans of Euro-horror flicks - Portland's video/DVD store Movie Madness has a whole
section devoted to this genre - can't afford to miss Sergio Martino's gut-busting
"L'isola degli uomini pesce" (called "Screamers" in the United States). Here's the
lowdown: some shipwreck survivors land on an uncharted Caribbean island in 1891.
The island is inhabited by a landowner, a scientist (Joseph Cotten) and his
daughter (Barbara Bach). Sure enough, it turns out that the landowner is making the
scientist create a race of fish-men. And while the fish-men remain calm as long as
they can drink their potion, they get nasty otherwise. This movie is
sort of a mixture of genres: Euro-horror, swashbuckling, voodoo, and maybe a little
bit of "The Island of Dr. Moreau". But it's mostly an excuse to have the fish-men
disembowel trespassers; ya gotta love that! I wouldn't be surprised if the Euro-
horror genre gave Quentin Tarantino some of his ideas for "Grindhouse". After all,
the European horror directors have no scruples about what they show. This is one
that you're sure to like. So Joseph Cotten is the only cast member from
an Alfred Hitchcock movie (I mean "Shadow of a Doubt") who later co-starred with
Ringo Starr's soon-to-be wife and Audrey Hepburn's ex (by whom I mean Mel Ferrer)
in an Italian horror flick. The things that we see in life...
Screamers is an Italian fantasy film (L'Isola degli Uomini Pesce) bought by Roger
Corman and released through his New World Pictures. Of course Corman has to carve
his initials on it by having one of his lackeys (Dan T. Miller) direct some
additional gore footage before he has it released in the states. L'Isola
degli Uomini Pesce is a very entertaining retelling of the Island of Dr. Moreau. It
is 1891 and Claudio Cassinelli is shipwrecked on a mysterious island with a few
newly escaped convicts. Claudio comes across the stellar Barbara Bach and Richard
Johnson. Johnson plays the dastardly Edmund Rackham: a man who is able to
manipulate scientist Joseph Cotton into turning the local native population into
amphibious deep-sea diving creatures, (they look like a cross between the Black
Lagoon creature and one of The Humanoids From the Deep), by convincing Cotton that
the mutations are being created for the highest of scientific and humanitarian
motives. Having discovered the lost city of Atlantis, Rackham is using
the amphibious creatures to loot its treasures. Sexy Barbara Bach plays Cotton's
daughter who has a psychic link with these mutations. In one memorable scene, Bach
takes a midnight swim with these mutants wearing only a thin white cotton dress
that leaves little to the imagination. Claudio discovers one of the convicts he has
befriended has been turned into a gill-creature and then all Hell breaks
loose. Filmed at the same time and in the same location as Zombi 2,
Richard Johnson didn't even have to change suits between films. The house where the
experiments take place is the same house Johnson uses to conduct experiments in
Zombi 2. Talk about economic filmmaking! The additional footage features
a few bloody beheadings, (way to go Roger!), and a laughably bad Cameron Mitchell
doing his best pirate imitation. All that's missing is the parrot. Spanish title: Le Continent Des Hommes Poissons
This movie surprised me. The box is misleading, the tagline is misleading and the
costumes and tone of the film are misleading. The movie is quite gory, well-acted
and beautifully shot. The special-effects are top-notch and seem to be ahead of
their time, until you realize this movie came out in 1979, not in 1963 like it's
tone would suggest. It is a unique take on the Dr. Moreau story, and one of the
better versions filmed. The first fifteen minutes are the highlight and the most
shocking, but the film doesn't ever really fall apart. Definitely worth-seeing if
you are a fan of dramatic costume/horror classics and gore-fests.
They say that it is always better in horror movies to leave things to the
imagination of the viewer- to hide certain details from the audience in order to
tickle their sense of imagination, dip into their fears and let that give birth to
their darkest thoughts. That was not the case when I watched Bakjwi,
under the American title Thirst. Now playing at select theaters near you. Seems
like the film makers did not want to spare you any details. There WILL be blood in
this film and you WILL try to look away. For rest of review please visit
http://without-terebi.blogspot.com/2009/08/thirst-aka-bakjwi.html Thanks and hope
you enjoyed reading above.
I work at a movie theater and every Thursday night we have an employee screening of
one movie that comes out the next day...Today it was The Guardian. I saw the
trailers and the ads and never expected much from it, and in no way really did i
anticipate seeing this movie. Well turns out this movie was a lot more than I would
have thought. It was a great story first of all. Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner
did amazing acting work in this film. Being a big fan of That 70's Show I always
found it hard thinking of Kutcher as anyone but Kelso despite the great acting he
did in The Butterfly Effect, but after seeing this movie I think I might be able to
finally look at him as a serious actor. It was also a great tribute to
the unsung heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard.
I finally got a chance to settle in and compare the two versions of this film
currently going around -- First, the good old scummy, sleazy Embassy VHS print
called SCREAMERS, and then a new fully restored Italian DVD by everyone's new
favorite media company, No Shame of Italy. The American adverts about
"men turned inside out" is as everyone says, totally misleading, and indicative of
a Roger Cormanized take on what otherwise would be a superior fantasy-adventure
thriller for grown ups. The complete Italian version is a somewhat sprawling, well
designed and deliberately paced take on "Island of Dr. Moreau", and there's nothing
wrong with that. It's a sumptuous, handsome Euro Horror outing with a brain, good
plotting, character development, location shooting, period costuming and sets,
etc. But I must admit that the 14 year old knucklehead weed puffer still
lurking somewhere inside of me got a bigger kick out of the more lurid, sleazy and
unkempt Roger Corman version, which has some nice over the top gore, a flashy but
preposterous opening segment, and then the bulk of Martino's original film, albeit
somewhat abridged to make room for Roger's idea of entertainment. The pacing was
somewhat quicker, the shock sequences closer together, and you see just as much of
Ms. Bach's fantastic form as you do in the extended Italian version. I
still don't have much of an idea about what the specific story concerns though:
there are a number of plot twists and incidental characters that were somewhat hard
to keep track of. A local voodoo subplot didn't help much, and it's funny how
everything culminates in just another fistfight between the noble castaway prisoner
and the mad scientist ... Perhaps a few more viewings are in order. I will say
this: Fans of the movie should avail themselves of one of these PAL imports and
take a look at what is actually a movie rather than just another murky old home
video -- the widescreen shot compositions once again reveal that Martino had an eye
for filling his screen with interesting stuff. Nobody gets their heads ripped off
like in the SCREAMERS print, but it's still interesting stuff, and once again proof
that while his standards may have been pretty much confined to the area around the
gutter, Roger Corman new good trashy fun when he had it made for him, and side by
side these are actually better movies than they had to be. 7/10
Sure, most people will designate "Island of the Fishmen" as silly and trashy hokum,
but can you honestly name one other movie that brings forward THIS many
exhilarating themes? This Italian gem stands for pure entertainment and features
stuff like voodoo, volcanic eruptions, mutant fish-creatures, the mysterious
continent of Atlantis, treasure-hunting, a remote island filled with death traps
and utterly mad scientists! All this and much more in one simple movie? Yes,
please! Close-minded opponents of Italian horror cinema can easily tag this film as
a cheap exploitation version of "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but the truth is that
this is so much more! "Island of the Fishmen" delivers thrills and adventure from
start to finish with surprisingly convincing special effects and astonishingly
stylish camera-work. The story promisingly opens with a small group of prisoners,
survivors of a shipwreck, washing ashore a tropical island. They encounter the
sadistic Edmond Rackham who rules over a native tribeand a legion of genetically
created amphibian monsters that live in the island's swamps. There are so many
twists and additional sub-plots in the story that it's almost impossible to write a
summary but, trust me, this gem is worth checking out. Sergio Martino once again
proves that he's an ingenious filmmaker who has the talent to be commercial-minded
and creative at the same time. He makes great use of the beautiful island location
and also the interior sets look very impressive. The staggering underwater footage
and imaginative scenery really lift this film high above the normal standards of
late 70's exploitation. I don't quite understand why Roger Corman reworked the
original so much and released it on the American market under a different title
("Screamers"), because there are very few elements open for improvement. The cast
members are all Sergio Martino regulars (with the exception of the great Joseph
Cotton is a neat supportive rule) and give away great performances. In case you can
get your hands on the recently restored German version, you're treated to fifteen
uncut minutes of extra action. See it!
This is a very odd movie for Harold Lloyd--at least in regard to the sweet
character he played in movies throughout the 1920s and 30s. Instead of a nice guy,
he and Snib Pollard are con men--out to rob everyone blind. In a particularly
successful con, Chester pretends to have lost a "very valuable ring" and a bit
later, Harold finds it as a stooge is also looking for the ring. The ring, of
course, is a cheap one dropped and then found by Harold, but the greed of the
stooge is so great, he "convinces" Harold to say nothing and sell him the
"valuable" ring and then they run away to enjoy their luck(?). Again and again they
find patsies until they meet up with a woman who herself is a con woman (working
with a guy doing fake séances). She arranges a nifty con and takes all the money
they stole--and has a cop standing by to make sure they give her the money. As luck would have it, the two con men stumble into the lady's shady
business when no one is home. Soon, the lady returns and messes with their minds--
releasing a lot of dirty tricks to punish them for their wicked ways. All around, this is a completely odd and contrived film, but it is also
exceedingly funny, as the jokes work very well and Lloyd and Pollard make an
excellent team. Plus, while creepy and strange, I liked seeing Pollard dressed like
a lady.
I just watched this, an early Harold Lloyd short film that featured his "glasses"
character on Kino Video's DVD of "The Harold Lloyd Collection". He's actually a con
man with Snub Pollard as his partner who gets discovered by Bebe Daniels who
herself performs fake séances. What she discovers is that Lloyd and Pollard bilk
many customers by dropping fake rings that are "lost". I'll stop there and just say
this was quite funny especially when Harold and Snub enter the place Bebe works and
encounter some creepy contraptions and put on costumes like Snub trying one of
Bebe's outfits. Not too much slapstick but what there is of was also quite funny.
So on that note, I recommend Are Crooks Dishonest?
Was struck at how even the acting was throughout. William Haines had an acting
range that is wonderful for silent film. Not over the edge. There are moments where
the camera work is most excellent, and combined with the story, like when he is
waiting to see the Superintendent, very well done. Thoroughly enjoyed
the flick. 
A brash, self-centered Army cadet arrives at WEST POINT with a dangerous wise guy
attitude towards the Corps. In a role obviously tailor-made for him,
William Haines shines in this highly enjoyable tale of honor & friendship. A grade-
A scene stealer, Haines during the first half of the film is up to his usual Silly
Billy behavior, which under normal circumstances should have gotten him confined to
the guardhouse. The last half, however, becomes very serious, leading up to Haines'
moral redemption and giving him a fine opportunity to exhibit his acting talents.
If WEST POINT does not quite reach the caliber of Haines' previous TELL IT TO THE
MARINES (1926), this is doubtless due to the absence here of a costar of the
charisma & quality of Lon Chaney for Haines to interact with. However, this tribute
to the Army is very effective entertainment and should be appreciated on its own
merit. Joan Crawford appears as Haines' love interest, playing the
virginal daughter of the local innkeeper. Joan is pert & pretty and especially
shines in her first scenes, when she meets Haines on a Hudson River ferry and is
subjected to his usual immature antics. Haines & Crawford made five silent feature
films together and were tremendous friends for life. He was the much bigger
celebrity at this period and gave her many hints for getting ahead in Hollywood. A
superstar herself by the early 1930's, she reciprocated after his ouster from MGM
in 1932 by encouraging his career change to interior decoration. Little
William Bakewell is effectively cast as a Plebe who idolizes Haines; their
relationship is actually given more of a sentimental treatment than that of Haines
& Crawford. The film was made with the full cooperation of the War
Department. Extensive location filming at the Academy helps tremendously with the
production's ambiance, which was given splendid production values by MGM. WEST POINT has been recently restored and given a rousing new score by
David Davidson.
Haines is excellent as the brash cadet who thinks West Point will really amount to
something now that he has arrived. Haines displays his easy, goofy comic persona as
he takes on West Point and Joan Crawford, the local beauty. Great fun for the first
half. And amazingly touching after Haines's character goes too far and nearly gets
shunned by fellow cadets. The new, humility-filled Haines get s alast-minute
reprieve to play in the bill football game against Navy and, despite a broken arm,
wins the game. Great, rousing entertainment by MGM in this Haines formula film,
shows Billy at his best. William Bakewell also scores as the skinny follower. The
handsome-but-goony character would be played by Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Gary
Cooper and others in later decades, another take on the beautiful-but-daffy dames
played by Carole Lombard and Marion Davies. West Point is a winner!
I found West Point to be an agreeable film, although I doubt that I would watch it
again. The performances were convincing, with William Haines as yet another
obnoxiously amusing young man that has his come-uppance by film's end. It's hard to
believe that stardom beckoned Joan Crawford less than a year after this film was
made, as she looks rather awkward at times. I would apply the comment
made by another concerning Ramon Novarro's "Huddle" (1932) to this film as well.
There is a great film waiting to be made here, but there is something lacking. The
backdrop and integration of the Corps was well utilized, but I was less involved
than I thought that I would be. Perhaps Haines' character went too far, or got away
with too much. His "repentance" did not seem genuine enough; and what kind of
message did it send for him to run every play in the last minutes of the Army-Navy
game? Where's "the Corps" in that? Might as well have taken out the other ten men
and let him do it all himself. Also, I doubt very much that William Bakewell's
weak, puny character would ever have a real-life counterpart at West Point. All this aside, the film is sometimes very moving and inspiring. It is a
fine look into the daily practices of an honorable institution. Thank goodness that
tradition still means something at West Point too, unlike the vapid "traditions" of
Ivy League schools, only half-heartedly engaged in these days. As to the
score: it was appropriately martial. But, there was a distinct over-use of snare
drums. Using them for knocks on the door, scene transitions, et ALU as well as in
well over half the scenes got to be rather tedious. It rather lessened the viewing
experience. I was ready to say "I GET THE POINT ALREADY." With that,
enjoy the film, but don't expect too much emotional involvement.
William Haines sparks this tale of a brash cadet who thinks West Point will really
be something now that he has arrived. Terrific goony comic performance by Haines
was his trademark--one that made him a top box office star from 1928-1932 and one
of MGM's biggest stars. Joan Crawford and William Bakewell are fine too. And
although this storyline may seem trite now, this was a huge hit, putting Haines and
Crawford in a college football (a national craze during the 20s) story. After
Haines blows off his big mouth one time too often and nearly gets shunned by fellow
cadets, he turns in a wonderful performance as he swallows his pride and gets into
the big game against Navy. Even with a broken arm, he wins the game for Army and
regains his place at West Point. It's easy to see from this film and Show People
(with the always underrated Marion Davies) why Billy Haines was a huge star of the
time. He needs and deserves to be remembered!
It is a shame that this series hasn't been remastered and produced on video by
Warner or some other professional movie house. Copies of most episodes
are available, but are usually of poor quality, being copies of copies of
copies. As I understand it, 92 episodes were produced during its run,
but only 15 are noted here. Some of the series writers, such as Richard
Matheson, went on to become noted authors. Excellent series, well
written, well staged and well produced. Michael Weldon, Udon
Thani, Thailand
The definition of a vampire is an inhumane corpse supposed to leave its grave at
night to drink the blood of the living. Bakjwi nearly nails this concept on the
head minus the cliché of pointy fangs and neck biting. Being an R rated movie, I
knew this was actually going to pertain to vampires actually being vampires. Which
means that the characters in the movie are going to do what vampires actually do
without restraint and rightfully lack any glamorous moments in comparison to
Twilight. Having viewed Chan-wook Park's preceding Oldboy, I had very high
expectations of Bakjwi. I anticipated some awkward plot sequences with
our anti-hero, known as Priest Sang-hyeon, and was very impressed by his
performance as a holy-man who is forced into this quandary of being humane and
obeying his thirst as a vampire. (SPOILER) After the initial premise of him
surviving the defective blood transfusion, he starts to crave blood and discovers
his super strength and his flying ability. The screen shots do his transition phase
without overbearing on exposition. He starts drinking the blood of the dying and
those who wish to be euthanized for moral reasons. The oft tragic and dysfunctional
love affair the priest has with the manipulative Tae-joo is very riveting as they
are played by The Host's Kanh-ho Song and actress OK-vin Kim. The special effects
are properly placed in the backdrop and while it doesn't offer anything new in the
ways of stunts and CGI, it didn't impose itself into the plot driven and character
developed premise. The story and the pivotal plot points are very perverse and
grotesque yet very original in its own Korean style. There aren't many
negatives I can say about Bakjwi. Sometimes I ask myself if the priests transition
phase could have showed more of the priest having an emotional crisis with his
transformation, but then again this would have made the movie 3 hours long. The
movie was long to begin with. On the same token, vampires really don't have much in
the way of expressing emotions to begin with. As mentioned before, this movie is
very tragic, so don't expect anything hopeful while watching this. Overall, Bakjwi is delightfully dark, morbid and original. I strongly recommend
this movie for serious viewers who are past the teenage phase of Twilight. This is
definitely the Korean answer to the Swedish Let The Right One In, which is also a
good movie.
At the same time John Russell was playing ranch owner Nathan Burdette, trying to
free his no good brother Claude Akins from sheriff John Wayne in Rio Bravo he was
working the other side of the law on television. These years were probably the high
point of Russell's career, his most noted screen role and his most famous
television role, Marshal Dan Troop of Laramie in Lawman. Russell kept
law and order in Laramie the same way that James Arness did it in Dodge City on
Gunsmoke. Unlike Gunsmoke, Laramie never developed the all the minor characters
that gave you the feel of Dodge City at the time. Instead it concentrated on
Russell taking care of business and learning the business of law to his eager young
deputy Peter Brown. Brown played deputy Johnny McKay who was a most
respectful young man, constantly referring to his boss as Mr. Troop. He was pretty
handy with a shooting iron, but was inclined to be impulsive. Good thing Marshal
Troop was around. The other series regular was the Kitty Russell of
Laramie, Lily played by Peggie Castle. This is where Lawman most resembled
Gunsmoke. There was an unspoken understanding between Russell and Castle that even
the smallest of children couldn't have missed. And I wasn't the smallest of
children when Lawman was in first run. Sadly Peggie Castle developed
substance abuse problems after Lawman's run ended. I remember a small obituary
marked her passing in the first half of the Seventies. She was one beautiful
woman. Lawman was good no nonsense western from that golden era of the
adult television western. It was one of the best.
The theme song often goes through my head after all these years. I was never much
of a TV watcher, probably because I was just entering my busy teen years when my
family bought our first set in 1948 and it never became part of my life. But from
the first episode of Lawman I was hooked, and it is the only TV show I've ever
scheduled my week around. Intelligent, believable, well-written and
well-acted, and John Russell is still to me the most beautiful man I ever saw.
(Peter Brown was no dog, either :o) I agree that it is one of the most
underrated TV series of all time. I hope I can find some episodes for my
grandchildren to watch.
Johnny Crawford is great in this movie of a troubled teen coming of age in a
generation that was in the middle of a cultural and spiritual upheaval. Billy
Graham does a good job of portraying life in this sweet, sometimes corny, but all
the way sincere flick. He gives us a look at not only the social scene but gives
good, solid advice that holds true today about morals, decisions, the generation
gap, teen dating, (some of the statistics that are given in this movie are
astounding. They sound like today's stats). Just to see Billy in his younger days
is worth seeing. It's an awesome movie. It made me realize that human nature does
not change, even though hair, fashion and language may change, humans are still
struggling with the same issues they have been struggling with for thousands of
years.
Subject Matter: Cosmology, Quantum Physics and Stephen Hawking Soundtrack: Phillip Glass Have I died and gone to Heaven? You will be enraptured.
An introspective look at the relationship between Hawking and the space/time
contingent. This film expores the Gallilean and Newtonian laws and there relation
to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. The film is methodically
directed, exposing details of the man (Hawking) as well as his work (Black Holes).
Interviews with his family are a little too long so sadly there is less development
of his theories and ideas. A Philip Glass soundtrack superbly
compliments the film. Only one other man could compose such haunting instellar
melodies (Jean Michel Jarre). Overall I would highly recommend this
movie on the basis of Hawking's 'nuggets of wisdom' and his adequate explanation of
an Event Horizon!
Stephen Hawking has one of the greatest minds, or if that's too simplistic to coin
for him one of the most curious and daring, that also happens to be trapped in a
body crippled by a disease that leaves him in a wheelchair and a computer to
communicate. Perhaps I didn't know enough about Hawking going in (I always knew him
as 'that guy speaking like a computer who knows a lot about like, the universe and
stuff, you know') that he is British, that he was a rather normal kid, and, perhaps
most remarkably, the disease that could have possibly left him dead at 21 put him
in the position of putting his life in focus. According to Errol
Morris's equally curious and coolly, visually dazzling portrait in A Brief History
of Time, Hawking was already brilliant, in spurts (when other Oxford students were
faced with daunting algebraic equations, he answered more than three times the
amount in an hour's time), but when faced with challenges, mostly from other
theories by other scientists, he bounced back with his own. Beneath some of the
complex scientific talk- and if you got any less than a B- in astronomy, like me,
you'll need to keep your ears especially perked up in explanations of time's
possible infinity or the peculiarities of the black hole- there's a human being who
just wants to enjoy his goose on his birthday. Morris captures Hawking
just right for those who can't get enough of his theories on how particles may be
going in and out of a black hole, or if there is even a creator or not depending on
how much one takes into account Einstein and time. But he also captures the back-
story on the man and his condition, which creates this as something much more
interesting than if Morris had done one or the other. Too much talk about the
cosmos would make one's head hurt, and too much about his personal life and one
might wonder what all the fuss is about this bloke who's book of the film's title
was on bestseller lists for over five years. Almost in spite of his
appearance, Hawking defines what it is to be a conscious entity in a universe
which, he observes, he won't be apart of if and when the universe goes kaput
another 10 billion years from now. Through it all, in A Brief History of Time, we
get a glimpse of a genius and his humility (not to mention his colleagues and
family's' ten cents here and there) through an unfathomably hypothetical and
mathematical thought process of the universe.
A brief history of time. The cosmological content of this documentary is
fascinating, the thoughts provoking and the man... brilliant. Yet I had a hard time
enjoying this documentary. The way the family members and professors
are interviewed feels so unnatural. These members were interviewed on specifically
built sets and were directed uncomfortably. Mostly, their accounts came across as
very acted and forcefully directed. The (deliberate) non-inclusion of asked
questions manipulates the given information into a very harsh and impersonal
format. I do not know who are responsibly for the interviewing but they
did a dreadful job and with that took away from the viewing experience. Overall still a fascinating documentary well worth seeing, if only for the
interesting concepts presented.
Stephen Hawkings is a genius. He is the king of geniuses. Watching this movie makes
me feel dumb. But it's a great movie. Not highly entertaining, but very very
intriguing. The movie centers around wheelchair bound Stephen Hawkings, a man who
makes Einstein look average, and his theories and scientific discoveries about the
universe, time, the galaxy, and black holes. Everyone at sometime or another during
a really intense high comes to a moment when they think they'v got the universe and
the cosmos figured out and they swear as soon as they sober up they'll write it all
down. Well here is a man who actually held that feeling for more then six hours.
Here is a man who despite suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease has become the
greatest mind the world has yet seen. Watch this and listen in on how he has
formulated theories on black holes. Awesome. You won't be the same after you see
it.
I have been a huge Errol Morris fan ever since I saw Thin Blue Line and heard it
saved a life. To date, this movie is his best piece of work. The plot is
a mixing of Stephen Hawking's Book of the same title intertwined with the man's
life. The story is told through interviews with family, friends, and Hawkings
himself. Don't be fooled; It totally sounds boring but the whole package
is dynamic and thought provoking. The blending of life and theories is seamless and
thoroughly entertaining. I was particularly moved at how well they humanize this
genius and omniscient man. Tho physically powerless, Hawking's greatness and shear
brilliance is encapsulated into a real live human being that we are allowed to
laugh at and aw over at the same time. Find this movie. Watch it and
enjoy. And if the studio who owns this picture reads this, A 15 year Anniversary
edition would be perfect NOW...
Based on Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", this amazing film by Eroll
Morris documents the the life and work of one of the greatest minds in the history
of astronomy. He has contributed more to Science, despite his debilitating disease,
ALS, than an able bodied Scientist could only dream of. The film begins
by telling of Hawking's childhood, and how he was a poor student that was
recognizably bright. He slacked his way through college and university, where he
was diagnosed with the disease that would take away normal functions of his body,
but would allow him to continue living and thinking perfectly. Morris
discusses how the brilliant mind of Stephen developed from childhood to the
present, at one point his mother tells how- when she was pregnant- she
prophetically bought a astronomical atlas to read while in the hospital. Hawking
himself narrates the timeline of his discoveries, while Morris interviews close
friends and colleagues whom have been lucky enough to befriend the magnificent man.
 He tells how he was first intrigued by the discovery that the Universe
was expanding similar to how a star would expand. We also know that stars
eventually die and become what is now known as "black holes", if this is the
case,will the universe not too begin to contract, reversing itself until we reach
the "big crunch"? as Hawking puts it. And when the universe does begin to recede,
will time not "reverse"? When posed this question, I began to think that death may
not be the end, perhaps one day time will go backwards, and our death will become
our rebirth and our birth our death. The universe is one big cycle just like
everything else in life. This is what Hawking is telling us, everything
in the universe recycles itself. This is completely logical and can make your mind
wonder in a million directions pondering it. This is why i love this film and why
isay it is a MUST SEE!!! An 11 out of 10 ...Morris never ceases toamaze!
i hate vampire movies. with that said, this one was very interesting to me. i do
want to point out one thing tho. "bakjwi" literally means bat in korean and we all
know that in many classic vampire stories, you see count Dracula or vampires
turning into a bat and fly away or wuheva. We also know that bats are mammals that
can fly thus many categorizes them to be "exceptional." As I watched the film, I
realized that the theme of bat is deeply embedded in this movie more than just to
make the bat-vampire connection. Duality of human nature = if you ever
read aesop's fables, there is this one fable where mammals and birds are fighting
and a bat just can't seem to take a side and it tries to play both sides to his
advantage. Mammals and birds find out what this bat has been doing and banish the
bat out of their lands at the end of the story. the two contradicting
sides of human nature are constantly at battle throughout the film ex. sang-hyun's
blind priest friend, sang-hyun's effort to quench thirst and his sexual desire,
tae-ju playing both sides, her ordinary boring life vs. her thrill seeking vampire
adventure, etc (won't ruin too much, u have to watch the film) and this theme is
beautifully presented on a plate with delicious sides of romance, sex, violence,
religion, dark-comedy,tragedy, vengeance, you name it! i feel like many
would find this movie boring and too long, but this film is very fresh and new,
something that i haven't seen b4 yet. I wouldn't say this is CW Park's best work,
but it is mos. def. the strangest to comprehend yet darkly intriguing!
A Brief History of Time is not only a documentary on the beginning and the ending
of the universal and reality as we know it, this is a story about the man and the
genius known as Stephen Hawking. It is his story that reflects the story of time
and change throughout the history of the universal. The style of the documentary /
editing style of the interviews begin and end with a quick fade to black. Almost
like blinking in between segments and interviews, the documentary gives you an odd
feeling like this is the view point of Stephen Hawking and not the eye of the
camera. The running time is only a little longer than an hour. It is a short story,
then again, its subject matter could be talked about for days and days. An
interesting and proud story.
WARNING: MAY contain some minor spoilers. Hard to say anything bad about
this movie, except for one thing. YOU DON'T GET TO SEE IT MUCH
ANYMORE !!!! Then again, maybe that's because you have to be home in the morning or
at 3 am to catch it the Fox Movie channel. Too bad, for this is another
gem lost to time, Clifton Webb takes his patented sour, know-it-all demeanor he had
perfected as Lynn Belvedere ("Sitting Pretty" and sequels), and turns 'Nature
Boy'. Actually, it's like this. Webb plays Robert Jordan the
host of a Sunday children's educational program that is losing audience share, and
the network breaks it to him that he needs to do something about it, or else. Part of the problem may be due to the fact that the married host has no
children. BUMMER !!! But as such things happen, the local church pastor
needs a leader for an unruly troop of Boy Scouts, and finds a willing victim ...
ahhhh 'VOLUNTEER' ... in the host, so Jordan he takes the position. Problem solved, RIGHT ??? WRONG !!! This being a movie there are other
problems. For example, it turns out one of the Scouts is the son of his
boss at the TV station, which causes a little friction; especially since the kid is
overweight, has asthma as well as an attitude. And he is the more
reasonable one. Also, there is this Cub Scout, Mike (George Winslow) who
wants to hang around, being the 'stray puppy' type. As it turns out, the
reason is that he has no folks of his own, but is cared for by a relative who
hasn't much time for him. It is things like this that makes his job
harder than expected. All in all, Webb becomes more understanding of
kids, and not only saves his show but learns a rewarding lesson, and eventually
even adopts Mike. Still a great movie after all these years.
Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and
properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would
Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings.
His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more
inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the
fun. Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is
sure to please. ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM
PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM
This movie was never intended as a big-budget film but was a cute little picture
that pretty much anyone could enjoy. It probably won't change your life, but it is
certainly charming and engaging. Clifton Webb plays a curmudgeon (that's
certainly not new) who has a TV. However, his ratings are failing and he is worried
about cancellation. So he decides maybe he is too out of touch with kids--as he and
his wife have none of their own. So, he volunteers as a scoutmaster and regrets
doing this almost immediately! Remember, he IS a curmudgeon and doesn't
particularly like kids. To make things worse, one of the kids really likes him and
follows him like a lost puppy. No matter how indifferently he acts towards the kid,
the child just wants to spend time with him! The kid is cute and nearly steals the
show all by himself! What happens next and the twists and turns of the
movie are something you'll just have to find out for yourself. Understand that this
is a light, cute and yet not cloying movie you'll probably enjoy.
A middle aged man, Robert Jordan, set in his ways, takes on a boy scout troop after
his predecessor leaves under duress. Jordan takes on the pack mostly to learn what
the boys like so he can revive his flagging radio program which is losing it's
appeal to the younger set. He has a rough go at first with the boys, especially so
with Mike, an 8 year old who forms an attachment for the older man which is
anything but reciprocated. Do things work out for Jordan and the scouts? Check out
this entertaining and amusing film from the old days.
Clifton Webb as "Mr. Scoutmaster" is one of the all-time greats for comedy and
remembering an innocence, now diminished in the world. I cannot understand why the
networks like American Movie Classics and such do not show this movie, although I
have requested it time and again. This movie should be shown to children
now for its portrayal of loyalty, respect, dedication and resolve to achieve the
best possible on an individual basis. There is so much low self-esteem talked about
in present daily lives, but this movie, among many, many others, would be a
wonderful learning tool for the present-day younger generation to see what can be
accomplished by common sense and decency and pride in yourself and your
achievements to better yourself. Sad that this type of movie does not appeal to
modern audiences. It certainly appealed to us 'baby boomer' generation of
yesterday. OLD LESSONS ARE UNIVERSAL AND TIMELESS.
I saw this mini-movie when it first aired, and loved it!It kinda funny to see how
far people will go for money.It's also funny to see how much a boyfriend can be
"Whipped". "Whipped" enough to kill. I think the cast was great, especially the
character Kristin.Without Her smooth talking,and deceptive looks the movie would
have not been the same. I never use to watch USA but now it is one of my
stations. 
A proof that it's not necessary for a movie to have a deep many-layered story and
other sophisticated elements to be a good movie. Even if the story could be
expanded in many directions, especially in more sociological way (people lust for
money) it seems that it's perfect just the way it is. Through many sudden changes
it takes the spectator to the end without any unnecessary complications and without
letting the spectator taking the eyes of the screen. But the acting for
me isn't so good. With the exception of Lindsey McKeon the others were average or
even worst. In some scenes they just empty-stared in front of themselves. For
exception of Lindsey which was more convincing. It's a really simple movie for just
laying back and enjoying. 7/10
We all know what Chan-wook Park can do. If you haven't seen Oldboy(or the sympathy
trilogy for that matter) you are missing out on some of the best films made this
century. But i'm not here to talk about them. I'm here to talk about thirst. This movie is not what you would expect. Yes it is a vampire movie, but at
the same time it is also a very twisted tale of romance between a priest and a
young girl. I wont get into the synopsis(you can read that above) but instead tell
you what this movie has to offer. Chan-wook Park is a master of cinematography and
this movie is no exception. With some very surreal scenes backed by intense
lighting, he sets the mood perfectly in almost every scene. The movie does start a
bit slow, but I felt this was necessary to build a relationship with the
characters. Once things start moving along it almost never lets up until the
credits roll. "Thirst" is predominantly a love story, but not in the same sense
that you would think. the relationship between the lead characters is very intense,
but at the same time almost disturbing. Chan-wook Park is no stranger to
controversy as we know, and this film touches on taboo almost as much as oldboy.
The end scene is by far the most powerful in the movie, and perhaps one of the best
conclusions to a film I have seen. Overall this is an exceptional film
that I feel all movie buffs should see. It is an exciting(and admittedly different)
take on the world of vampires, and the romance is far from sappy or boring. This
movie is gritty, selfless, and beautiful in all the wrong ways. Obviously it is not
for everyone, but chances are if you are reading this review you are already
interested. See it. Do not hesitate
The Man with the Golden Arm, Otto Preminger's controversial, panoramic crime drama,
plays itself out among the mental descriptions of its living and architectural
occupants, in rhythmic, lashing arrangement. Opening the film, a closeup from
within a bar of Frankie looking in through the window, already tells us to the
prominence that the protagonist's subjective experience will grasp. Pulled in the
direction of increasingly slighter spaces, the film shuts itself off, as the local
gangster's long-drawn-out poker game shuts itself from the daylight, bolts itself
in, as Sinatra's Frankie Machine has himself locked in a room in the celebrated
scene of his harrowing struggle to overcome his habit. In delving into the shapes
and faces of its jazzy urban haven, the visual traffic in The Man with the Golden
Arm characterizes skewed psychological circumstances, forming an overpowering
environment, as maintained by the recurring tracking shots into closeups of
Frankie's eyes. The grace of this fiery drama, striking as early as the
exciting opening crane shot, displays the command over the perceptible world that
studio production allows. The wonderfully dilapidated urban sets define an
independent place with no beginnings or ends, an indeterminate state, the sort that
in reality hardly last as long as this skid row seems to before being gentrified or
leveled. The flair of certain performances, particularly Robert Strauss's as the
wonderfully named underworld gambling boss Schwiefka and Arnold Stang as Frankie's
trusty four-eyed lapdog, becomes this fiery surreal feature pleasingly. The premise
of drug addiction, Sinatra's powerhouse performance, Elmer Bernstein's infectious,
forceful jazz score and Saul Bass's famous, influential and controversial opening
sequence centering on the animated paper cut-out of a heroin addict's arm ensured
that, in its era, The Man with the Golden Arm presses forward upon the cause for
realism in the still reticent Hollywood. It is impressionistic and subjective, as I
say, but its intent, its force and its spirit are much closer to home. What absorbs me the most in this film is its aspect as a gangster film. It has
the illegal card games, short cons, the fights, the guns, the double-crosses,
characters on the lam, a femme fatale, a stunningly sexy gun moll, the shady
nightclubs and urban landscape, but it does more than exploit this environment for
entertainment. Really, it is the perfect environment, and genre, in which to tell
this story, a crime-ridden urban borough where it's all too comfortable to escape
through a bottle or two, or three, or four, or drugs, a transient dose that really
just functions to keep one in obscurity from any enlightenment and all the clear
scenarios the world could bid.
But quite dated today. Otto Preminger made this movie without the certificate of
approval that was needed then. It was enormously courageous and risky as he could
have lost his investment and future. The film is not true to the
wonderful book and is unfortunately hollywoodized. Frank Sinatra (and
I've never been a fan) playing Frankie Machine, is astonishing in his performance.
One forgets it is Frank up there, the level of realism he brings to the role of a
jonesing drug addict has to be seen to be believed. Kim Novak, eternally
gorgeous and talented, does not disappoint in the role of the devoted outsider,
always there for Frankie. Supporting roles, particularly a young,
handsome and talented Darrin Mc Gavin, are faultless. Eleanor Parker,
playing Frankie's wife, is hopelessly inept. She swings from irritating to
melodramatic and is far too over the top. A forgettable performance. The
stagey, cheap settings are appalling, as if a firm gust of wind would blow the
whole tacky painted cardboards over the horizon. Almost laughable at times in their
tawdry cheapness. The music was irritating, poundingly so at times. As
if each nuance of the script (example: when Louie is getting Frankie his fix out of
a drawer) had to be underscored at a high decibel level. 7 out of 10.
Sinatra truly deserved his Oscar nomination. Worth seeing.
"The Moon Is Blue" director Otto Preminger tackled even more taboo subject matter
in his controversial 1955 release "The Man with the Golden Arm." Whereas he had
incensed the Motion Picture Association of America with his use of the words
"virgin" and "mistress" in his mild 1953 comedy "The Moon Is Blue," Preminger went
far beyond what any movie had attempted with "The Man with the Golden Arm" since
Dick Powell made his law and order epic "To the Ends of the Earth"(1946) about
thwarting the international traffic in narcotics. Based on Nelson Algren's novel
that won the 1950 National Book Award, this gritty, uncompromising, 119-minute,
black & white melodrama deals with heroin addiction. Initially, when Preminger's
film came out, the Motion Picture Association of America would not issue its seal
of approval because the filmmakers depicted addiction to narcotics. This
groundbreaking film qualified as the first major motion picture to handle narcotics
from the dope fiend's perspective and actually showed the paraphernalia that
junkies wielded to shoot up heroin. The Production Code stipulated that filmmakers
must refrain from showing characters using illicit narcotics. Nevertheless, United
Artists released this unique Frank Sinatra picture and it grossed over $4-million
dollars. The critical and commercial success of "The Man with the
Golden Arm" eviscerated the Production Code. As a result, the MPAA amended the Code
so that filmmakers could delve into other taboo subjects, such as drug abuse,
kidnapping, abortion and prostitution. The film received three Academy Award
nominations. Oscar nominations went to Sinatra for Best Acting, Joseph C. Wright
and Darrell Silvera for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White and
Elmer Bernstein for Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture. Indeed,
Elmer Bernstein made a name for himself with his jazzy score. The producers had
thought about casting Marlon Brando in the title role, but Sinatra beat Brando to
the punch. Eleanor Parker, Kim Novak, Arnold Stang, Darren McGavin, and Robert
Strauss co-starred with Ole Blue Eyes. McGavin was particularly memorable as a
sleazy heroin dealer, while Eleanor Parker played the protagonist's wife with a
dark, deep secret of her own that comes as quite a shock. "The Man with
the Golden Arm" refers to protagonist Frankie Machine's ability to manipulate a
deck of cards. Frankie deals cards for Zero Schwiefka (Robert Strauss of "Stalag
17") but he has been out of Chicago for the last six months in a federal narcotics
hospital recovering from heroin addiction. Not only has Frankie licked the habit,
but he also has learned how to play the drums and plans to embark of a music
career. Optimistic as Frank is about his future, he finds himself facing his past
all over again when he returns to his old stomping grounds. Schwiefka wants him to
deal for him again, and Nifty Louie Fomorowski (Darren McGavin of "Counter-Attack")
tries to induce him to resume his heroin usage. Meanwhile, Frankie comes home to
his invalid, wheel-chair bound wife, Zosh (Eleanor Parker of "Escape from Fort
Bravo"), who manipulates him with guilt. Frankie was drunk when he had a car
accident and Zosh wound up in a wheel chair. Frankie shows up with high hopes and a
drum set, but Zosh sees no future for him as a musician and urges to go back to
work for Schwiefka. Frankie plans to visit a music promoting and one of his own
friends, Sparrow (Arnold Stang of "My Sister Eileen"), shoplifts a business suit
from a department store for Frankie. After Frankie refuses to work for Schwiefka
because he is going to see musical agent Harry Lane (Will Wright of "The Wild
One"), Schwiefka turns both Frank and Sparrow into the police. Meanwhile, Schwiefka
gets Brach's Department Store to drop the shoplifting charges. The suit was worth
$37.00. Frankie agrees to resume dealing for Schweifka and the hustler bails him
out. Not long afterward, despite his resolution to shun heroin use, Frankie breaks
down and pays Louie the $2.00 for a fix. Eventually, Frankie meets
Harry Lane and Lane warns him that he is catches Frankie shooting up that he will
have nothing to do with him. What poor Frankie doesn't know is that Zosh has
recovered her ability to walk, but she uses his guilt about the accident to hold on
to him. Zosh is also jealous of her downstairs neighbor, Molly Novotny (Kim Novak
of "Picnic"), Frankie's former sweetheart who hustles drinks at a nearby strip bar
called the Safari Club. When Zosh complains about headaches that Frankie gives her
practicing on his drum set, Frankie moves them downstairs into Molly's apartment.
Schwiefka and Louie are planning a big poker game with Sam Markette (George E.
Stone of "Guys and Dolls") and Williams (George Mathews of "Gunfight at the O.K.
Corral"), two big-time gamblers who have heard about Frank and his legendary
'golden arm.' Schwiefka and Louie persuade a reluctant Frankie to deal for $250.
After an early winning streak, Frankie starts losing and he cannot reverse his bad
luck. In fact, Frankie spends about two days dealing. Exhausted, his nerves shot
and desperate for a fix, he falls apart on the second day and Markette and Williams
catch him cheating. Louie refuses to give Frankie a fix, so Frankie knocks him out
and ransacks his apartment for the heroin. Preminger pulls no punches in
"The Man with the Golden Arm," and the film is pretty disillusioning. None of the
characters here are remotely sympathetic. Essentially, they are either hustlers or
hustled. Sinatra gives another dynamite performance as does McGavin and Parker. To
be sure, "The Man with the Golden Arm" has lost much of its impact in the
intervening 50 or more years, but it still ranks as a landmark film.
A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The
movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the
drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict
really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances
by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a
JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a
worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in.
Just getting released from a six month drug rehabilitation program and having
served his time for dealing cards in illegal gambling card games, Frankie Machine
(Frank Sinatra) has high hopes for going clean and finding a new life as a big band
drummer. However upon returning to his old crime-ridden Chicago neighborhood, he
soon finds the pressure mounting from those around him, including his wheelchair-
ridden wife Zosch (Eleanor Parker), to return to the old money-making "Dealer"
lifestyle that first got him started on the path of self-destruction that is being
an heroin addict. It's very rare that a film has so many great character
performances as this one does. Frank Sinatra is superb as Frankie Machine, and
realistically portrays the symptoms of a drug addict going through withdrawal
arguably better than anyone else had ever been done before him. Sinatra seems to
possess a keen understanding and awareness of his character here and expresses the
constant battle for control over his own life that is forever going on inside the
heart of the man that is Frankie Machine. Parker as his crippled wife Zosch wants
to possess Frankie forever, to have him "deal" to make good money so as to take
care of her and pay her ever-mounting medical bills. She seems terrified by
anything she sees as a threat to her control over him, such as the freedom the life
of a drummer might offer, or anything that might change the status quo between
them. Onlooker Molly (Kim Novak), a girl who lives in the same building
and seems to possess real, strong genuine feelings for Frankie, having no desire to
control him but only to help him proves the best thing Frankie has going for him in
the world if he can just stay straight long enough to wake up and realize it.
Darren McGavin as the heroin drug peddler Louie however is always there just
waiting in the wings knowing just the right buttons to push, just the thing to say,
to get a former addict to revert back to that old habit, one profitable to Louie
but deadly for the addict. The setting too seems to take on a life of
its own, constantly dark, gritty, seedy and crime-ridden with nowhere near enough
positive things to look forward to in life, a place where it's all too easy to
escape via a bottle or drugs, a quick "fix" that's truly no fix at all but only
works to keep one in the dark away from the daylight and all the bright prospects
the world might have to offer. It's a neat touch that when Frankie is on the right
track, the setting always seems brighter than when he's headed down the wrong road.
While some argue it is a bit dated, to me this is a gritty film featuring a
realistic inner war within a man for control over his own fate, one that features
very strong character performances by all involved. Given that, THE MAN WITH THE
GOLDEN ARM gets my highest possible recommendation.
I saw this movie about 12 years ago and I can still remember it as if I just saw it
recently. That is how much this movie has affected me. Considering this
is a movie from the 50's I think it was ahead of its time. It surprised me as in
how it maintains its integrity in this subject some might have considered taboo
back then. Very realistic in showing the tumultuous and heartwretching journey that
an addict chooses to embark on. One can only imagine how the audiences were
affected by the realism of this movie back in those days. I personally
think is was one of Frank Sinatra's top five performances in the big screen. When others are discussing movies dealing with Mental Illness and/or
addiction I always recommend The Man with the Golden Arm as one of the top five to
watch.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday
Night * Monday Morning One time heroin addict Frankie Machine (Frank
Sinatra) gets out of prison to his bumbling jailbird partner Sparrow (Arnold
Stang), needy cripple of a wife Zosch (Eleanor Parker) and bit on the side Molly
(Kim Novak.) He's trying to make it big as a drummer in a band, but until his big
break comes along he's stuck doing the only other thing he was any good at other
than being a junkie- dealing cards in high stakes games. And try as he might, even
prison hasn't cured him of his addiction to the devil's drug- causing him to lie to
and deceive all those around him and driving him to desperate measures to feed his
habit. His yearning to come off it is his only motivation towards a happy
ending. When people think of Frank Sinatra they generally think of
classic high pitched songs like Under My Skin, New York New York and It Had to Be
You. But lest anyone forget he was actually a renowned actor too and, if his
performance in the acclaimed From Here to Eternity wasn't enough, he will also be
remembered for this cutting edge drama, dealing with what was at the time the ultra
taboo subject of drug abuse. The film is often listed as one of the
first to feature graphic heroin use (probably the reason behind the 15 certificate)
in a time when it was a subject that was still very much pushed underground. In his
portrayal of the main protagonist, Sinatra is fine, perfectly conveying the
despair, desperation and sincerity of a man losing every second chance that is
being given to him. His cold turkey scene is much more intense than Ewan McGregor's
in Trainspotting. The first co-star to make an impression is Parker as Machine's
demanding, needy cripple of a wife, using her husband's guilt and sense of duty to
all the effect she can. Novak as his secret lover still manages some strong moments
but is less of a star than Parker. Stang does his usual comic relief thing, as the
bumbling sidekick who trails the leading man around with his waspy New York
accent. Director Otto Preminger does allow the pace to drag a bit
sometimes but this is still a powerfully absorbing film all the way, with plenty of
unexpected twists and turns and which should be admired for being one of the first
films to bring such a grim subject so powerfully to life. ****
The Man with the Golden Arm was one of the first films to have as its main topic
(and, in some respects, the message) the tragedy of heroin addiction. It's nowhere
near a great film, but its importance lies in Otto Preminger's dedication to making
it feel real and on the edge of melodrama and naturalism. What I liked is that it's
not so much an expose of junkies (if you want the best expose of that read Naked
Lunch, if you can get through it anyway, besides the point), but the nature of the
urban environment Frankie Machine lives. He expects after he gets out of prison for
dealing to go on the straight and narrow, to become a drummer in a band and make it
legit as a musician. But he has his "crippled" wife Zosch, who can't work and needs
money and often complains, and then there's the old neighborhood- he can't escape
seeing Louie (Darren McGavin), who is still doing back-room card games and, yes,
pushing dope. Like Mean Streets, it's hard to escape the minutia unless you
leave. But then again, it's hard for Frankie Machine not to try and
operate naturally in this urban quarter. It's just that he can't escape the
temptation of junk (when he's booked on a phony theft charge with his friend, he
sees a junkie freaking out, and it puts back the fear of going back on into his
clean self). And personifying Frankie is Sinatra, and I can't see anyone else who
could've played him, even original choice Brando. He fits into the neighborhood,
and seems like the kind of guy who should be a step ahead of the game. But there's
also a vulnerability to Sinatra that he pulls out wonderfully, and by the time we
see him going 'cold turkey' in Molly's apartment, it's believable even if it's not
the kind of thing those from 'my' generation would think of heroin (i.e.
Trainspotting and certainly Requiem for a Dream). If for nothing else, you want to
watch the movie to see what happens to Sinatra as this character. The
flaws, however, come in some of the other performances, though it's a little
tricky. Eleanor Parker seems to be overacting for a good portion of the movie,
fooling Frankie that she's really crippled when in reality she can walk and is
fooling him for one reason or another. But then it becomes clearer as it goes
along- she's supposed to be nuts, and nuts with jealousy, and on that level it
starts to get better. Meanwhile, Kim Novak is good, though not Vertigo-worthy, as
the possible girl in the side but more like the voice of reason in the story. Then
there's a Detective Bendar, who might be one of the most one-note
characters/performances, ever. And also Sparrow, Frankie's nerdy friend, and the
characters of Louie and Schiefka, and they're all played as one might expect them
to (actually, McGavin is better than OK). As far as casting other talent around
Sinatra, Preminger doesn't do all that great. And, frankly, some scenes kind of
fall flat. But there's a lot of fascination in the Man with the Golden
Arm, and not just as some dated piece of sociological interest. It works as
compelling drama, and as a message piece conveyed without being preachy or campy.
It's a genuine article, just not exceptional.
Great book, great movie, great soundtrack. Frank Sinatra shows in this movie that
when he wanted to put the effort in, he could act. The ending is a bit schmaltzy,
but for the time it's understandable the studio wanted a happy ending. The graphic
nature of the heroin addiction (groundbreaking for the period) is a plus. Add the
terrific soundtrack and you've got one of the great American movies.
A dark and painful look at the perils of drug addiction, Sinatra is wonderful in
this film. Just watching his frenzied writhing and screaming and destructive rage
near the end of the film is enough to make anyone think twice about trying heroin;
maybe they should show this to kids in health class instead of the mindless drivel
we are compelled to endure year after year. It's the story of a man who
is simply trying to make a new, clean life for himself after being in prison,
trying to rid himself of his drug habit and his job of dealing cards in illegal
gambling operations, who is pulled down, pulled back into the muck by the evils of
human nature. He is being taken advantage of by his employers, the drug dealers,
and even his enigmatic, crafty-yet-stupid wife. Even if you didn't like
the film itself, it's worth seeing just for the soundtrack. It's all heavy,
swinging jazz with large drum and brass sections. This, with its groovy, yet
slightly sinister sound, helps set the mood, along with the grinning, snaky drug
and card dealers, who always seem to hover like vultures around Frankie Machine. I recommend this to anyone -- especially if you like film noir, zoot suits,
fedoras, or jazz.
I'm the first to recognize that Chan-wook Park's Thirst is exceptionally well made,
but spending over two hours with Tae-joo(OK-vin Kim)is enough for anyone to
tolerate for such a length of time. Sang-hyeon(Kang-ho Song)is a priest desiring to
volunteer for experimental studies on those willing to subject themselves to
rigorous injections concerning a specific virus which kills infectiously. Instead
of legitimately dying, Hyeon becomes a vampire, always yearning for the sustenance
blood gives for him to fight off an infectious disease which returns causing the
symptoms which flat-lined him to begin with(..bumps/sores, and the body vomits
blood). Sunlight, as is known in the vampire genre, causes torturous death if
exposed to Hyeon for a length of time. Hyeon falls in lust with Tae-joo, the wife
of sickly childhood friend Kang-woo(Ha-kyun Shin). Tae-joo was taken in by Mrs.
Ra(Hae-sook Kim), regarded as a puppy, and practically used as a domestic animal to
be ordered around. Ta-joo is miserable in this situation and begins a torrid affair
she instigates with Hyeon, soon manipulating him into perhaps killing Kang-woo by
having him believe she's a victim of abuse. Renouncing his priesthood, Hyeon dives
headlong into the relationship with Tae-joo, soon a willing participant in killing
Kang-woo. This incident, which Tae-woo contributed to(..using a boat, in the middle
of a lake, both proceeded to burying him underwater, Tae-woo keeping him Kang-woo
from re-surfacing as he attempted to re-enter)will haunt both, as circumstances
arise with Kang-woo "missing"(Hyeon got rid of him, where police would not find his
corpse). Soon Mrs Ra suffers a stroke(..though, one finger and the ability to blink
her eyes contribute mightily as the story progresses, showing that she more aware
than they are led to believe), and Hyeon gives Tae-joo a special birthday
gift..vampirism. In doing so, Hyeon has created a monster. Tae-joo admits(..though
a slip of the tongue)that, in fact, Kang-woo never hurt her, and as she thirsts for
blood it is soon realized that killing for a supply doesn't bother her morally or
psychologically. Tae-joo becomes such a hand full, Hyeon has to take desperate
measures if he is to stop such a menace to society, himself included. I
will say that Thirst is one of the best horror films I've seen regarding 2009. It's
a methodical approach Park takes and we are led down a dark road with Hyeon and
Tae-joo, as they commit terrible deeds with nothing positive ever to come from
their unholy union. Innocent people die because of Hyeon's love(..what once was
lust shifts into an obsessive love by the end)for Tae-joo, and it will cease to end
if he doesn't make a painful choice. We see inside their heads, their souls, and it
isn't always pretty. 2 hours with them can be quite exhausting..but, credit to the
director for pulling no punches in regards to devious behavior and how the powers
of vampirism can be given to the wrong people. Hyeon, seen as a rather pleasant
soul at the opening, accepts "hell" for Tae-joo so one could look at Thirst as a
unique love story, but not exactly a healthy one. In regards to the
violence, while Park does have a tendency to pull away from extremely graphic
details, there's enough sadism involved to perhaps turn the stomach a bit. At the
very least, the way the violence is carried out may be certain to leave a lasting
impact. The sexual situations between Hyeon and Tae-joo can be pretty heated and
erotic, while also sordid and morally reprehensible. The movie, I think, is still
quite a complex examination of the lengths one will go to remain attached to an
object of affection(lust).
From the crash of the opening theme, "The Man With the Golden Arm" is classic
1950's entertainment. No subtlety here, Frank comes home from prison with a monkey
on his back and goes right back to the old neighborhood, where the old scumbags
still lurk. This is a tale of his dark ride with all of his emotional baggage
intact. The performances are all a bit overripe, but that's part of the fun of
watching. Darren McGavin and Arnold Stang are unforgettable, and almost steal the
show. This and "The Manchurian Candidate" are the two greatest Chairman of the
Board films, in my humble opinion. Don't miss either one of them.
A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The
movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the
drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict
really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances
by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a
JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a
worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in.
Great little ground-breaking movie (in 1955) about an important subject. I wasn't expecting much from Sinatra's performance and was pleasantly
surprised by it. Loved Kim Novak! She was gorgeous! Loved the jazz score
by Elmer Bernstein! As great as that by Lazlo Schifrin for "Bullitt"! I am very
surprised it doesn't seem available on CD (if anyone knows about the soundtrack's
availability on any other format, they should post it here somewhere!). Preminger's direction was, as usual, borderline flawless. Haven't read
Nelson Algren's novel nor have any idea how faithful the screenplay was to it. The
subplot of Frankie as a "hot" card dealer was a bit of a surprise, too, as were a
few other things. But see for yourself. It's very much worth seeing...
*** Spoiler in fifth paragraph *** This was an amazingly frank (uh-huh, uh-huh)
picture for 1955. Otto Preminger and Carlyle Productions took a chance by making
it, the Motion Picture Association of America balked at certifying a film that
openly shows a junky jabbing a syringe full of heroin into his arm. Frank Sinatra
took a chance both on playing an addicted musician and at falling flat on his face
in a role that required at least twice as much acting as he'd ever done. All in all
these gambles paid off, the movie is a classic, though it's not perfect. Nelson Algren's novel may be great, but it has far too much going on to fit
comfortably into a two hour movie 'The Man with the Golden Arm' is 119 minutes and
often feels much longer. However, in my opinion it's not just Frankie Machine
(Sinatra) that makes the film but the other characters and their sub-plots, all
involving Frankie. Ultimately it's not just Frankie who has the addiction, everyone
and everything seems to be dependent on him and he feels it keenly. When the
pressure gets to be too much the drums start pounding on the soundtrack and Frankie
steps across the street with his well-dressed "friend" Louie. It's an
exaggeration to say that Frank Sinatra's music career was ever really in the
doldrums, but in the early 50's he was in limbo between his days touring with big
bands and the Las Vegas era. 'From Here to Eternity' established him as a serious
actor and his career as a singer rebounded as well, but 'The Man with the Golden
Arm' was still a significant challenge, the whole show sinks or swims with his
performance. He pulls it off with such skill that for several minutes at a time I
forgot I was watching Frank Sinatra, he must have known junky musicians and
exploited that knowledge to the utmost. Set side by side with Billy
Wilder's masterpiece 'The Lost Weekend' there is more emphasis on the sociological
causes of addiction in 'The Man with the Golden Arm.' Whereas Don Birnem (Ray
Milland in 'The Lost Weekend') seems to struggle mostly against himself, Frankie
Machine is beset by external forces and he takes refuge in the needle. Neither
approach is wholly right or wrong, mostly because addiction is impossible to fully
explain, but it seems like this film might have benefited from a little more
insight into Frankie's internal struggle. *** Spoiler *** One of the
problems I have with this film is the clichéd reliance on "quitting cold turkey." I
realize that 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was probably setting the trend rather
than following it but that doesn't make it any better. In the beginning of the
movie Frankie has to all appearances kicked his habit with the help of a doctor and
a treatment facility of some sort. Naturally the drama of the film requires that he
backslide, but I found the All-American ideal that a man has to face his problems
alone (or maybe with the help of a good woman) out of place here. Going cold turkey
and riding off into the sunset with Kim Novak seemed too unrealistic. The end of
'The Lost Weekend' was similar but in my opinion was a little less rosy.
Lots of scenes and dialogue are flat-out goofy, but when you add it all up, i.e.
Machine's daily cycle from depressing walkup to depressing bar to depressing
burlesque hall to depressing smoke-filled poker games and back home again, you get
a weird sense that somebody, somewhere is trying to give a faithful depiction of
the junkie's life circa-1955. Whether it's Sinatra, who obviously would have bumped
up against this type of character growing up in Hoboken and working in numerous
bands, or Preminger, who uses the soundtrack and the Frankie-Zosch subtext to slip
the addict's interior worldview past the Hays Code cage, you get a good companion
piece to On the Waterfront, which was filmed almost exactly the same time. Sort of
a faux-realist work that leaves you realistically wondering how deep the drug
culture is embedded in American life.
Otto Preminger was one of the great maverick film directors.Like John Huston he was
a character from one of his own movies,like Mr Huston he was a wonderful ham who
slipped in and out of performance at random but the final product of his labours
was unmistakably his own. With a few exceptions films are now made by
corporations,not individuals,and as a result are usually highly-polished
"packages",a product in much the same way as a golf ball,a tin of dog food or a
motor car is a product.The involvement of human beings in the process is almost
incidental.Such is the appetite for the product that there appears no end to the
line of well-finished,glossy,superficially entertaining but ultimately empty films
that flood the countless TV channels and movie outlets.There is no time for a man
like Mr Preminger to stand a little apart from the torrent of "product" and craft a
personal work of art. Of course there has always been the "Art for art's sake -
money for Christ's sake" ethos in film-making,but now "Ars Gratia Artis" has,in all
but name ,been consigned to history's cutting-room floor. Today Otto Preminger
would be lucky to get a job delivering pizzas in Hollywood. Half a century
ago,having made the hugely influential,"Laura","Where the sidewalk ends" and "The
moon is blue",he set about filming Nelson Algren's controversial novel "The man
with the golden arm" in his eccentric and individualistic manner.Rather than take
his camera out onto the streets he stayed in the studio and used stylised almost
Expressionistic sets,quirky casting(Mr Frank Sinatra - hot from his success in
"From here to eternity",the young,inexperienced but breathtakingly beautiful Miss
Kim Novak and Mr Arnold Stang,a man whose oddities were after his own heart)and a
remarkable era - defining score by Elmer Bernstein featuring the cream of West
Coast jazzmen. An Otto Preminger film was always an all-round experience ,to be
considered as a whole rather than breaking it down into
acting,directing,photography.What appeared on the screen was Preminger's vision,his
creation and his interpretation of Algren's novel ,not a film of Algren's novel,any
one of twenty competent Hollywood hacks coud have produced that. From the first hi-
hat cymbal beat that accompanies Saul Bass's iconic title sequence we are drawn
into Preminger's take on what is nowadays called "The Life",in truth a murky area
occupied by hustlers,junkies,cops,drug dealers,stone gamblers,jazz musicians,their
women and hangers-on.The lines are blurred in "The Life",and it's dog eats dog down
there. The inhabitants circle each other like sharks,looking for a sign of weakness
to be exploited.Frankie Machine(Mr Sinatra)a professional card dealer,ex-junkie and
aspiring jazz drummer is a born victim.When things get tough he goes back to the
needle.Although he kicks the habit by going cold turkey there are absolutely no
guarantees that he won't go straight back on it further down the line. Mr Sinatra's
depiction of an addict in the throes of withdrawal has divided the critics,but the
fact of the matter is that even fifty years later most of us have probably never
seen such a thing in real life so we don't know how accurate the portrayal is.When
I first saw the film in the late 50s I was very impressed,watching it recently on
video,it seemed ,to put it unkindly,hammy.Perhaps he is a victim of his own success
as many actors subsequently "doing" cold turkey have,with the passing of the
years,taken his performance and refined it somewhat. Arnold Stang is outstanding as
Machine's pal Sparrow,a performance he exceeded only in "It's a mad,mad,mad,mad
world". Try and watch it on the big screen and view it as the cinematic vision of a
true auteur,a giant amongst today's pygmies - Otto Preminger.
Frank Sinatra has one of his best roles as a reformed heroin addict coming back to
his Chicago neighborhood after an extensive stay in a clinic. He plans to stay off
the drug and find work as a drummer, but he can't avoid running into his old
friends. He had been arrested originally not for any drug-related charge, but
because he was caught dealing in an illegal poker game. His skill at poker has
earned him the nickname of The Man with the Golden Arm, and the men who run the
game, one of them being his former heroin connection, want him to deal again.
Meanwhile, Frank has to take care of a woman whom he injured in a car accident,
Zosch (Eleanor Parker), and make up with his old girlfriend, Molly (Kim Novak). The
film is great at putting us in Sinatra's mental state. When he feels sure of
himself at the beginning of the film, I felt good for him. But, when a promised
phone call doesn't come one day, he descends into depression and goes back on the
smack. Later, when he finally gets to audition, he arrives completely strung out.
His embarrassment when he can't play the correct beat is devastating. He had such
big dreams, and the other musicians don't even pay him a bit of attention as he
rushes out of the room. The film moves quickly and it shows Frank's drug problem in
a realistic light without turning into a social message picture. The actors are
uniformly fine. Elmer Bernstein's score is one of the best of its time. The only
thing I don't like about the film is the ending. SPOILERS Although I really like the character of Zosch and Parker is very good in the
film, they could have done a little more to fill in her backstory. The ending is a
little too pat. While there is surely pathos that will remain with the characters
after the film closes, Zosch's death ties up all the loose ends a bit too neatly.
Frank is free to love Molly and he won't go to jail. Also, his dealer is dead, so
at least the immediate threat is gone. Well, I guess in Hollywood there's always a
desire to tie everything up in a neat little package. It harms the film a little,
but, as it stands, it's still one of the best and most adult movies about drug
addiction I can think of. 9/10.
If you like your films to pull your emotions out of you, if you like your films
with a guy you can root for, and relate to, if you like your films in black and
white, you gotta see this film! Watch it from start to finish, because you don't
want to miss a beat. It is sometimes slow, and it makes you wonder when something
is going to happen, then when the plot begins to unfold, you will be on the edge of
your seat! I know I was! My Mother told me about this film as our family had some
of the same things going on in it as the film does. We loved Frankie, who plays the
lead convincingly. What ever you think about Frank Sinatra, put that aside, in the
film, he is skinny and he doesn't sing, so keep an open mind. For the era it was
made in, it tells a story that is still being told today in homes all across the
nation, and quite possibly the world. Please watch, if you like older films, give
this one a try.
Frank Sinatra took this role, chewed it up with the rest of the scenery and - spat
it out HIS way. TMWTGA is stagey, the ending is trite, some of the scenes need a
little more cutting, but that's all. It's great entertainment from start to finish,
and while you watch it you realise that Sinatra, that long-dead MOR crooner, had
junkies, gangster card games and the whole US urban hustle thing in his blood - he
didn't learn it from an acting coach. There are all sorts of directorial touches to
keep you amused, and the (non-dated) soundtrack cooks all the way. The marathon
card game beat Goodfellas, Sopranos, etc. by forty years! So it wasn't faithful to
the book? What movie is? And I can't imagine it being remembered if Brando had been
let loose on it; the cold turkey scenes would have been embarrassing, instead of
edgy, convincing and moving with Sinatra. No-one else has mentioned the seedy,
lazy, cynical cops - absolutely spot on! And Eleanor Parker would have driven *me*
to smack.
I have never been as surprised by a film that was this old. Only "The Treasure of
the Sierra Madre" holds up this well, performance-wise. As someone that has seen
heroin addiction first-hand, I was shocked at how realistic this film was. Frank
Sinatra's performance is completely uncompromising, realistic, and heart wrenching.
Otto Preminger's direction is perfect for the film, with long takes and a very
mobile camera. Kim Novak's performance is good, as is Eleanor Parker's.
In fact, the entire supporting cast works very well, with understated performances,
as befitting this film's style. The documentary style is part of what keeps this
film up to date. Highly recommended. 8.0 out of 10
The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the
process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?).
http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/confuoco/diary/200911290000/ And the love of
Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a
vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave
human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about
suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I
thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest),
sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world.
Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost.
I am fifteen years old and have seen thirty-three of Sinatra's films (not counting
videos of TV shows and documentaries) and have been unimpressed by only two of
them. ''Till the Clouds Roll By," and "The Miracle of the Bells" don't really
count, however, considering that in the first all he does is sing a magnificent
"Ol' Man River," and in the latter he's not half bad-only the picture is pathetic.
My favorite records, radio shows, TV shows, and movies concerning Sinatra change
virtually every day-everything taking on a different connotation at each viewing
and occasionally seeming the best thing he ever did and occasionally the worst
until the cycle comes around again, but there are a couple things that are beyond
comparison. When it comes to movies, "The Man with the Golden Arm" heads that list.
Everybody who knows anything about Sinatra knows he thought this was his best-ever
performance; he was Oscar-nominated; it was the first serious look at drug
addiction; etc.,etc. The jazz score is unforgettable, Kim Novak's likable despite a
ludicrous accent, Eleanor Parker is annoying and waaaay too dramatic, the turtle-
like Arnold Stang is amusing the first time but more embarrassing every time out,
and Darren McGavin makes a wonderfully slimy drug dealer, the sets are unconvincing
- at first glance it seems a peculiar mixed bag tossed together by the great Otto
Preminger with an off-center charm. Then you come to Sinatra. Like
everything else in his life - other than music - reports of his acting are alway
divided in half. Directors like Fred Zinnemann, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Stanley
Kramer, Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, and Otto Preminger, all agreed that had
Sinatra worked as hard on his films as he did on singing, he'd have been among the
greatest actors in the world - if not THE greatest. Humphrey Bogart even said,"This
guy has the most natural acting talent I've ever seen." Not bad for a man who never
took an acting lesson in his life, was at the same time producing the discography
that would make him "the greatest singer of the 20th Century," and did almost all
his scenes in one take. In direct conflict with all of this are those
other reviews and biographies that sniff haughtily about what a lousy actor was
this Mr.Sinatra, and how many "bad" movies he made. The question will never be
answered to everyone's satisfaction because controversy was among Sinatra's
greatest assets, and both arguments were in a sense playing into his hand. In any
case, at this time, in this role, Sinatra is magnificent. A reviewer said in the
late fifties,"Sinatra may not be the greatest actor in the world, but there is none
more fascinating to watch." No matter what Sinatra is doing in a film, it's hard to
take your eyes off him. This, of course, is a "charisma," that I've only seen in a
handful of other people-Orson Welles, Richard Burton, Marlon Brando, Montgomery
Clift-perhaps James Cagney. There's no real definition for it and it often makes it
hard to figure out whether you're really enjoying a performance or just spellbound,
but that quality on display here is what makes the movie. Sinatra is downright
riveting, real, intense - transcending decades and thousands of paper-doll pop
stars with something called quality. Like it or not, this is a one-man show with a
few character actors hanging around in the background. He covers every emotion with
remarkable subtlety, from sweet, lonely tenderness with Kim Novak to the terrifying
shock of Frank Sinatra (Frank Sinatra!) whimpering and screaming in the agony of
"cold turkey." Sinatra was right - this is his best performance. No question.
 I was eight when Frank Sinatra died. I wasn't around for all the years
of bobby-soxers and ''Anchors Aweigh,'' Mr. Ava Gardner and ''From Here to
Eternity," albums with lamp posts and ''swingin' lovers," Kennedy, Vegas, ring-a-
ding ding. Basie and Mia and Reagan and concerts from Madison Square Garden to
South Africa to the White House to the Sands. I can't say I like Sinatra because I
heard him at the Paramount or because I hear "September of My Years"
autobiographically-the usual excuses. And my excuse? When I was eleven I watched a
movie called "On the Town"...
Rather than go on location and make a realistic film about drug addiction in the
Windy City, contrarian director Otto Preminger decided to go the opposite way and
make his movie appear as artificial as possible, thus flying in the face of the
fashion set by men like Kazan, Huston and Zinnemann, who were making their pictures
all over the world. Nelson Algren, on whose novel the movie is based, went on
record as despising it. What, one wonders, was Preminger up to, and why did he do
the movie this way? The sets in the film are so minimal as to suggest a
Mr. Magoo cartoon. Louie, the drug pusher, is attired as to resemble the sort of
gangster the artists at Mad magazine used to draw. Arnold Stang, wonderful comedian
that he was, seems out of place in a serious picture like this, and his very
appearance, topped off by an exaggerated and over-sized baseball cap, elicits
laughter. Robert Strauss, another actor best known for humorous roles, is likewise
out of place, as his large, heavily jowled face and Runyonesque delivery of lines
seems more appropriate to a Jerry Lewis movie. Against all this, stars Frank
Sinatra, Kim Novak and Eleanor Parker have to work overtime to just keep the viewer
from snickering. Sinatra is jittery and manic throughout, suggesting a man ill at
ease with himself, hence wholly appropriate for the role of a drug addict. Miss
Novak, plant-like and sublimely deadpan, is sympathetic and seems a product of the
artfully dingy slums she graces in the film. Parker is pure Hollywood and very
hard-working as the crippled and crafty Zosch. She is never convincing, but then
neither is the film. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone
interested in a realistic depiction of the lives of drug addicts in America. The
Caligari sets alone make it unbelievable. Preminger may have been aiming for a
dream effect, as the cardboard backgrounds give the proceedings the surreal feeling
of a nightmare operetta, perhaps harking back to Preminger's early days in Vienna.
Otto Preminger's "The Man with the Golden Arm" is a reference to heroin addiction -
something that must have been rather risky to film back in 1955, fifty years ago
(the censors today STILL have a problem with drug content in films!). The lead role was originally offered to Marlon Brando, then snatched by Frank
Sinatra before Brando could respond. Sinatra convincingly portrays a pro card
dealer and ex-heroin addict who returns home to the city only to find himself
battling the demons of temptation. Preminger is one of my favorite
directors (his "Anatomy of a Murder" starring James Stewart is a brilliant and
revolutionary courtroom drama). Preminger pretty much helped change the face of
cinema back in the '50s - "Anatomy of a Murder" was extremely controversial when it
came out due to both its plot and content (references to rape, women's "panties,"
seduction, etc.) and "The Man with the Golden Arm" deals with a topic that is
equally volatile. However, Preminger pulls it off without becoming
exploitative. This is like a forerunner to "The Panic in Needle Park" (1971) and
bears more than a few similarities in terms of general motifs to the classic Billy
Wilder movie "Lost Weekend," starring Ray Milland. These three films in particular
are probably the best movies about alcoholism predating the 1980s and still remain
relevant today.
This is easily one of the best movies of the 1950s. Otto Preminger directed only
four or five really good movies and this is one of them. Frank Sinatra gives his
best performance and the music score by Elmer Bernstein is dynamite. From the
opening titles (by Saul Bass) to the hysteria of drug addict Frank going cold
turkey, this is a riveting movie! With Kim Novak (giving a very good performance),
Eleanor Parker (giving a very bad performance) as well as Darren McGavin as the
reptilian pusher and Arnold Stang as Frank's grifter pal. Beware of bad prints:
this movie is in the public domain so some copies are pretty rough.
I've always enjoyed Frank Sinatra's music, and just recently I wrote a term paper
about his life story. I've been fascinated by the life and legend of Ol' Blue Eyes.
However, I've never seen any of his movies. So I wanted to see if his acting was as
great as his singing. Well...it was! I was blown away by his performance in this
movie! He really does a tremendous job as recovering heroin addict Frankie Machine,
who's trying to put his life back together and audition as a drummer for a local
band. Otto Preminger's direction is great as well. I haven't seen any
of his other movies. I read his biography on the IMDB. He seems like one of those
directors who was sorely misunderstood, and people had conflicted thoughts about
him. Seems like the kind of person who appeals most to cult enthusiasts. I haven't
seen enough of his films to know for sure if he's really brilliant, but now I'm
curious. I want to see more of his films, because judging by his attempt with "The
Man with the Golden Arm" this guy has talent. I also loved the music for this
movie. The score definitely contains the kind of music that I'll remember if I ever
happen to hear it again. That's when you know you have a great score. The supporting performances are fine as well, including Darren McGavin as the
local drug pusher, Eleanor Parker as Frankie's wheelchair-bound wife and Kim Novak
as his lover. It's interesting to see how filmmakers handled the
subject of drug abuse, as opposed to modern attempts in films like "Trainspotting"
and "Requiem for a Dream." Back in 1955, just mentioning the word "drugs" caused
controversy, and if you watch the film they kept the subject on a very discreet
level. There's only one scene where Frankie is actually getting heroin injected
into his arm, and they showed a close-up of the reaction of his face rather than
showing the needle graphically poking into his veins. But it delivered its message
without making it feel watered-down. In a powerful drama like this, with powerful
performances and direction like this, you don't need graphic portrayals of drug
abuse to keep the audience intrigued. "The Man with the Golden Arm" is
a dramatic gem that all film buffs should check out. It really is an amazing piece
of work! My score: 8 (out of 10)
Frank Sinatra did so many excellent things in the world of entertainment that it's
hard to single one out as the best. If I had to name the best thing he ever did,
though, it would be his performance as Frankie Machine, the heroin- addicted
musician and poker dealer who is saved, just barely, by the love of a good woman
(played by an exceptionally babelicious Kim Novak). The "cold-turkey" scenes
between Sinatra and Novak are terrifying and heartbreaking. The movie is very
nearly perfect, in fact, from Saul Bass's title graphics to the ground-breaking
jazz score by Elmer Bernstein. It might not be the sort of thing anyone thinks of
in regard to the 1950s, but it's a must-see nevertheless.
The Man With a Golden Arm was one of a trio of great films around that same time
that dealt with drug addiction. The other two were Monkey On My Back and A Hatful
of Rain. But I think of the three this one is the best. Maybe if Otto
Preminger had shot the thing in the real Chicago instead of those obvious studio
sets the film might have been better yet. Who knows, maybe Preminger couldn't get
enough money to pay for the location. It's the only flaw I find in the film. Frank Sinatra is a heroin addicted card dealer who was busted for covering
for his boss Robert Strauss when the game was raided. He took the cure while in
jail and wants a new life as a jazz drummer. But a whole lot of people are
conspiring against him. First Bob Strauss who wants him back dealing,
especially because a couple of heavyweight gamblers are in town. He uses a few
underhanded methods to get Sinatra's services back. Secondly Darren McGavin is the
local dope dealer who wants Sinatra good and hooked as a customer again. And
finally Eleanor Parker his clinging wife who's working a con game to beat all, just
to keep him around. Frank Sinatra got a nomination for Best Actor for
this film, but lost to Ernest Borgnine in Marty. Sinatra might have won for this
one if he hadn't won for From Here to Eternity in the Supporting Actor category a
few years back and that Marty was such an acclaimed film in that year. His scenes
going through withdrawal locked up in Kim Novak's apartment will leave you
shaken. Eleanor Parker does not get enough credit for her role. She's
really something as the crazy scheming wife who wants Sinatra tied to her no matter
what the cost. If she had not been nominated that same year for Interrupted Melody,
she might have been nominated for this. 1955 marked the high point of her career.
 Darren McGavin got his first real notice as the very serpentine drug
peddler. His performance is guaranteed to make your flesh crawl. Elmer
Bernstein contributed a great jazz score to accentuate the general dinginess of the
bleak Chicago neighborhood the characters live in. Not a place you'd want to bring
up your family.
(Mild Spoilers) Frankie Machine had been dealt a bad hand in life. A card dealer at
an illegal gambling den in his Chicago neighborhood he was busted when the joint
was raided by the cops and given six months in jail. While behind bars
Frankie was treated for his heroin addiction at the prisons hospital and learned
how to play the drums as part of his rehabilitation program. Now out of prison and
back in his old neighborhood Frankie is trying to put his life back together by
getting a union card in the Musicians Union and then a job as a drummer in a band
and put his old life behind him but instead it catches up with Frankie in no time
at all in "The Man with the Golden Arm". Otto Preminger's ground-
breaking 1955 film about heroin addiction with Frank Sinatra giving the performance
of his life as the drug addicted card sharp Frankie Machine, the Man with the
Golden Arm. Frankie tries to getaway from the life that he lead but has this monkey
or, better yet, gorilla on his back that just won't let him. Soild performances by
the entire supporting cast starting with Frankie's friend Sparrow, Arnold Stang.
Sparrows attempt to get Frankie back on his feet by shoplifting a suit of clothes
for him ends up putting him and Frankie in the slammer, and almost back to prison,
until his former boss at the gambling den Schwiefka bailed him out. There's Frankie's psychically as well as emotionally crippled wife Zosch, Eleanor
Parker, who sees that her hold on Frankie is slipping and is slowly driven to
madness murder and suicide. There's Frankie's drug dealer Louie, with Darren
McGavin in one of his first acting roles, who's hold on Frankie is only good as
long as he stays addicted and Louie goes out of his way to make sure that he does.
 There's the owner of the gambling joint that Frankie works at as it's
top card dealer Schwiefka, Robert Strauss, who like Louie goes out of his way to
get Frankie back to work for him even though if he's arrested again Frankie's hopes
for a new and better life will go down the drain. And then there's Frankie's next-
door neighbor and friend Molly, Kim Novak,who goes to almost impossible lengths to
get him over his addiction by locking him up in her apartment. It's there that he
goes "Cold Turkey" and almost ends up dying trying to kick the habit in one of the
most harrowing sequence ever put on film. A no holds barred movie with
explosive performances by everyone involved makes "The Man with the Golden Arm" one
of the great classics of realism in motion pictures coming out of the 1950's.
We have moved far beyond this tentative foray into a forbidden area-drug addiction-
for the 1950s. As such, the film may seem dated. The Man with the Golden Arm served
its function is peeling back a layer of the underside of society, an eye-opener to
a Southern country boy in 1955 when I first viewed this film in the theater. After
some serious consideration about being too young, I was allowed to go. It was
powerful and affecting then and still maintains some sharp, painful moments of the
soul stripped naked. As a movie depicting the loneliness at the core of being, it
succeeds. Filled with angst, Frank Sinatra, in his best role, creates a
vulnerability that makes him sympathetic to the viewer. He conveys his helplessness
and ineffectualness in a beautifully restrained performance. As a voice of common
sense in the dead-end urban jungle, Kim Novak as Molly is quite good. She is
compassionate and yet stands on solid ground. The interaction between Sinatra and
Novak is really good. Darren McGavin plays a slimy character and does it very well.
Eleanor Parker is superbly irritating and painfully insecure in her role of the
pathetic Zosch, the crippled wife of Sinatra. Arnold Stang is another unlikely
survivor of the street. Regarded as pitiful and despicable, his character Sparrow
provides tart comedic moments. The music is almost the star of this
film-brooding, frenetic, moody, poignant. Elmer Bernstein's score perfectly
accentuates the tensions of Frankie Machine's spiritual weakness and physical need
for heroin. Molly's theme is bittersweet and captures aurally what the film depicts
visually. I know of no other soundtrack that effectively complements the tension
and defeat within a man as effectively as does this one.
A group of teens that have broken into a huge department store, are attacked by a
crazed police man. Exciting and suspenseful throughout and refreshingly devoid of
extreme violence and gore, but those Aussie hairstyles and accents are a bit much
to take. And they can induce headaches. But this is still a good thriller. 7 out of
10.
There's this whole theory of horror that some people adhere closely to that the
monsters and the violence should be kept off-screen. Park Chan-Wook throws that
concept completely out the window and shows directly what he wants--and what he
wants to show is pretty much anything he can think of. Leaving it to the actors and
dialog to create subtlety, from a stylistic perspective Park seems willing to do
just about anything to get his point across. Whether it's long involved ensemble
scenes with the camera whizzing around a mah-jong table or entire weeks confined to
a single shot between two other scenes, dialog from the scenes before and after
bleeding over them, Park doesn't keep to a specifically structured style but
focuses more on telling the entire story of a couple's relationship from virginal
remove through utter codependence to utter self-annihilation--and uses vampirism as
the link and priestliness as the drama. It's that simple, and that complex, at the
same time. You gotta give him credit. Too many people are ready to
compare any modern vampire movie to Twilight, with Twilight almost always being the
lesser of the works, but here the stories are actually comparable, but this one is
more raw and honest. None of this sparkly coming in the window during the night to
talk crap, but anything ranging from the dirtiest, most desperate and virginal sex
scene to eventual spousal abuse as the two leads begin to vie for power over one
another. It's the same deal--guy and girl meet, girl finds out guy is a vampire,
decides to join him anyway, but with no happily ever after, just straight-up
limited time as they become forced to keep each other closer and closer and run out
of options. The girl's motivations are particularly interesting as one desperately
craving power and attention, to a fault, foiled by the guy who just wants to live a
good life as best he can under the circumstances, but is a hypocrite who cannot
admit that he's merely using his vampirism as an excuse to act against his moral
training. The movie isn't perfect and it does tend to stretch (there's
no three act, five act, or any act structure here, just scene after scene of
character building and dysfunctional romance), but what's great about it is that
Park Chan-Wook is willing to show everything frankly and honestly while delighting
the horror sensibilities of tension and gore. He also provides an expertly chosen
soundtrack to hit the emotional high-notes in a pretty effective way, too. --PolarisDiB
There are only a few movies which can be called `must see' and SHEPHERED is one of
those films. In many ways it was ahead of it's time (and you can tell it was a
source of inspiration for several better-known films) Copied by many, equaled by
none, this truly is one great movie. The story is complex but unfolds
itself as a taut yet frequently amusing thriller and highly thought provoking
exploration of the nature of humanity. The story takes place in a post-apocalyptic
world where people must live underground and chaos reigns. C. Thomas Howell is a
`Shepherd' one who protects the populace for various religious leaders by killing
off any unfit members of the society. The whole idea made me think about our
society. It's really a brilliant social commentary, which is more than I can say
for certain recent sci-fi/action blockbusters. MATRIX RELOADED and REVOLUTIONS
didn't make one feel that any real innovation was taking place, just dull video-
game effects. But SHEPHERD scores on the action scale too... Not once
does this movie let the viewer catch their breath. Peter Hayman proves himself to
be one of the few genius action directors. We're talking 100%, high grade, down
home kung fu fighting! It was excellent. Really good special effects, shoot-outs,
bleak-futuristic cyber-punk noir style the film really has its own elements. When talking about SHEPHERD, it's impossible not to mention how much style
it has. The vision of this city is really stunning. It recalls images of Tim
Burton's very memorable vision of Gotham in BATMAN. And these sights are
photographed by Graeme Mears with a degree of skill that puts Gordon Willis and
Conrad Hall to shame. Even the special effects proved amazing. Doubtless the scenes
where fighting occurs are landmarks in all of filmmaking. This movie is a ballet of
awesome visual display. Still, at the base of it all, there lies an
interesting story, carried through by a strong cast. The acting (especially Rowdy
Piper) and the plot are both great, and excellently directed. In contrast with
loads of futuristic films made with a strong artificial flavor, the characters are
believable and the dialogue is natural and full of wit. I'm always proud to see a
great film like SHEPHERD come along. It's a damn shame that it didn't receive good
distribution and made nothing in the box office. It's a rarity worth searching for.
This movie will impress you and make you feel 10 times cooler for having seen it!
This is a very strange series with Dean Learner. I really didn't understand the
guests. I knew they weren't serious but whether they were really them was unclear
because...i guess i'm just that stupid. I don't know if this classes as a spoiler
but the guests aren't real like in Ali g or anything they're played by one man or
so i believe. I love the serious look that he's got going on. Its like that
programme that was on on a Sunday morning that i forget the name of lol. I also
really like the suit and moustache thing he has got going on. Its quite hot. He's
insensitive which is one of the funniest qualities. I also like the way he has
subsections of the programme. It makes it seem more authentic.
A spin off comedy talk show from the creators of 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' The
new series, Man to Man with Dean Learner, focuses on Garth's manager, publisher and
publicity agent, as played by Richard Ayoade. Nightclub owner,
restaurateur, publisher, international playboy - Dean Learner is a one-man brand.
 After his co-funded Channel 4 television hit Garth Marenghi's Darkplace
he now invites you into his luxury penthouse flat for an all-new, entertaining and
immensely stylish TV talk show. Man to Man with Dean Learner will
feature all Dean's remaining celebrity friends, as well as plenty of live music and
fine fish-dish cuisine in a show that reeks of class - but not fish! I
attended two of the live recordings and it had me in stitches. There are distinct
comparisons to Alan Partridge's 'Knowing me Knowing you' in the layout but Richard
Ayoade and Matt Holness's unique writing style take it to another level. If your a fan of Darkplace then you can't miss it. Catch it when its aired
late this summer
After the highs of darkplace it was never conceivable that Holness and Adobye would
be able to create anything half as good as garth marengi. Yet i think that man to
man in its own right is as good a show (on the good episodes) as darkplace. i cant
argue that 2 of the episodes really are'nt that good but the other 4 certainly make
up for it. if i had to pick 2 great episodes id go for formula4 driver Steve Pising
(pronounced Pissing) and the great Garth Marengi. to already have a bit of
understanding of the programme is a real plus as Dean Learner makes many inside
jokes but even if you have'nt seen much Dean id recommend this as some of the rants
he launches into are genius ie. His argument with Def Lepord over their name. All
in All a great show which just misses full marks because of the couple of less
funny episodes.
The first episode of 'Man to Man with Dean Learner' that just aired was at least up
to scratch with most episodes of 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' and had me at "My
Maisonette". Hope it keeps up the good work of 'faux terribles' on my TV. Richard
Ayoade is one of the best in the new breed of "alternative comedy"(I hate this
phrase but am too lazy too think of another one.) comedians on TV today.I'm glad
that on a trip of local DVD retailers today "Garth Marenghi's Darkplace" was sold
out across the board. Even from his brief stint in Nathan Barley I knew that Ayoade
was a serious talent and I'm sure he would have been great as Dixon Bainbridge in
'The Mighty Boosh' To continued success! In the vein of these programs I also felt
it necessary to extend my review, in order to secure a place on this public domain.
The Soap is an interesting movie and very brilliant at parts. You must watch it for
its strong characterisation and the risks the plot about two troubled individuals
falling in love takes. You must know the story through various other reviews, so
lets speak about what is brilliant about this movie. Firstly, the two
protagonists are so real and such intriguing personalities. The first being a woman
who has opted out of a four year relationship and is angry enough to sleep with
anyone coming her way. The second being a man who has always wanted to be a woman,
whose pain and loneliness is shown with so much sensitivity and brilliance. You
hate the former and your heart bleeds for the latter. The second thing
about this movie is the entire concept of loving one for who one is, irrespective
of gender. So, would you still love your partner if he/she were to change his/her
sex? The movie explores that idea and it is a beautiful one. But there
is one point where the movie fails. I wish the relationship between the
protagonists had developed in a better way. That what they feel is love doesn't
come across till the end. But watch it, and post your thoughts on it here.......
A strange relationship between a middle-aged woman and a transsexual who gonna be a
woman soon. Charlotte and Venorica, both trapped by their inanimate lives and don't
know how to get out of them. Charlotte is an owner of a beauty clinic, she has
broken up with her aggressive ex-husband, moved into an apartment alone with all
the furniture packed except her big bed. Veronica lives downstairs with her poor
dog, She's sensitive and desperately bothered by her mother's visiting and the bad
relationship with her dad. Her only hope is that the upcoming transsexual operation
will turn her into a real woman and then everything will be fine. All she can do
now is waiting for an approval certificate. Then these two individuals
meet by chance and gradually they are all involved into other's lives, there are
some sparkles between them, but no one is brave enough to face the truth because
they are not willing to accept the change as most people do. Eventually the ending
is quite satisfying and leaves some imagination for us to think about it. The director's great work gives me an great impression, she handles the
development of characters very well, the emotional atmosphere is quite full and
intense. Also I am so obsessed with the gloomy lights all over the apartment,
Delphic but full of desire. Two main characters are played by Trine
Dyrholm and David Dencik, they are amazing in their roles, a very impressive
performance and the chemical reaction between them is genuine and convincing. This Swedish indie film is about encountering and change, no matter you're
homosexual or heterosexual, male or female, the oddness of life exists everywhere,
whenever you fall across it, you'll be hesitate and bewildered, but at least don't
be afraid, follow your heart and choose the right way.
This film is a very beautiful and slow film. There is nothing Hollywood about it.
It is very danish and the characters are very real. It is the first danish film to
take up this transsexual theme. It is really about love that has no gender. I would
not say it is about lesbian love even though the two main characters (the
transsexual veronika and Charlotte) are attracted to each other. It is a story
about love and life. The story pretty much takes place in the two
apartments. There is almost no background music, which makes it seem more real and
intense. The two actors playing the main characters are great. They really make
them seem real. They are not archetypes, but real people you could meet in the
street. I think it is the first time I have seen a transsexual portrayed this well.
Very well done.
This British documentary was recently shown on Comedy Central during their "Best
of" week and can also be seen on South Park's second season DVD. I remember seeing
many commercials for the DVD showing clips of this documentary, most of which
occurs with Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and some other guy in a hot tub. It was funny
when I saw it in the commercials, but I was used to seeing it by the time I saw the
actual documentary. Overall, "Goin' Down to South Park" is a fairly
funny and interesting look at how South Park episodes are made and of the series'
history going back to when Matt and Trey came up with the idea in college. However,
there was something about the tone of this documentary that actually felt sort of
depressing. It's not as fast-paced, rapid-fire, and as lively as the actual South
Park episodes. Instead, it kind of has a slow, dry-wit style, which at times can be
funny, but most of the time you're just waiting for something to happen. If you get
the chance to watch it, by all means go for it, but I don't think you're really
missing much if you never see it. My IMDb Rating: 7/10
Going' Down To South Park is a 1hr long documentary about South Park with
interviews with Trey Parker and Matt STone and all the other people who work on
South Park.There really isn't much to say, it shows the history of South Park and
what it takes to make one episode.It is basically a behind the scenes of the show.
It shows the different merchandise that south park has made(it was really comedy
central who put it out). It also shows the controversy which was caused by South
Park.It shows plenty of funny clips from the show as well.It's a fairly funny
documentary.Any fan of South Park should check this out.You can find it on
youtube. 9/10
A beloved and devoted priest from a small town volunteers for a medical experiment
which fails and turns him into a vampire. Physical and psychological
changes lead to his affair with a wife of his childhood friend who is repressed and
tired of her mundane life. The one-time priest falls deeper in despair
and depravity. As things turns for worse, he struggles to maintain whats left of
his humanity... The vampire movie should have really been extinct now
thanks to the poor efforts of the Twilight and Underworld franchises, but the
director injects new blood into the story of the vampire, by putting simple things
into perspective. These vampires have reflections, and no fangs, but
still feed and die the same. Making the main protagonist a priest really opens up a
can of worms for questioning ones acts. The priest primarily feeds to make himself
better, but when he meets his friends unfulfilled wife, carnal instincts set in. What makes this film intensely erotic is that when the couple consent for
the first time, they are experiencing something they have never before, forbidden
passion, which makes the scenario all that more sensual. Chan-Wook adds
some much needed humour into the film, but this is only realised in the final third
of the movie. We see the daughter lift her mother in the chair in front of
everyone, and when she realises her own strength, just puts the chair down and
carry on. Hilarious. and the final act wouldn't be out of place in a
carry on film, or even the three Stooges as the couple fight for survival/death
respectively. CGI is subtle and fantastic, and the scenes with them
jumping from building to building is so graceful, you could be watching
ballet. The vampire genre feels fresh and vibrant after this, but more
importantly, has the eroticism and intensity that most vampire films are missing
these days. It's violent, but from the director in question, i wouldn't expect
anything different. A really interesting story, with fantastic
characters and beautiful cinematography.
Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, finally get out of their
grueling schedule to talk to the cameras while sipping champagne in their hot tub.
At first, when watching this, I did not sense as much sarcasm as there was in this.
I knew they were joking when they would complain about different actors on the show
and when Trey said he wasn't going to give his mother any of his money, but there
is so much sarcasm throughout, that this documentary, is more of a mockumentary
full of inside jokes. This "documentary" shows everything about South
Park (up until the second season anyways). It shows what goes on behind the scenes
with the animation and the recording. It has interviews, many of which are fake
interviews, but some, amongst all the fabrications, give insight into the show.
Clips from both of Trey Parker's Spirit of Christmas shorts are shown, as are many
good clips from the show. If you were a South Park fan, then this should have
quenched your thirst for show knowledge back in late 1998 when this was made. Now,
obviously the show has changed, but this is still interesting. What we
have here is an amusing documentary where Trey Parker (especially) and Matt Stone
come off as arrogant jerks, and that's exactly what they wanted to come off as.
They may be this way in real life, but here it was a joke, a 51 minute long
insightful joke. My rating: *** out of ****. 51 mins. Not rated,
contains Language and Sexual Content.
Well, I saw that yesterday and It was much better than the other making-off from
VH1, too bad than this one it's pretty outdated but you get to see all the staff
who makes south park, very interesting stuff. It's also funny than this
documentary portrays Trey and Matt like selfish greedy snobs creators who doesn't
work and spend all the time having fun or relaxing (which is kinda ironic because
they work pretty hard on the show). It also shows all the animation
process to make a south park episode, interview with the actors who brings
character's voices and much more. If you're a fan of south park I highly
recommend you this.
Ok, when I rented this several years ago I had the worst expectations. Yes, the
acting isn't great, and the picture itself looks dated, but as I sat there, a
strange thing happened. I started to like it. The action is great and there are few
scenes that make you jump. Brion James, maybe one of the greatest B-grade actors
next to Bruce Campbell, is great as always. The story isn't bad either. Now I
wouldn't rush out and buy it, but you won't waste your time at least watching this
good b-grade post apocalyptic western.
It has to be said that this film is definitely one of the better "bargain bin"
movies out there - I'd feel a bit cheated if I had paid £15 for it, but at about
£1.50 I felt that I definitely got more than my monies worth. The film
can't quite decide if it wants to be "Mad Max" or one of the Clint Eastwood "man
with no name" spaghetti westerns, and as such is stacked with clichés from both.
Even the manic loony who hangs out with the bad guys in "Mad Max" is there. That guy from "Blade Runner" also cops a good billing, although he only
turns up at the beginning and the end of the movie. Favourite bit - for
me the punch-up on top of the oil refinery - if you look closely you can see the
"post-apocalyptic" rush hour traffic thundering past in the distance as the two
protagonists knock seven bells out of each other. Get several lagers in,
a few pizzas and sit back and enjoy what is ultimately lightweight but entertaining
drivel.
**SPOILERS** Extremely brutal police drama set in San Francisco involving a sting
operation that goes terribly wrong. A cop Det. Falon, Sam Elliott,mistakenly and
savagely beats to death an undercover policeman Winch, Mike Watson,thinking that he
murdered his partner Det. Sam Levinson, Mike Burstyn. A partner who unknowing to
Falon was dirty. Getting the lowdown that a group of policemen under his
command are dealing drugs by knocking off drug dealers of their cocaine and heroin
and then selling it back to them Captain Delgoti, Paul Sorvino, sets up a number of
sting operations in his precinct with one of the cops targeted being Det. Levinson.
Levinson's partner Det. Falon who's as honest as the day is long has no idea of
Levinson's corruption. When Det. Falon find's his partner Det. Levinson stabbed to
death outside a bar, were they were at drinking the night away, he goes nuts and
attacks and beats to death the man on the scene Winch. Winch who was not
responsible for Levinson's murder was in fact there to get him to turn and gives up
the names of his fellow drug-dealing corrupt cops. With the help of
striper and girlfriend Sally, Mimi Craven, Falon has Winch's body put in a car and
drives down to the docks dumping it in San Francisco Bay feeling that the "cop
killer" got just what he deserved. What Falon doesn't know is that the two cops
later put on the case of Leinson's murder Holloway & Orlanski, Dan Lauria & Richard
Gilliland, were the one's who murdered him. It's not until much later
that Falon realizes that his partner was dirty when he was assigned together with
rookie detective Michael Murrow, Esai Morales, on the Winch case and tries to
cover-up his involvement in Winch's death. Falon's new partner senses that he's
anything but interested in finding Winch's killer and slowly puts two and two
together. The two dirty cops, Holloway & Orlaski, trying to cover up
their role in both Levinson murder, whom they killed fearing that he's about to
turn evidence on them, as well as their drug dealings. The two crooked cops set up
ex-con Jerome Johnson, Perry Moore, by breaking into his apartment and planting
drugs there and then, to make it look like a drug hit, brutally murdering him and
his wife! This happens right in front of the couples two year old son in one of the
most shocking and sickening murders scenes ever put in a movie. Not
satisfied with killing Levinson and Johnson, together with his wife, Holloway and
Orlanski get to Falon's girlfriend Sally, who was a junkie and being supplied with
her drugs by the late Det. Levinson. The two corrupt cops stick a needle in Sally's
arm forcing her to overdose not realizing, by sticking the needle in her left arm,
that she's left-handed! Which would make it physically impossible and which also
alerts Falon, who finds her body, that Sally was in fact murdered and didn't kill
herself voluntary or by accident. Falon begins to come to his senses
when he's later approached at his old watering hole by Holloway and Orlanski and
asked to join them in their drug dealing operation. Falon angrily refuses but now
he knows that like his partner the late Sam Levinson that he knows too much and is
now a marked man. Meanwhile Det. Murrow, now a lot smarter and wiser,
by getting to know what his partner Falon is all about confronts Falon about
Winch's death only to get knocked out and cuffed to a sink at the bar that Falon
was at. With Falon now smashed from his drinking, but with a full head of steam,
goes outside to meet Holloway and Orlanski knowing that no matter what happens
he'll end up on the losing end. Tough and uncompromising movie about
police corruption with Sam Elliott as the old veteran who thinks he's seen and
knows everything about crime and police work but has a lot to learn. Still he
overlooks his partners Det. Levinson, whom he worked with for 20 years, secret life
as a drug dealer that not only leads to him murdering an innocent man but ending up
being killed himself.
Ah! When good actors take on bland material! If you are thinking of this movie as a
tight police thriller you may be disappointed. While the situations are very true
to life, the plot proceeds at a very predictable clip and you can pretty well see
what lays ahead way before the actors take you there. Many of the criminals and
secondary figures are really just stereotypes in motion. Much of the dialog is just
plain silly. But! If you love to see good actors rise above this kind of
material and make something of it, then you will LOVE this movie! Sam Elliott is
nothing short of brilliant in taking the one-note character of Detective Falon come
alive with depth and pathos. Those of you who have never seen Elliott emote that
much beyond his usual scowling stoic stances will be delighted at the range of
emotion he depicts in this film. And also, in his early fifties in this film, he
looks fantastic! His bare chest scene gives hope to middle aged men everywhere!
Esai Morales does a wonderful job elevating his role as Det. Falon's eager beaver
new police partner. He could have easily played it as a Robin to Elliott's Batman,
but instead he breathed a genuineness and passion into this role. He makes it work
despite some of the lame lines he is given to say. Paul Sorvino is fun
to watch! He plays the eccentric police captain. He seems to know he is slumming in
this movie and is having a ball doing it. He makes it fun for us too. This movie is very by-the-numbers in plot but makes up for it with great
performances! Sam Elliott fans should definitely get this one as it is suck a kick
to see him spread his wings and do so much more than he usually is allowed to do!
Sam Elliot is brilliant as a tough San Francisco Detective Charlie Fallon. When his
partner is killed while meeting with an informant Fallon snaps, beats the informant
to death, and dumps his body in a river. The next day Fallon is assigned a rookie
partner, and given the task of investigating the informants murder. Sam Elliot does
a good job of portraying a man who tortured by the guilt of his own murderous
actions, and grief over the death of his partner who may have been involved in
police corruption.
From the start you will like Sam Elliott's character (Falon) : a trustworthy cop
that is notably loyal to his partner. But too loyal, and too revengeful when seeing
his partner dead in an alley, cause he then kills who he thought to be the
assailant before giving him a chance to explain. Falon is an alcoholic, and that
tends to sway him from being in self control, though he manages to direct his
attention towards finding who's really behind his partners death. He carries along
a rookie as his new partner (which seems to be seen too often in films) but Esai
Morales does well in accompanying Sam Elliot, though puzzling pieces begin to fit
to where Morales begins a self-approved investigation towards Falon; he mainly
wants to find the answers since Fallon isn't letting him in on the whole story, and
does not like what he finds. There is not a last minute showing at who the bad
detectives are, which is okay; and they are not able to sway Falon into joining
them, leading to a dramatic ending. Fine acting all the way around, with a touch of
humor from Paul Sorvino who is the captain of detectives. It's a good movie that
will make you want to see it several times; so it qualifies as a -must see-, and a
good addition to a movie collection! (Filmed in San Francisco)
I'm rating this pretty high just because of Sam Elliott. I could've done without
the female nudity but I'd sit through almost any nonsense in order to see Sam strut
his stuff. He gets to spout wonderfully cynical witticisms, many of which I agree
with, and it's a joy to see him in a role in which he actually gets to emote
instead of just standing around scowling and looking virile as can be. My boyfriend
opined that this movie is in a couple of ways similar to a film in which Ed Harris
had a Hispanic partner (in the police sense of the term!) who was a little
overeager to prove himself. You can draw your own conclusions on that score but if
you like Sam, you'll like this. You could say I'm biased, but who isn't in some
way? I'd buy this on DVD in a heartbeat!
A "sleeper". I had never even heard of this movie until I was channel jumping one
night. I've been a police officer myself for 25 years and thought this was a true
to life movie. Non-police critics are rating the movie purely from a critic's point
of view and not from a police officer's point of view. This is real.
Of the Korean movies I've seen, only three had really stuck with me. The first is
the excellent horror A Tale of Two Sisters. The second and third - and now fourth
too - have all been Park Chan Wook's movies, namely Oldboy, Sympathy for Lady
Vengeance), and now Thirst. Park kinda reminds me of Quentin Tarantino
with his irreverence towards convention. All his movies are shocking, but not in a
gratuitous sense. It's more like he shows us what we don't expect to see -
typically situations that go radically against society's morals, like incest or a
libidinous, blood-sucking, yet devout priest. He's also quite artistically-inclined
with regards to cinematography, and his movies are among the more gorgeous that
I've seen. Thirst is all that - being about said priest and the
repressed, conscience-less woman he falls for - and more. It's horror, drama, and
even comedy, as Park disarms his audience with many inappropriate yet humorous
situations. As such, this might be his best work for me yet, since his other two
movies that I've seen were lacking the humor element that would've made them more
palatable for repeat viewings.
All the reviewers are making one big mistake. This movie was not suppose to be
taken seriously. It was made for kids and teens of the late 80ies or
early 90ies and as such it was truly a film of it's time. If you hated that period,
or love the first movie so much that you can't even take a joke about it, then this
is garbage, but only because it wasn't meant for you. The low budget here and
failure of the Beastmaster 1 at the box office (grossed under four mil. with a nine
mil. budget) were obviously the reasons to drop the seriousness of the original and
to put it in the present day. You can complain about the story, dialog or logic,
but again this was made to run, not to win races. If the movie had tried to take
itself seriously it would be a total failure, but it doesn't do that for a second
(in "our" world, Dar sees a movie theater that's advertising The Beastmaster 2,
enough said). To paraphrase Clint Eastwood from Dirty Harry movies: This movie
knows it's limitations. It's more of a comedy/parody then usual adventure.
Soundtrack (for the time) was also great. Actors aren't taking themselves that
seriously either so even the usually irritating "spoiled rich brat" role (played
here very well by young Kari Wuhrer) turns out good. So, if you are
nostalgic for the 80ies/90ies (cheese) culture, or you liked the first part, and
don't mind going out on a cheese limb, you'll have tremendous fun with this attempt
to revive Dar in the 90ies (literarly). This is not really the sequel to the first,
and don't watch it if that's what you want. It's more of a "what if" fantasy
sequel. As for the "why different dimension and not just different time"
question: When in history did we have those tall winged humanoid creatures that
suck the flash of bones (from the end of part 1)? By the way, the movie ends in the
Zoo because of an attempt at a cheap (moneywise) big finale. It's suppose to be the
best place for Dar to show all his moves (him being the manipulator of animals).
I liked this movie way too much. My only problem is I thought the actor playing the
villain was a low rent Michael Ironside. Of corse Ironside is just a low rent Jack
Nicholson. I guess Mike was busy that year with "Highlander 2: The Quickening".
Sadly "Beastmaster 2" would have been a much better career move. It is certainly
the best of the Beastmaster series and in many ways reminiscent of that great big
screen classic "Masters of the Universe". Not only does it star the incomparable
Mark Singer it also features an amazing supporting cast, specifically the second
girl from "Sliders", Uncle Phil from "Fresh Prince of Belair" and evil chick from
"Superman 2". It rocked my world and is certainly a must see for anyone with no
social or physical outlets. BEASTMASTER FOREVER!!! ROCK'N ROLL!!!
When I was younger, and today, Mr. Bean is a work of genius. Three-time BAFTA
nominated Rowan Atkinson stars as the almost silent (miming) human looking alien
dropped onto Earth causing chaos and mischief wherever he goes. He has tried to do
an exam, put his pants on in front of blind man (he didn't know he was blind), gone
to church, tried to dive at a swimming pool, made lunch on a park bench, seen a
scary movie, changed in his car, had a picnic with a fly intruding, spent Christmas
with his girlfriend (Matilda Ziegler), looked after a baby in Portsmouth, been to
Room 426 of The Queens Hotel in Portsmouth, won a pet contest with his Teddy,
driven on top of his Mini on a new chair, and even met and knocked out the Queen.
Guests included Rudolph Walker, Richard Briers, Angus Deayton, Nick Hancock from
They Think It's All Over, Caroline Quentin, The Day Today's David Schneider,
Richard Wilson, The Fast Show's Eryl Maynard and The Vicar of Dibley's Roger Lloyd-
Pack. It was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Comedy (Programme or Series) and Best
Light Entertainment Programme. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest
British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on
Britain's Favourite Comedian. Outstanding!
There was once someone in my family (not saying who it is because of personal
reasons) who thinks that Mr Bean is always so silly in whatever he does on the
comedy series. Imagine how I felt at that time. Shocked instantly. There
are more reasons than one why I love watching Mr Bean. Being one of those earliest
shows on the local television here in my country where I first grew up watching,
it's just one of those things which had stuck into my head. There was even once my
friends and I talked about few of the selected episodes and we just laughed
together. It's always silly, funny and hilarious in whatever antics
Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean will do in each episode. Though lately at times it may
show some of the repeats here, it never failed to bring back those childhood
memories of mine. In fact, I can dare say this is the very first show which
introduces me about the kind of shows which come out of the UK as I was growing
up. The comedy series...definitely really wicked, as what the Brits may
be saying.
This is one of my favorite T.V shows of all time, Rowan Atkinson is simply a
genius!, and it's only fitting that i chose this to be my 1000 review!. I can't
begin to tell you how much i love Mr. Bean he's the man, and what amazes me, is how
he gets out of these incredibly difficult situations, and he is always so
creative,plus Robyn Driscoll also deserves accolades!, he is also a genius!. My
favorite bit that he has done is the Amazing Adventures of Mr. Bean and while all
the rest of them are amazing, this remains my true favorite, plus i wish the show
didn't stop so soon!. Each episode is brilliantly written, and they were all
masterfully directed, plus Each episode is a classic in my eyes!. This show is
incredibly popular, and i can definitely see why, as it's quite possibly the
funniest show ever. The character actors all played there roles really well,
especially Robyn Driscoll and Matilda Ziegler (as Irma). This is one of my favorite
T.V shows of all time Rowan Atkinso is simply put a genius and an incredibly
talented comedian (possibly the best!), and it's only fitting that i chose this to
be my 1000 review f you haven't seen this show , drop what your doing right now and
go check it out, you will not regret it trust me it's one of the best T.V shows
ever!,and i will continue to watch the show over and over again, i never tire of
it!, Mr. Bean Rules!. ***** out of 5
The 1990s was a great decade for British sitcom with many popular creations such as
ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE, ABSOLUTELY FABOULOUS THE THIN BLUE LINE, THE BRITTAS EMPIRE
and MEN BEHAVING BADLY arriving onto TV screens for the first time. However, MR. BEAN is, hands down, the greatest sitcom of the 1990s. MR. BEAN represents the first major attempt at a throwback to the era of silent
greats such as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton for several decades. It brings to
the audience a single character - Mr. Bean - played to perfection by Rowan
Atkinson. Many people who have commented on this page as well as on the
message boards on this and other websites have engaged in debates about whether or
not Mr. Bean has a mental disability or has significant learning difficulties
arising from such a disability. However, I believe this debate is unnecessary
because I highly doubt that the creators of this show expected anyone in the
audience for a single moment to even consider Mr. Bean in such a context. Mr. Bean is shown to be a character who seems to have very few friends,
rarely speaks and chooses to solve problems by himself with no guidance from
others. Some of his methods to approaching day-to-day tasks such as preparing lunch
or going to the dentist are approached in a manner bizarre to anyone watching the
show. This is where the humour derives from. Mr. Bean is not necessarily someone
with a mental disability, he may just be an eccentric person accustomed to dealing
with things his own way. And naturally some of his methods to completing a single
task often result in disaster, which we then see Mr. Bean try to resolve. Sometimes, we see Mr. Bean show a mean or petty streak, often trying to
compete with those around him or play pranks on those least expecting it. But no
real harm comes to anyone at the end of the day and outcomes are always
reassuring. Unlike most examples of British comedy in the past 30 years,
MR. BEAN is simple, inoffensive, harmless U-rated entertainment suitable for
everyone in the family to enjoy. It is for this reason why the TV series became a
big hit in dozens of countries throughout the world. It is also why it will still
be remembered in several decades from now when lots of other TV shows will have
come, gone and been forgotten. Some critics claim the show only appeals
to children yet I laugh just as much at Mr. Bean's antics now as I did when I first
saw the episodes as a kid in the 1990s. Rowan Atkinson has used his natural ability
to create effective visual gags that seem just as funny on repeat viewings as they
did the first time. The TV series has to date spawned two spin-off
movies, BEAN and MR. BEAN'S HOLIDAY. As one familiar with the type of humour shown
in the TV series would expect, it does not translate to success on the big screen.
The two movies do little justice to the TV series and fail to truly capture the
magic of the episodes. The greatest failing in both movies perhaps resides in the
change of setting. In both movies, the producers take Mr. Bean out of his normal
British surroundings into America (the first movie) and France (the second movie).
As a result, the movie characters around Mr. Bean respond differently to his
behaviour than their TV series counterparts. Both movies re-use gags from the TV
series, and the evidence shows that the gags were done right the first time. In the
second movie, Mr. Bean is shown to be behaving out-of-character with some aspects
of his personality exaggerated to the point where some gags seem dumb rather than
funny. At various times, I found myself thinking that the character I was watching
was not Mr. Bean but a pale caricature. It is clear that Rowan Atkinson was not
enjoying himself as much as he did in the TV series. His heart just wasn't in the
performance. After the second movie came out, he stated publicly that he would not
play Mr. Bean again. I realise how he felt. Returning to the TV series,
each episode shows evidence of meticulous planning in terms of writing and
execution in every single scene. Even the weakest episode is still highly enjoyable
and well ahead of the two movies. My favourite episodes are the first
three - these set the high standard that was to continue. I consider the final
episode to be the weakest but still hilarious nonetheless. To summarise,
MR. BEAN is a truly superb sitcom suitable for all the family. Rowan Atkinson is a
true comic genius and the evidence is in the 14 episodes of this TV series. My
recommendation - watch and enjoy. But only see the movies if you consider yourself
a die-hard fan after seeing the TV series.
Because Mr. Bean almost never speaks, I heartily recommend using a DVD player with
the teacher holding his finger over the pause/play button. At the end of any age
group's lesson, simply devote 5 minutes to pausing and playing the DVD, encouraging
students to shout out the answers to "What's this?", "What will happen?", "What's
happening?", "What's wrong?", or any other question that elicits responses from
that lesson's new vocabulary and grammar. Because everyone's looking at
the TV, normally shy students become vocal. Because the DVD can be started or
stopped at any point, it's a perfect "filler" for the awkward "between" times while
students are leaving and arriving. I tried other DVDs, notably "Tom &
Jerry" cartoons and Red Skelton DVDs, but no others were as good as "Mister Bean"
at holding students' constant attention.
This TV series is about a foolish and unconventional English gentleman who gets up
to all sorts of merry mishaps. I remember watching Mr Bean with my
family back in 1990, when I was still a child. My family laughed so hard at every
episode, and the contents of which still come up in our daily conversations twenty
years later. The memorable scenes which are still in my head include Mr Bean
attempting to get out of his car park, shooting out the lights, counting sheep, and
him in the swimming pool. We bought all the Mr Bean videos on VHS, no mater how
expensive they were. It was worth it because we watched them over and over again!
It is so rare to see a very funny TV series that is suitable for all ages.
Mr. Bean has shaped the face of British TV comedy. He has proved that you do not
need wicked words or wit, a massive budget, a great deal of intelligence or even
any intelligence to make something brilliant. And Mr. Bean is one of those
characters who you just can't forget. Some of these episodes had me in stitches -
yes, they're not realistic at all and they're all pretty stupid, but to be honest,
realism is one of the barriers Bean has broken on its way to greatness. Rowan
Atkinson and co. always manage to cook up interesting new ideas - and hilarious new
gags - remember when Mr. Bean drove his green Mini whilst sitting on a sofa on the
roof? Mr. Bean is one of those things that never gets weak - the movie wasn't as
good as this, but Bean has introduced a distinct new sense of humour to the world,
and kids and adults alike will marvel at its immense fun factor. "Extras" and
"Little Britain" can be damned - this is British comedy at its best and most
original. These escapades never get old! 10/10
Mr. Bean has always been my favorite. No matte how many times you watch the same
thing, the show never gets monotonous or repetitive. Mr. Bean is one of the
greatest comedians in the world who doesn't need to even speak to make people
laugh. His gestures, his facial expressions and his face itself is so funny to
watch. The situations which he faces on the show is simply hilarious and the way he
handles them is even greater. There is simply no reason why this show shouldn't
receive a 10 because it is fabulous. Its something that would even make the most
serious or sad person in the universe laugh. Some of my all time favorites episodes
from the show are: 1) When Mr. Bean lodges at a hotel 2) The one where he watches
the scary film 3) Mind the baby ( The diaper scene especially). In fact, all the
episodes are so good that it is really difficult to criticize the show. Mr.Bean can
go to any heights to prove that he is funny, including completely stripping himself
in one of the episodes. the way he handled that situation was simply mind blowing.
10 out of 10.
'Oldboy' director Park Chun-wook returns with what must be one of the yuckiest and
at the same time most serious vampire flicks in movie history. Trusting
the latest Hollywood fad, vampires these days are supposed to be rather nonviolent,
asexual, love-lorn chevaliers instead of the evil rampantly sexual blood-sucking
mind-manipulating man-beasts of yore. This is the film you want to see if you want
to remember the sticky thrills of the past... well, at least in the second half. 'Thirst' starts out with a lengthy character exposition culminating in a
slightly different love story. The vampire transformation of a priest is, over
quite some time, sidelined by the romantic and sexual aspects of the story, which
makes for some awkward viewing. But the last 40 minutes or so are surprisingly
gory. Well, maybe not so surprisingly if you know 'Oldboy' and 'I'm a Cyborg but
that's OK', but I guess it's fair to say that 'Thirst' beats Park's earlier films
in terms of in-your-face violence. All in all, be warned that this is
neither art cinema nor a horror flick. It may be too disgusting for many and too
tame for some. 'Thirst' is original, entertaining and fortunately a little less
weird than Park Chun-wook's earlier endeavors.
Rowan Atkinson delivers an unforgettable performance as the clueless Mr. Bean who
never goes far without his Teddy Bear. The appeal of Mr. Bean is largely his
childish behavior and innocence. We don't know if he came from the sky or another
planet. He is the kind of strange character that you can't make up quite easily. He
is often alone and used to it. He has a hard time communicating through speech
which might be why we only hear his grunts at times. There are other characters who
speak to him and he responds. The character of Mr. Bean is a mystery and still is.
He lives alone and does the unthinkable when he can do the sensible thing. Mr. Bean
is rather an odd man out who does not mind it much. He rather live a simple life
with his yellow car and teddy bear and hopes to get to work on time.
Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean ranks right up there with Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton,
the Marx Brothers and other comedy greats. I have never seen people laugh out loud
so heartily and literally fall out of their chairs as when I introduced them to Mr.
Bean via my videos and now DVDs. I'll never forget the first time my brother saw
him. He was over for a visit and I asked him if he'd ever seen Mr. Bean? "Who?" he
said. So I got out my video and showed him the one where Mr. Bean is in church and
starts to nod off. My brother laughed so hard he fell out of the chair and was
holding his stomach from laughing so hard. He became an instant fan of Mr. Bean. We
all know how hilarious these episodes are, but the fun is in sharing them with
others. I have seen so many people laugh 'til it hurts! Favorite episodes are: the
visit of the Queen, the Hotel room stay, late for the Dentist appointment, the
Christmas episode (a classic...plus kids love it!) and the New Year Party. Rowan
Atkinson is a comic genius!
Rowan Atkinson's creation Mr.Bean has stood the test of time and will be forever
etched upon the memory of those who viewed it. Living alone and
appearing not to have a job of any description Mr.Bean goes around doing day to day
activities in a rather comedic fashion.The mistake prone Mr.Bean induces heartfelt
laughter when put even in the most simplest situations.Though he barely spoke any
coherent words his jovial actions more than made up for this. Even when
driving in his beloved Mini Mr.Bean still manages to cause inadvertent chaos.Not
very much is known about his background but his ability to draw tears of laughter
from the audience at his funny shenanigans is well known. Before he
found fame Nick Hancock can be seen in a couple of the episodes
This is a wonderful family sitcom. Rowan Atkinson has appeared in to other
excellent sitcoms, The Thin Blue Line (Better than this) and Blackadder (Not better
than this). Mr Bean is a no talking, human disaster. He goes to places
and gets himself in absolute mayhem, the mayhem includes: Climbing up to the top
diving board and is too frightened to jump off, taking about 20 minutes, until some
kids eventually throw him off, ending up inside a washing machine and driving his
car while sat on a roof. Bean drives a Mini and has a teddy. This was
quite similar to The Baldy Man, a series staring Gregor Fisher who says very
little, but gets himself in mayhem Best Episode: Do it Yourself Mr Bean, Episode 9:
Bean hosts a New Years Eve party, then gets some stuff for decorating his flat, but
has too much stuff and has to drive his car on the roof.
...the last time I laughed this much. It's a testament to the talent of Rowan
Atkinson that he has managed to create a comic character with several layers and a
clearly defined personality - without hardly ever speaking a word. The whole
success of the program rests on Atkinson's shoulders, but he carries it with ease.
Despite the fact that the show only ran for one season, anyone even vaguely in
touch with pop culture recognizes the rubber-faced social 'tard, so great is the
talent and effort put into the performance. At times exasperating, at times
lovable, Mr Bean is an innocent, unlucky chap who also happens to be evil
incarnate. The brilliance of this character cannot be put into words, you have to
see for yourself. The show gets almost too depressing at times, like in
the infamous New Year's Eve sketch, or when Bean celebrates his birthday by going
alone to a restaurant, offering himself a congratulatory card signed by himself,
and being served a stake he doesn't quite fancy. Still, there are times when you
can't help but feel impressed by the inventive methods by which Bean gets himself
out of trouble, like when he disposes of said stake in numerous clever-ish ways, or
when he changes into swimming trunks without taking his trousers off first!
Whatever your reaction to Bean and his unorthodox lifestyle, you're bound to throw
fits of laughter while watching. Finally, I'd like to point out that
although "Bean" is classified as a program for children, it is just as enjoyable
for any grown-up with a sense of humour. Because the more "adult" jokes will go
over the heads of the little ones and the intelligent slapstick (yes, there is such
a thing) is funny no matter what age you are, "Bean" is the truest definition of a
family show. This is justly a classic and it always brightens up my day.
"Mr. Bean", starring the legendary Rowan Atkinson, was a huge hit during its run in
the 1990s, and I probably first saw it when I was around ten, shortly after it
ended, so I was seeing reruns. I certainly wasn't much of a fan at the time, and
didn't see too many episodes. I didn't really get into the show until my late
teens, just a few years ago, which was when I finally watched every episode. Unlike
before, it made me laugh many times, and since then, that has always been the case
during repeat viewings of episodes! Mr. Bean is a mysterious, self-
centred, antisocial, extremely naive buffoon whose best friend is his Teddy! He is
pretty much isolated from society, and life is not easy for him, as he constantly
struggles with very simple things! This is because he lacks some fairly basic
knowledge, and has the mind of a child. He finds himself in various kinds of
trouble wherever he goes, and comes up with very bizarre ways to try and solve the
problems he faces! Not only does he often cause trouble for himself, but sometimes
for other people as well, which he often doesn't tend to realize! In other words,
Mr. Bean is a walking disaster! The humour in this show is very visual,
and there is very little dialogue. The gags are almost always sight gags, which is
mostly what the show is about. While there may be an occasional lacklustre gag, I
would say the vast majority of them are funny, often hilarious, (there are so many
highlights)! While "Mr. Bean" is certainly not the most sophisticated comedy ever
made, it's still great for many of those who like visual humour, and due to the
very limited dialogue, you don't even have to speak fluent English to enjoy the
show, which is why it has received such a world-wide reputation! The show ran for a
few years, but the episodes were made very gradually, so only fourteen were made in
total. Nonetheless, it is a classic series, and deserves its wide appeal!
Mr Bean was great fun, i loved it, every episode was really funny, Rowan Atkinson
was perfect for this role, he's a funny looking bloke and his facial expressions
were hilarious!!! The series was so successful that they even made a Mr
Bean movie in 1997, which was also pretty funny by the way!! It's funny
seeing all the adventures and situations he gets himself into, this series was a
classic for sure, and i still watch an episode from time to time. Mr
Bean is well worth a 10/10 in my book, fans of offbeat comedy must check this out.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday
Night * Monday Morning Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson) is in this world, but
not of this world. His mind simply doesn't seem to comprehend things the way an
average person would and his life is one long disaster because of this, getting
himself into constant mishaps and far out, zany situations, which he is left to
sort out on his own as he doesn't seem to mix with anyone and he rarely speaks. But
he never gives up and, despite the simplest of tasks being a constant struggle for
him, applying his own zany methods of solving the problem always pays off for him
in the end. To look at the sorry state of modern British humour, with
all it's focus of sex and general vulgarity, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that
a show like Mr Bean was made at one time. There's nothing unsuitable going on here,
just good, clean U rated humour of the type Tommy Cooper and the like made in the
50s. And I find it just as laugh out loud funny now in my early 20s as I did when I
was a young boy in the early 90s. Although I can look at it a little
deeper now and see there must be more to this character than than meets the eye.
There must be a reason why he does things the way he does and things seem to keep
going wrong for him. As others have noted, it looks like he may have a type of
autism. In fact I'm so convinced about it that I really think were a professional
psychologist to analyse him, I think Mr Bean could be the first famous, fictional
character to be diagnosed with something like Asperger's Syndrome. If
you'd like to see some truly hilarious British humour at it's very best before it
all became obsessed with sex and vulgarity, then this would come highly
recommended. Shows like Little Britain do work because it's well realised but it's
really just as vulgar as the rest. Shows like this show we were more restrained and
civilised once, and hopefully we might start putting out this type of humour more
again sometime soon. *****
Hearkening back to those "Good Old Days" of 1971, we can vividly recall when we
were treated with a whole Season of Charles Chaplin at the Cinema. That's what the
promotional guy called it when we saw him on somebody's old talk show. (We can't
recall just whose it was; either MERV GRIFFIN or WOODY WOODBURY, one or the other!)
The guest talked about Sir Charles' career and how his films had been out of
circulation ever since the 1952 exclusion of the former "Little Tramp' from Los
Estados Unidos on the grounds of his being an "undesirable Alien". (No Schultz,
he's NOT from another Planet!) CHARLIE had been deemed to be a
'subversive' due to his interest and open inquiry into various Political and
Economic Systems. Everything from the Anarchist movement from the '20s (and
before), the Technocracy craze to Socialism in its various forms were fair game for
discussion at Chaplin's Hollywood parties; which of course meant the inclusion of
the Soviet style, which we commonly call Communism. COMPOUNDING Mr.
Chaplin's predicament was both confounded by one little detail. He had never become
an American Citizen. ANYHOW, enough of this background already! SUFFICE it to say that he had become 'Persona Non Gratis' in the United
States of America. .It was high time to get the old films out of the mothballs and
back out to the Movie Houses. It'd sure be a great gesture by us easily forgiving
and quickly forgetting Americanos. IT would be a fine gesture to the
great film making artist; besides, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences
was planning to honor Chaplin with a special tribute at the 1972 Oscar Show. This
would surely be a tearful yet joyous packaging of pathos a plenty for having
America invite Charlie back and have him come and receive a special Academy
Lifetime Achievement Award in front of a World-wide Television Audience numbering
in the Millions. BESIDES, that would be a natural for promoting the
Chaplin Season at the Theatre! (Remember, the Little Tramp was as astute as a
Bu$ine$$ Man as he was as a Film Maker!) THE program consisted of showings of
MODERN TIMES, CITY LIGHTS, THE GREAT DICTATOR, MONSEUR VERDOUX, A KING IN NEW YORK
and finally THE CHAPLIN REVUE. We remember being very excited in the anticipation
of the multi date film fest. IN our fair city of Chicago, it was booked
for the Carnegie Theatre on Rush Street. The festivities lead off with MODERN TIMES
and all of the others would be shown one at a time, each staying for whatever
period was necessary in order to satisfy the public's desire to view each picture.
As we recall, the very last on the schedule was THE CHAPLIN REVUE. IN
RETROSPECT, we look back and wish that they had begun the run with REVUE; as there
were undoubtedly legions of moviegoers (much like ourselves) who knew very little
about his accomplishments in motion pictures, except for those Keystone, Essanay
and Mutual Silent Shorts that were being shown as regular feature on so, so many
Kiddy Shows all over the country. Oh well, once again, no one consulted me! CONCENTRATING on today's honored guest film, THE CHAPLIN REVUE, we found
that it was actually three separate pictures; carefully bound together by the use
of narration by Chaplin (Himself), some lively Themes and Incidental Music (once
again written by Chaplin) and some happy talk and serious narration (Ditto, by
Chaplin.) He opens up the proceedings by making use of some home movie-type of film
depicting the construction of the Chaplin Studio in Hollywood, as well as some film
taken of some rehearsal time, showing Director Chaplin demonstrating just what he
wants to a group of actors. THIS segment was well done and well received
by the audience. Both the building humor and the rehearsal were amplified by making
them seem accelerated. (The rehearsal naturally, the building by use of speeding up
the camera's photographic process. The old trick makes it appear that the buildings
were almost building themselves. THIS amalgam of shorts incorporated
three of Chaplin's short comedies from his stint with First National Pictures.;
roughly that being 1917 to 1923. The choice was well thought out and gave us a wide
variety of subject matter and mood. FIRST up was SHOULDER ARMS (Charles
Chaplin Productions/First National Pictures, 1918). As the title suggests, it is a
tale of World War I. Released in October of 1918 with about a month to go before
the Armistice Day of November 11, it was a comedy of comical Army gags and a
romance between Private Chaplin and a French Girl (Miss Edna Purviance). The levity
is fast, physical and in the grand old tradition of ridiculing the Enemy, the
German Army. DISPLAYING an excellent example of the old adage about
Children and Dogs bringing folks together, the next film A DOG'S LIFE (Chaplin
Productions/First National, 1918) traces the parallel lives of Chaplin's Tramp and
a newly adopted stray, Scraps. The movie story involves families, two of them. One
Homo Sapiens, one Canine and both supplying us with some big surprises. AS the finale, we have THE PILGRIM (Chaplin/First National, 1923) was a good
choice to have as the finale. It was bright, light and tight. It was an excursion
into the area of the Western Spoof, Comedies of such type having been done since by
every comedian and team. The "Pilgrim" in the story is not of your standard
Thanksgiving Variety; but rather a "dude" or "Tenderfoot", who has ventured out
West. The Tramp is not only that guy; but his character is an escaped Convict who
is mistakenly thought to be the new Clergyman of a Western town's Church! OUR Rating (that is Schultz and Me) is ****. (That's Four Derbies) POODLE SCHNITZ!!
Most of Chaplin's most famous films are his full-length features. And, I assume
most people have at most seen only a few clips of him from his pre-feature days
when he starred in dozens and dozens of comedy shorts. This is really a shame, as
some wonderful shorts are pretty much waiting to be discovered by the world in the
21st century. If someone watches this film they have an excellent chance
to see some of Chaplin's better shorts because Chaplin himself chose these three
shorts and strung them together with a bit of narration to make this 1959 feature
film. This is great for several reasons. First, in Chaplin's earliest films from
1914-1915, his character of the Little Tramp is still in its earliest incarnations
or is absent altogether. Plus, even when he is there, he was often mean-spirited
and self-centered--something very alien from the Little Tramp we have grown to
love. Second, because the shorts that were chosen were in great condition, if you
watch this film you won't need to worry about watching scratchy film with gaps and
lousy musical accompaniment that doesn't fit the action (a common problem). So, for a great look at Chaplin's shorts at their finest, give this film a
chance. It's sure to provide you some excellent laughs.
Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a
brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and
often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying. Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with
some of the "rules" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man
who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind
of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to
the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to
survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is
to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great
distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the
collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a
rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides
his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle,
becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that
could lead him from man to beast to monster. Deftly blending a number of
genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right
One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to
material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of
other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama
and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over
life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc. Some people have
complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally
found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a
great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from
a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range
of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman
(played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and
affection. Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans
of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet
another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and
always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment. See
this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man.
I attended an advance screening of this film not sure of what to expect from Kevin
Costner and Ashton Kutcher; both have delivered less than memorable performances &
films. While the underlying "general" storyline is somewhat familiar, this film was
excellent. Both Costner and Kutcher delivered powerful performances playing
extremely well off each other. The human frailties and strengths of their
respective characters were incredibly played by both; the scene when Costner
confronts Kutcher with the personal reasons why Kutcher joined the Coast Guard
rescue elite was the film's most unforgettable emotional moment. The "specific"
storyline was an education in itself depicting the personal sacrifice and demanding
physical training the elite Coast Guard rescuers must go through in preparation of
their only job & responsibility...to save lives at sea. The special effects of the
rescue scenes were extremely realistic and "wowing"...I haven't seen such angry
seas since "The Perfect Storm". Co-star Clancy Brown (HBO's "Carnivale" - great to
see him again) played the captain of the Coast Guard's Kodiak, Alaska base in a
strong, convincing role as a leader with the prerequisite and necessary ice water
in his veins. The film wonderfully, and finally, gives long overdue exposure and
respect to the Coast Guard; it had the audience applauding at the end.
The three shorts included on this compilation issued in 1959 are timeless Chaplin
classics, nothing wrong with them and nothing to criticize either. Chaplin's score
for these films and the framework added as bridging sections between the shorts are
also well done. The problem with this compilation is a minor one, yet annoying. The
shorts have been stretch-printed to fit the 24 frame p.s. speed of contemporary
films whereas the shorts themselves where shot at 20 frames p.s. This results is
jerky motion that doesn't look very attractive, and yet this was an excusable
solution given the limitations of optical printing technology at the time, it's
just not excusable that the current DVD version is unrestored, the films look dirty
as they did in 1959 and are still stretch printed. There are separate restored
versions of these classics available, even on DVD, and it would not be a problem to
restore the image, but alas this has not been done. A minor quibble has
taken up a lot of space in my article, but I say again a minor quibble, it should
not detract all that much from the experience although it detracted one point from
my rating. The shorts are still worth '10'.
In the late 1940s there was a short film series entitled "Flicker Flashbacks" in
which excerpts from silent dramas featuring the likes of Mary Pickford and Blanche
Sweet were played for laughs. Scratchy clips from antiquated old movies were
rearranged, projected too fast, and given an overlay of jangly music and lame
quips. The attitude expressed through this brutal treatment pretty much summed up
mid-century Hollywood's view of its early days: silent cinema was considered hokey,
florid, a little embarrassing, and only good for a chuckle. During the 1950s this
attitude gradually began to change for a number of reasons. James Agee's famous
1949 essay on the silent clowns for Life Magazine was a factor, but television
played a major role in reacquainting viewers with silent movies. Admittedly, the TV
networks sometimes handled the material as crudely as the "Flicker Flashbacks"
people, but higher-toned series such as "Silents, Please" treated the films with
respect. Another milestone was Robert Youngson's compilation feature THE GOLDEN AGE
OF COMEDY, which proved to be something of a surprise hit when it was released to
theaters late in 1957. I don't know if Charles Chaplin was aware of
Youngson's film or its success at the box office, but it was around this time that
he decided to launch a theatrical re-release of three of his best short comedies, A
DOG'S LIFE, SHOULDER ARMS (both made in 1918), and THE PILGRIM (made in 1922 and
released the following year). These three movies happened to work well as a trio
since they contrast nicely in plot, theme, and setting. In addition, all three
feature familiar faces from Chaplin's stock company, some of whom play multiple
roles in each short. At the time of the re-release the films hadn't been publicly
screened in over thirty years, so perhaps Chaplin was concerned about maintaining
his reputation with a new generation of movie-goers, especially since his best work
was seldom shown on television in the new medium's early days. Unfortunately, Chaplin apparently concluded that the films moved too quickly at
the old silent projection speed, so the decision was made to "stretch-print" them,
which meant that every other frame was printed twice. Maybe he wanted to avoid the
'Flicker Flashbacks' look, but this wasn't the best way to go about it.
Aesthetically speaking, the results were awful and practically destroyed the
movies' flow of action, but nonetheless that's how THE CHAPLIN REVUE was released
to theaters in 1959, and that's the version that was transferred to video and made
commercially available by Playhouse Video in the 1980s. I purchased a VHS copy of
the movie at the time and was terribly disappointed with the jerky, stop-and-start
rhythm of the films. It's a particular pleasure to find that David
Shepard's restoration of Chaplin's compilation (originally produced for the laser-
disc format) is a vast improvement over the Playhouse Video version. For the most
part, the projection speed has been corrected. The "stretch-printing" is gone at
any rate, though the action seems to drag a bit at times. For example: in A DOG'S
LIFE during Edna & Charlie's awkward dance in the Green Lantern Cafe, Edna's bare
arms appear visibly blurred; at another point, during the trench scene in SHOULDER
ARMS when Charlie is relieved from sentry duty, the action appears oddly slowed-
down for a few moments, but this may be the result of a maneuver by the film
restorers to cover a bit of decomposition. Over all, picture quality is fantastic
considering the age of the movies themselves. Other bonuses: the REVUE
begins with rare behind-the-scenes footage taken at the Chaplin studio. This
includes shots of an obviously staged, jokey rehearsal session where Chaplin
throttles diminutive actor Loyal Underwood, as well as scenes of Charlie at his
dressing table putting on his makeup and trimming the famous mustache. These scenes
are accompanied by Chaplin's narration, delivered at a rapid clip. Chaplin also
composed a new musical score for the compilation, and in my opinion his themes for
the REVUE rank with his best compositions, especially the pieces used during the
café sequence in A DOG'S LIFE. The only exception is the song written for THE
PILGRIM, a pseudo-Singin' Cowboy number called "Bound for Texas" sung 'Fifties-
style by Matt Monro (sounding rather like Gene Autry), which is distractingly
anachronistic and out of place. Otherwise, throughout the rest of the REVUE, the
music is perfectly suited to the action and the atmosphere. It feels as
though the Image release of THE CHAPLIN REVUE is, in a sense, its long-postponed
debut, presenting these classic comedies the way they were meant to be seen all
along. In this form, the REVUE ranks with Chaplin's most durable and enjoyable
works.
this movie gets a 10 because there is a lot of gore in it.who cares about the plot
or the acting.this is an Italian horror movie people so you know you can't expect
much from the acting or the plot.everybody knows fulci took footage from other
movies and added it to this one.since i never seen any of the movies that he took
footage from it didn't matter to me.the Italian godfather of gore out done himself
with this movie.this is one of the goriest Italian movies you will ever see.no gore
hound should be without this movie in their horror movie collection.buy this movie
no matter what it is a horehounds dream come true.
I honestly have to say that A CAT IN THE BRAIN is one of the most fun and
unintentionally hilarious films I've ever seen. This film is packed with stupid
dialog, ridiculous scenes, and a self-involving plot, starring legendary horror
director Lucio Fulci himself. The threadbare story-line is about an
aging director (Fulci, who is also named Lucio Fulci in the film...)who is starting
to go nuts and hallucinate because of all the vicious things he's put down in film
over the past many years. He goes to a shrink who hypnotizes Fulci, and tells him
that he will believe himself to be a killer, but that the shrink will actually be
the one doing the killing. The rest of the film is made up of shots from the "film"
that Fulci is directing during all this action, scenes of the shrink killing people
all-the-while grinning like a f!cking moron, and some of Fulci's hallucination
sequences. Oh, and a few tits thrown in for good measure as well... A
CAT IN THE BRAIN is completely over-top-and ridiculous in every sense. The gore is
classic Fulci - nasty and strong with some really decent scenes. The chainsaw
sectioning of a female corpse is pretty cool, as is the chainsaw beheading of a
small boy. Lots of stabbings, gougings and other cool kill-scenes make this one a
pretty non-stop bloodbath. The ridiculous dialog (LICK IT!!!!LICK IT!!!), as well
as some of the insanely goofy scenes (the Nazi orgy, the opera singing slap-fest
and the running down of an innocent hippy come easily to mind...) make this one fun
as hell. Not nearly as dark as some of Fulci's other films - CAT is more of a self-
indulgent horror/comedy that if it wasn't meant to be funny, is actually kind of
sad. I say to grab a fifth of cheap bourbon and settle in to this one. I watched
CAT with a few friends and we laughed the entire time. THIS is the feel-good movie
of the summer...Recommended 8/10
This is an interesting movie. I think it's very humorous, although the humor is
very black. Fulci is good and funny acting himself, it's a really funny and truly
crazy "self-portrait" of an artist ("I make horror films. If I would make love
films, no-one would buy tickets..."). And it's really SEXY movie also: Almost all
the time there is some "action" or tension going on; and many sexy girls/women...
Maybe it goes to the core of why anyone starts to do movies/art in the first
place... It's a real psychedelic trip, maybe best seen a little drunk or some
similar state of mind. There is some really nasty gore scenes also, of course,
because it's Lucio Fulci. As a matter of fact some of those scenes are quite
disgusting. Anyway it's one of the three best and most complete Fulci films I've
seen (the others are House By The Cemetery & Zombi.Haven't seen The Beyond).
Actually, the script is overally, to my opinion, quite ingenious. You could see
this movie as a portrait of an extreme neurotic, or a person who suffers from
obsessive-compulsive disorder (fashionable words): The character has a compulsive
need to confess "crimes" or bad thoughts; Especially crimes he hasn't even DONE.
And he questions himself all the time: What if I HAVE done it? What if I want to do
it? Have I done it? Do I want to do it? He overreacts and exaggerates his thoughts.
I'm sure Fulci has been interested of psychology, and maybe even read something of
the area; in his "House By The Cemetery"-movie for example there is a character
named Freudstein. This is maybe the most concentrated and straightly personal movie
Fulci did. I also like the simplicity of the photography/pictures in this film.
Only thing that disturbs me a little bit is the sadism, especially towards women; I
don't quite understand why? Is it entertainment? Is it art? Is it horror? Anyways
and overall, this is really interesting and well made movie, definitely recommended
classic film at least for fans or anyone interested of this genre. For the others
it may be too much.
Lucio Fulci was one of the most prolific Italian directors by the time of his death
in 1996, yet his career had long since descended into a downward spiral of
increasingly futile genre entries that could barely stand in the shadow of his
earlier work. For much of the '70s into the mid-'80s, he cranked out such
stylistically distinctive horrors as "City of the Living Dead," "The Beyond," and
the brutal giallo "The New York Ripper," fondly remembered by fans like myself. And
while "Cat in the Brain" falls in with the era of Fulci's decline as a filmmaker,
it is a shocking, darkly hilarious headtrip that, while a clearly inferior work
(the framing, effects, and acting are below par), proves an interesting, open-ended
meditation on pop psychology and film's ability to desensitize. Make no mistake:
"Cat in the Brain" is a total gorefest, and as disjointed as Fulci's previous
films, but it deserves credit for trying to be something more. In a deliciously
tongue-in-cheek touch, Fulci plays himself: a director in the midst of filming yet
another violent horror flick who comes down with perverse/murderous hallucinations;
after visiting a shrink who puts him under hypnosis, his dreams and reality begin
to intersect, to the point where the viewer cannot discern the two. The recent DVD
from Grindhouse Releasing mentions "Cat" as an heir apparent to the likes of
"Eraserhead," and it does carry a similarly disquieting, awkwardly funny quality
associated with the best surrealist art.
Fulci... Does this man brings one of the goriest and weirdest movies ever made?
Answer: yes! Cat in the Brain, also known as Nightmare Concert is Fulci's last
masterpiece. Yes it is, no matter what some people will say about it. There are few
facts why this movie is one of the best Fulci's movies. Fulci make a fun
of himself and his movies with this one. Lead roll in this movie is no other then
Fulci himself, who plays... well horror-splatter-gore director, who thinks he is
slowly going insane. It's filled with black humor which unlike in the most of the
modern horror movies works here. Being Fulci flick, you need to know it's gory. How
much? Well pretty much. I always loved gore in the movies and I never get enough of
it, but Cat in the Brain actually stopped my thirst for gore, and believe me, it's
a hard to archive. Even the Braindead didn't stop it. CITB is all about gore.
Almost every scene revolves about Fulci, who after being hypnotized by *khmmm* evil
psychiatrists is seeing all kinds of horrors for everything that happens to him or
everything he sees. Some of the scenes involves him accidentally dropping the
whiskey, and instead of that he sees rotten corpse lying on the floor, which starts
to spit some ooze from it's wounds. Forget the Beyond or Zombie 2, this IS the
goriest Fulci movie! Now I like how Fulci manage to apply all those comic parts in
the gorefest movie. He is such a brilliant director. Some funny moments and lines
happens from time to time, like one where Fulci says "making gore movies is kind of
a sickness" Ending is very good considering that Fulci (and most of the Italian
horror masters) is know for making ending with no sense or many plot holes. If you
are fun of the Fulci, make sure you check it out. If you have a weak stomach, avoid
this and repeat "Its only a movie" ps. some of the gore scenes within this movie:
Chainsaw dismemberment (full), tongue torn out, eyeballs torn out, maggot infested
corpses, zombies, decapitations, face being putted in boiling water, stabs in the
shower (to head), throat slit, many parts of the body and organs being toast aside,
hammer smashed face...
In the late eighties and early nineties the decline and death of independent video
companies like Vestron and Media effectively shut off Italian horror films for much
of it's American audience. Coincidently(?) Italian genre films also declined in
quality and profitability. Occasionally movies like Primal Rage,
"sequels" like Beyond The Door III, Troll 2, and a few Dario Argento films limped
out onto video but most remained unreleased (until DVD) in the US for nearly a
decade or longer. Movies from these lost years became very sought after and talked
about among horror fans. Of these films, Cat In The Brain is probably
one of the most hyped of all due to the legions of Lucio Fulci fans and the fact
that it was not only directed by but also starred their idol, Fulci himself. Though not quite Fulci's best, it's still better than most of his later
efforts. His rabid fan-base will probably love it. Italian horror and giallo
aficionados might also enjoy it, depending on their tastes but I'm not sure about
anyone else. People who only watch Hollywood stuff might not want to take the word
of the many glowing reviews here. One thing I personally found
fascinating were the scenes featuring probably Benito Mussolini's only lasting
contribution to Italy, Cinecitta Studios. The name is instantly recognizable to any
fan of Italian movies. Until I saw it here, I could only imagine what it looked
like.
The one who says that Lucio Fulci is not one of the most important names in the
history of splatter is probably mad.The Italian director is a legend among
hardcore-horror fans,and his work exceeds the barriers of the genre(who can forgot
his western,crime or fantasy flicks).This is probably his goriest film,and
unfortunately one the last.A horror director(Fulci as himself) starts hallucinating
about gruesome murders.He goes to a psychiatrist,who makes him believe he is the
criminal.In this time,the doctor begins a long chain of serial crimes.With such a
plot,the movie should have been filled with something.And there are roting
corpses,crashed or melted heads,stabbings,decapitations,chainsaw dismemberment and
many others.Kind of boring sometimes,the film is saved by the excessive violence
that will definitely please the gore addicts.
I couldn't help but relish the entire premise of CAT IN THE BRAIN because it
dutifully explains a director's steadily going mad, seeing people murdered from
past movies he has made. Even mundane activities such as cooking a meal in the
microwave or running a faucet of water yield some horrific butchery from a film in
the past. Director Fulci playing himself, is directing GHOSTS OF SODOM(?)and can
not seem to deprive his mental well being from constant murder. He seeks help from
a psychiatrist who, instead, uses Fulci's work as a method to execute a series of
innocent people, hypnotizing the director into thinking that perhaps he's
responsible. This is obviously a film playfully poking fun at Fulci's
image, while exploring the themes of how such a profession, which produces so much
death and destruction, rarely untamed, could mold and shape a legacy. The film
features pretty much a wrap-around story surrounding non-stop graphic violence with
every possible way to kill a woman expressed in grisly detail. This has a shower
murder Hitchcock never could direct, or probably want to. The film's savagery
compliments the mental state of Fulci's Fulci(..I know)during the running time.
Reality and cinematic fiction have fused and Fulci can find no escape. The
ending(..explaining the old cliché:"It's only a movie")couldn't work any better
than it does here. Fulci's boat says Perversion(..excellent touch)and he sails
off..I can only wish this was his final film because that's a perfect close if
there ever was one. David L Thompson is the deranged psychiatrist planning to kill
his adulterous wife. Jeoffrey Kennedy is a cop Fulci fears had a family murdered by
the fiend. The ultra-violence in the film features plenty of unique ways
to take a head off such as the door to a chest, a scythe, a chainsaw, and hatchet.
The most brutal violence derives from nasty chainsaw activity as a dead body is
hacked to pieces(..how a gardener's chainsaw work on a log fits beautifully in one
nightmarish hallucination sequence)..the most shocking use of a chainsaw is when a
little boy gets decapitated! The opening scene with the puppet cat tearing away,
feasting on Fulci's brain, is a howler. The scenes which are spliced within the
film, featuring a horrified Fulci looking on, are obvious, but I couldn't help but
enjoy this anyway.
The great thing about Thirst, Chanwook Park's latest film, is that it's the anti-
Twilight. Some of you may take that as a minus, but in reality it's a big plus.
Park takes the method of vampirism seriously, and as well the torrid love story
between Sang-hyeon and Tae-Joo. We see the conflicts of both of the characters-
Sang-hyeon being a priest who undergoes a medical experiment that, unbeknownst to
him, turns him into a sickly but true-blue vampire, and Tae-Joo with her mother and
"idiot" brother, the latter is killed by Sang- as in a very strong melodrama.
There's nothing terribly weepy or insipid with the story and characters at any
point, and the implications put forth from religion early on (Sang, for example, is
seen as a healer of sorts since he rose from the dead thanks to his vampirism, even
as he just can't be that and knows it) on top of those about good vs evil, push it
up into another plane cinematically. That Thirst also rises up to the
awesome standard of artistry that Park has displayed with Oldboy, Lady Vengeance
and the underrated I'm a Cyborg but That's OK, should be taken as a given. Thirst
is a film with a juicy narrative and bizarre suburban characters, and is shot and
edited with an eye for a mood that is part satiric, part romantic/erotic, part
dramatic and lastly fantastical. And it doesn't always treat vampirsim as something
of a simple horror movie set-up (though as a horror movie Park has more than his
share of scary scenes). It's more akin to the movie Near Dark which never mentioned
the word vampire but let you know it was, and treated it with sincerity and a kind
of lucid track of attention, and that the disease itself and its effect on a
person's existence is perhaps scarier than the killings or bloodshed. Once you see
one vampire jump up really high or heal its wounds, you've seen em' all. Thirst also has a wicked sense of humor, much like Oldboy, only here with a
bite (pun intended) meant to emphasize bizarre physical states of being. An example
of this can be found with the Priest's predilection of sucking off of blood from
people in comas by taking their blood tube and suckling on it on the floor. Or the
manner in which Tae-Joo holds on to one scrap of humanity by keeping her mother
alive, even as she's had something like a stroke and can only blink her eyes and
tap one finger as a means of reacting to the blood-suckers who've brought pain and
horror to her home. But these moments are like icing on the cake to make it a
complete experience. What makes Thirst last in the mind is how elements come
together, of drama and existential pains, of a Bunuelian-surreal sense of
Catholicism (I especially loved the dynamic between Sang-hyeon and the other priest
who gives his arm up for blood-sucking but really wants to be a vampire too), and
of the erotic: the scenes where the priest finally gives in to Tae-Joo are
incredible in their pace and length of shots and how real it gets. Not in a
pornographic manner, but in the sense of these characters' release and escape,
which doesn't last long over the scope of the story. If it's not as
great as Oldboy, it's not something to carp about. Not all films Chanwook Park
directs will reach the stature of his masterpiece (and, at the least, he'll always
be known as the man who directed that movie). But Thrist is an excellent addition
to his oeuvre, and to the serious streak of vampire movies in general. The film-
making is crisp and exciting and even dangerous (and what a white room of
'daylight' the characters live in!), the humor is dark and hilarious, the acting is
intense and moody- especially from subtle strokes from Song Kang-ho and the quirky
evil and surprising vulnerability from Kim OK-vin, and the ending, when it does
finally get there, is one of those truly superb vampire-movie endings you'll be
talking about for years, in a good way. In a battle between Thirst and Twilight,
Thirst takes the knock-out in the first round. Between Let the Right One In or Near
Dark, it's tougher to call. 9.5/10
Un Gatto nel Cervello, or Nightmare Concert as it's more commonly know amongst
English speaking audiences, starts as horror film director Lucio Fulci (played by
the man himself Lucio Fulci) goes to lunch after filming a very gory & violent
scene, however he orders steak & has a horrible vision relating to cannibalism. The
grotesque visions, hallucinations & dreams continue & begin to affect his mental
state, Fulci decides to seek help & contacts Professor Egon Schwarz (Dvid L.
Thompson) for psychiatric help. Schwarz claims that Fulci cannot separate fantasy
from reality & agrees to help him, however Schwarz has a more sinister ulterior
motive as a serial killer starts to brutally kill prostitutes & Fulci thinks he
might be responsible.... This Italian production was co-written &
directed by Lucio Fulci who also stars in the film as a horror film director named
Lucio Fulci which doesn't really feel like a lot of effort went into it, anyway Un
Gatto nel Cervello is gory if nothing else & for that alone I rather liked it. The
script by Fulci, John Fitzsimmons, Giovanni Simonelli & Antonio Tentori is nothing
more than a threadbare excuse to edit together lots of gory footage from other
Italian films. It serves it's purpose well enough I suppose & to see Fulci on
screen has a certain fascination if your a fan of his or are familiar with his
films, the ending is very rushed almost as if they ran out of money as it just has
a policeman telling Fulci they killed the killer & that's it. Another thing about
that ending when the two cops put the white sheet over the dead killer in the field
& then they walk away leaving it there without any other police presence, I mean
would the police in Italy just leave a dead body in the middle of a field on it's
own? It moves along at a good pace & if you like your gore then you have to see
this although if you don't like gore then you'll hate it with a passion, it all
depends on your disposition so the choice folks is yours. Director Fulci
was never the most artistically adept filmmaker & it shows here as his footage is
bland, flat & looks like it was shot for TV, the footage from the other films (7 in
total) doesn't match the stuff Fulci shot & it is obvious that this has been pieced
together from different films. If your looking for gore you've hit the jackpot,
people are dismembered with chainsaws, put through meat grinders, faces are melted,
there are a few decapitations, there are some slit throats, someones body is gorily
crushed under a car, a tongue is ripped out, someone has their throat crushed as a
wheelchair runs over it, there are loads of stabbings, someone has their guts
removed with a hook, there's a rotten corpse complete with maggots, someone hand is
cut off, someone has their head bashed in & their eye falls out, a gory death by
piano wire as it slices through someones throat, there are loads of severed limbs,
gallons of blood splashed around & a scene of some cats eating brains & there's
more as well. Having said that some of the special effects are a bit fake & look
cheesy. With a supposed budget of around $100,000 it shows, this is
pretty cheap looking, it has no visual style or artistic merit but then again why
would you want those when you can see a Nazi orgy sequence & wall-to-wall gore? The
acting in this is terrible including Fulci. Un Gatto nel Cervello is a
top film if your a gore-hound like me, however if your looking for something with a
little bit more substance or indeed any substance then this ones not for you. This
is the sort of film which divides people straight down the middle, you'll either
love what it does or hate it.
"Cat In The Brain" is a series of extremely violent sequences knitted together by a
plot that feels more like an overview, describing director Lucio Fulci's most
notorious years of film-making. The movie could also be seen as a dark comedy of
sorts, effectively spoofing the various claims that violent cinema causes violence
in real life. Fulci goes further than that, he casts himself as the star, the
central figure of the film thus showing the audience who is the man behind all the
cinematic gore. "Cat in The Brain" is not about presenting a clear story and
following it. Instead it pokes fun at some of the clichés that have been
surrounding the horror genre for years. Lucio Fulci plays himself as a
horror director struggling to keep his humanity intact. Years of violent film
making have finally began to reach him. It starts slowly, steaks and meat in
general begin to disgust him, his colleagues assure Fulci that all he needs is some
rest. But that doesn't help and soon the grotesque ideas for his movies begin to
overwhelm his daily thoughts. In an attempt to find a cure for his dangerously
maddening mental state Lucio starts going to the local psychiatrist. Unfortunately
that does more wrong than good and Fulci is thrown into an even bigger mess, as the
psychiatrist turns out to be a psychopath, who mimics the murders from Fulci's
films in real life. The film retains all the trademarks of Italian
splatter cinema, good or bad they are all here. So any comments about the acting or
the technical aspects and budget constrains are quite irrelevant as to the quality
of the film. It is a visual experience, no doubts about it. Fulci throws in an
incredible amount of violence easily surpassing pretty much everything he's made.
Amputated by chainsaw limbs, cannibalism, child murder, decapitation, these are
just some of the many grotesque acts witnessed in "Cat In The Brain". Some of them
are obviously recycled from a few the director's less profile movies but they don't
stand out of the context, and actually feel quite at home here. As I noted before
the movie exists much better as a satire of the genre rather than a serious piece.
The way some of the violence is presented does help establish that idea. Such
sequences shortly after climax are rejected by the reality in the film, as they are
revealed to be actually scenes inside a movie that Fulci's character is directing.
This sort of "film in film" presentation lessens somewhat the impact of the gore.
But in no way does it make it an easy to watch film. Oh no this is far beyond and
above the levels of gore found in mainstream horror, and gorehounds will in no
doubt be satisfied with that fact. Lucio Fulci was a very polarized
figure. People either hate his work or love it. "Cat in the Brain" won't convince
any of Fulci's detractors in the opposite but it is nevertheless an interesting
part of his filmography. One that fans should really check out.
Fulci is one of my all time favorite Italian splatter directors. He is also a very
good story teller mixing horror, the supernatural, and psychedelic themes
altogether very well. This film was truly his last great story before he directed
such disappointments as "Voices From Beyond". The story is simple as Fulci plays
himself, a horror director. After years of filming splatter and gore films it seems
that Fulci starts to suffer a breakdown in which he starts hallucinating about
people being slaughtered. He decides to see a psychiatrist who only makes matters
worse when he convinces Fulci that he is killing people. Fulci used gore
scenes from several pictures around the same time. These films I don't believe he
directed but certainly produced. Some of those films are "Massacre" directed by
Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground), "Touch of Death" directed by Fulci, "The Murders
Secret" and I can't remember the rest of the films. Nightmare Concert is
a very underrated film, even by Fulci fans. But I loved this movie and have watched
it many times already. It is sad that Fulci didn't get a chance to direct anything
worth while after this but nonetheless this is a great film and I do recommend it
to any Fulci fan, whether you like it or not. 9/10 stars
"Un Gatto nel Cervello"/"Cat in the Brain" is one of the goriest horror movies ever
made.There is a lot of blood and gore,including chainsaw butchery,bloody stabbings
and numerous decapitations.The film is also interesting as "self parody" of
Fulci,but the gore and violence is the key element in it.Some of the gore FX were
taken from own Fulci's movies "Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio" and "I Fantasmi di
Sodoma"(both 1988),plus gore FX taken from Fulci-supervised "The Snake House" aka
"Bloody Psycho" by Leandro Lucchetti,"Massacre" by Andrea Bianchi,"Non Avere Paura
Della Zia Marta" by Mario Bianchi,"Non Si Sevizia i Bambini" by Giovanni Simonelli
and "Luna di Sangue" aka "Fuga dalla Morte" by Enzo Milioni(all 1989).The scene
where Brett Halsey beats the woman's face to pulp is from "Quando Alice Ruppe lo
Specchio",a film Fulci had made for Italian TV in 1988.The chainsawing of the
female corpse at the beginning is taken from the same film,as is the head in the
microwave and the guy that gets driven over and over again.Highly
recommended,especially if you like extreme cinema!
Lucio Fulci's Cat in the Brain is an inventive and somewhat egotistical tale of a
director's decent into madness. The director in question is Fulci himself, who
stars in the film. Fulci has become known to horror fans everywhere as 'the
godfather of gore', and for good reason, as he has provided us with some of the
nastiest and most gruesome films ever to grace the silver screen; from the eyeball
violence in films like 'Zombi 2', to a man been hacked to death with chains in 'The
Beyond', all the way to the full on gore fest known as 'The New York Ripper'; if
you want gore (and let's face it, who doesn't), Fulci is your man. However, all
this catering for gorehounds like you and I has taken its toll on Fulci's mental
state, and he's quickly delving into madness, brought about by what he films.
Fulci's problems don't end at his mental state either, as his psychiatrist that he
has gone to see about his problem has took it upon himself to take up murder as a
hobby, using Fulci's films as blueprints for the murders! I've got to
say, the acting in this film is absolutely atrocious. There is one scene in
particular that involves a hooker, and it's only fit to be laughed at, for both
it's acting and it's stupidity. Fulci takes the lead role of the film (obviously).
He's not an actor, and it shows, but his performance is actually the best in the
film. It's even safe to say that one the whole, the acting is bad for an Italian
horror film. Of course, nobody goes into an Italian horror expecting good acting,
so it's somewhat forgivable, but I do think that Fulci could have hired some better
ones. Bad dubbing doesn't exactly help either. However, something that does help is
the fact that the terrible acting is counterbalanced by lots of gore, and it's
extreme to say the least! People get their heads cut off, a woman is slain in the
shower (and unlike Psycho, here we REALLY see it), people are hacked up, fed to
pigs and there's lots and lots of cinema's finest melee weapon - the chainsaw on
display, which delighted me no end. The amount of gore is massively over the top a
lot of the time, which gives the film something of a 'spoof' feel, but Cat in the
Brain is obviously a tongue in cheek film anyway. It would be hard to
make a film about yourself and not come across as being a bit of a big head, and
Fulci does indeed come across as a bit of a big head in this movie. His name is
mentioned often, and he's on screen nearly all the time; it's not too much unlike
'New Nightmare' in the ego stakes, but it's obvious he had a good time making this,
and I for one had fun watching it, so we can forgive him a little egotism. The
film's ending lets it down - I saw it coming a mile off, but then didn't seriously
think that the movie would take that route, but I was wrong; it did, unfortunately.
The ending left me cold, and the film is a better watch if you turn it off just
before the final two minutes. However, despite it's ending and terrible acting, Cat
in the Brain is a lot of fun and will please Fulci enthusiasts no end, and it is
therefore recommended.
Well, this is new...Famous Italian horror director Lucio Fulci shoots a film about
a famous Italian horror director called...Lucio Fulci. After years and years of
witnessing gruesome horror sequences, it becomes hard for Lucio to separate reality
from fiction and he often hallucinates about committing violent murders. He quickly
descends further into a seemly endless spiral of madness and unverifiable venom.
Even the dedicated psychiatrist can't seem to keep Fulci on the right track... Now,
when it comes to pure fun and entertainment value, Cat in the Brain certainly is
one of Fulci's most pleasant films. The gore is overpowering and copious, to say
the least. The amount of filthy massacres is impossible to describe, especially
when you manage to get your hands on the fully uncut version (referred to with the
aka:"Nightmare Concert"). Decapitations all around, victims ' intestines are spread
on all sides of the screen and the chainsaws are working overtime! The film also
becomes unintentionally funny quite soon (since it's so exaggerated) and a perfect
experience to watch with a group of friends when there's beer in the fridge. Of
course, from a more professional viewpoint, this production can't exactly be called
a masterpiece! There's not the least bit of tension or atmosphere to detect and the
characters are completely empty-headed. In order to make more room for the gore,
characters are just being introduced for 5 seconds and subsequently die a horrible
death. Especially compared with Fulci's highlights - like "The Beyond" or "Don't
Torture a Duckling" - this film looks like a quickly warmed up snack. The best way
to interpret "Cat in the Brain" is like a personal statement made by Fulci and a
direct attack towards censorship. Perhaps after seeing so many of his films
especially the latter ones being cut by censorship committees and bashed by
pseudo-artistic critics, he wanted to avenge himself by delivering a gory mess that
simply can't be cut! If you take out all the explicit violence and the truly sick
make-up effects, you only got about 10 minutes of footage left! Especially because
the insane killings re-occur later in the film as Fulci hallucinates about them
again. You can almost hear our director think stuff like: "Let's see how you're
going to censor this now!" Even the entire development of the murder investigation
happens in the background. Are the victims missed by any of their friends or
relatives? Are there any police officers looking for clues that'll lead them to the
killer? You don't know and Lucio doesn't bother to inform you about that, because
that would lead to sequences that don't require cutting. Oh, and it's pretty damn
pretentious as well! The name "Mr. Fulci" or even "Lucio" is mentioned every 3
minutes (34 times throughout the entire movie, to be exact) and our director
clearly enjoys being in the spotlights for a change. Hey, I certainly don't blame
him...After over 30 years of delivering amusing movies; he deserved to have a
little extra fun. You're a God, Mr. Fulci!
I don't know what it is exactly, but the film is happily sitting on my shelf, with
no thought of ever leaving me...Fulci has crafted one of the most ridiculous,
bizzare, cheez-infested and well unique movies I've ever seen. Not sure what else
to say about it, but I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! The steak tartar scene is absolutely
uproarious, and the whole nazi torture orgy fiasco is strangely hilarious...I'm not
sure what Fulci was trying to do, but has anyone heard that, based on this film,
Fulci accused Wes Craven of ripping him off with "Scream"? "Cat in the Brain" is a
must for bad movie lovers everywhere...Yes I'll definitely say it's not a "good"
film, but I guarantee certain scenes will stick in your mind forever! This is an
exercise in craziness, people...I guess if I were a "serious" critic I'd give it a
3, but on sheer enjoyability (again I can't really explain my affections) I'd give
it a 7....Really whacked out flick...
This film, with only two characters, takes you closer to these two people, the
interrogator and the prisoner, than most films take you to any character, however
well-crafted. The sheer confusion, terror and pain which Madeleine
Stowe's character undergoes is deeply disturbing, as is Alan Rickman's sadistic yet
charming interrogator. This film is all too possible, and builds to a
shocking climax, the effect of the film as a whole leaving you sitting in silence
at the end. It'll haunt you for a long time.
Simply beautiful. One of the best mind-- umm... screws--- in existence. Both
Rickman and Stowe play their roles to the hilt in this tale of a childrens' book
writer who-- maybe?-- has written a subversive tract. Moscow could learn a few
things from the torture techniques in this film. They could also do worse than
hiring Alan Rickman. Five out of five stars, and at present (1-20-2000) #2 on my
top 100 films of all time list.
this movie had me stuck in this endless loop of thinking about it for days
afterward...granted i am not the movie snob that some folks around here appear to
be, but i thought this was amazingly well-acted, and a powerful creation, if
lacking a little subtlety in exectution. i happen to admire movies that can
effectively recreate the sensation of watching a stage play, it creates an
inharmonious eeriness that works well with this flick. i am also a great fan of
alan rickman, so that might be my bias. personally i found the lack of spatial
landmarks a good thing -- this could in fact be anywhere, and probably is. i say go
easy on what was a powerful experience for me, and likely for anyone involved in
any sort of political activity.
Korean cinema has the ability to turn genres on its head, and the latest by the
celebrated director Chan-wook Park is a tale of a good pious priest who becomes a
vampire. Add a temptress leading him astray and a cast of eccentrics and you have a
wonderful recipe. Directed in part in a style similar to the "Sympathy"
trilogy it's as sumptuous as it is dark. Steering clear of cliché it does offer
some new tricks in the overdone vampire genre. Its an existential movie trying to
capture the moral conundrum of how exactly a person has to choose to live with
their conditions rather than revel in the blood lust. However, the film doesn't
take itself too seriously and there is boundless humour throughout. Our
leads play their roles to perfection, playing with our emotions and revelling in
the dark humour. There are moments of reflection on the whole moral conundrums
involved in the film but its never preachy. Some might find it overlong and it can
lull at points but it's worth giving it a chance to the end. If you like
left field films then there are fewer better than this one of late. Dark and
engrossing, it will pull in a crowd. One I'd recommend you give a try.
Closet land is not at happy movie. Neither is it connected to any kind of social
realism. This is perhaps its strength. The distance from specific time and nations
strengthens the message, makes it more powerful and rips away the burden of
nationalism and propaganda you often sense in movies made to criticize nations in
opposit of ones own (I am of course primarily speaking of the USA propaganda in
some commercial film). Bit closet land is so much more than a message.
It is a film of pure, surrealistic beauty, filled with the same clean, clinical
form you find in work such as 1984 and it's equals. I am of old a big
fan of Alan Rickman, the man with the golden sarcasm (and, I might add, the
uncomparable sex-appeal ;-)). The outplay between him and Madeleine Stowe is
brilliant. Everytime I see him, he seems to play a character even nastier than the
last one... But, enough sweettalk. The film lacks in action. I dont want
any crashing cars, but I want something to happen, except pure talk. After an hour
I got really tired of the interrogationroom, the predictable actions and more than
anything I wanted a more complex view of it all, the world, the former lives of the
characters and all the rest of the framework that was missing. For some people a
nice touch. For me something less positive. Anyway, Closet Land is a
movie worth it's time if you are ready to make a trip into the abyss of the human
nature. And of course for us who really loves the Always Evil Alan
Rickman.
Closet Land is an amazing, terrifying piece of cinema. It features only two actors
in a single set, but never loses your attention. The set design is imaginative and
troubling, the staging of scenes maintains your attention, while adding to your own
sense of confusion and terror. The acting is outstanding, with Alan Rickman and
Madeleine Stowe having the duty of carrying every scene. I first saw
this film in 1991, soon after it came out on video. It didn't play in theaters
where I lived; not surprising, given its political content. It should be seen,
though. It features a brilliant staging of the torture and interrogation techniques
used by repressive societies to instill fear and obedience in its citizens. The
country is never named, which makes it all the more striking. It could be anywhere;
East, West, 3rd World, 1st World. It illustrates what happens when a small group of
people decide what is best for everyone; when government becomes the ruler of the
citizens, rather than the servant. Madeleine Stowe is a children's
author who has been dragged from her bed in the night and subjected to terror and
torture. She finds herself in a room with Alan Rickman, a seemingly pleasant
functionary. At first it seems a horrible mistake and she is free to go; but, fear
causes her to remain and the terror escalates. She is increasingly subjected to
physical and mental torture. The interrogator uses sensory deprivation, temporal
manipulation, confusion, auditory manipulation, role play, and twisted logic to
break down the author. She is humiliated and browbeaten, forced to endure strenuous
bodily positions, deprived of food and water. Through it all, she
refuses to give in; to do what the interrogator asks. She is told that it will all
end if she just signs a confession. A simple little act. She refuses. Through it
all, she employs defense mechanisms that have developed since childhood. It is
slowly revealed that she was the victim of childhood sexual abuse. To survive, she
developed fantasy worlds and characters that would take her away from the abuse.
These mechanisms allow her to transcend her torture and turn the tables on her
interrogator. She starts attacking his own beliefs and profession, forcing him to
examine his own life and motives. In the end, she is free, because she maintains
the freedom of thought. The interrogator is the one trapped by the state. This movie was made during the height of the Cold war, Apartheid, and at a
time when the crimes of many governments throughout the world made daily news. It
is even more timely in a world where "enemy combatants" are held and interrogated
in secret prisons, denied legal rights or counsel; where "ethnic cleansing" lays
waste to whole societies, and humanitarian aid is denied. It demonstrates that the
individual can stand up to the state or other oppressor by refusing to give in to
fear and terror.
I caught this movie late one night and never knew what hit me. This was one of the
most disturbing movies I have ever seen, yet had me on the edge of my seat waiting
to see what would happen next. Alan Rickman is an excellent "bad guy" but this
character beats all others. I've never been so affected by a movie! It's been 6
years and I still can't forget "Closet Land."
This is the most difficult movie I have ever seen...the emotional content is
horrific, yet unforgetable. A woman who is accused of being a political activist is
brought in for questioning. The whole movie revolves around her interrogation. Alan
Rickman and Madeline Stowe have intense and powerful roles for which they deserve
Oscars for their performances.
The film deals with universal themes, mentioning no specific country as its
context: it could happen anywhere--and has, in substance if not form. Those
concerned about 1st amendment issues, censorship, et al--but don't want to be bored
with lectures--need art such as this to illustrate, dramatize, teach,
inspire. Rickman is certainly an under appreciated character actor; he
shines in this film, showing off multiple acting talents that you must see (I have
yet to see him give a bad performance, though, even in not-so-great films). Stowe
gives perhaps her best performance (and proves that she possesses one of the most
striking pair of eyes in Hollywood)--in two words: stunning, convincing. The set design perfectly matches the situation, in function and mood. The
sound editing heightens to appropriate effect. The total contrast conveyed through
the animation sequences is a perfect symbolic device-and the welcome and only
respite to the bulk of the story's necessary venue. The script is tight and
essential, with engagingly dramatic-yet realistic-dialogue (i.e., as it might be
and ought to be). Perhaps the most amazing aspect to contend with is the fact that
1) this is the director's first time out; and 2) he is the writer. In one phrase: a
tour de force--with three recommendations: see it, own a copy, see it repeatedly to
fathom all its secrets and grasp all it genius.
This little two-person movie is actually much bigger than it looks. It has so many
layers. I've watched it over and over, and always pick up on something new. I am
amazed at the depth of the acting, and I feel if this movie had gotten wider
release that there would be no question that Alan Rickman is a major star
The good news: the director is reportedly committed to the cause of Amnesty
International and eager to deliver a solid message about the freedom of expression
and the evil of oppression. The plot is distinctly original and the actors are two
of my absolute favourites. The not-so-good news: 'original' is not everybody's
buzzword when visiting the movies or video stores. Also, noted critics like Mr
Maltin and Roger Ebert have dismissed the film as a genuinely failed attempt to
convert a play from stage into cinematic form. If I remember correctly, the title
is taken from the fairy tale Stowe's character has written and which has made her a
possible subversive and suspect person in the fictitious place where the story
takes place. Her dreams are dangerous to the government, represented here by
Rickman as the intense, manipulative interrogator. Since those two people are
virtually the only ones appearing in the film altogether, the director is in for a
real challenge in keeping the viewer's attention. In the end, I found the whole
thing fascinating. Not flawless and definitely not for everyone, but rewarding.
It's nowhere near a masterpiece like Kieslowski's 'A short film about killing' or
as explanatory as 'Dead man walking'. But if you're into those films or any of
Costa-Gavras political thrillers, you may appreciate this one as well. Just don't
expect any overexplicit sermons or eyefilling action sequences.
This is an amazing movie and is very clever at using the few actors and sets. It is
also very shocking - the physical and psychological torture (both explicit and
implied) is mixed with calm and even humourous stretches. So the horror is always
unexpected, and brutal. I'm not soft, but this would have to be the most shocking
film I have ever seen. The message of this film is definitely delivered with a
sledgehammer. This is the film I will always remember both actors for.
Ms. Stowe is sensational in this power drama about a secret policeman who
interrogates a children's author because he believes she is trying to plant ideas
in her writings that are contrary to the state's. This is an incredibly powerful
film. Both performances are worthy of more recognition as is the message of this
movie. Put this on your must see list if you can locate it.
Rarely does a film capture such intense drama and emotion. What makes this film so
unsettling is that the drama feels so real, it's almost hard to remember that it's
only a movie. This is by far Madeline Stowe and Alan Rickman's performance of their
careers. The film almost feels like a theatrical production the way it is staged
and lit. The only bad thing about this movie is that it's very difficult to get a
copy of it. I have yet to see it other than on Laserdisc. This truly powerful film
deserves a digitally remastered transfer and special edition treatment on DVD. It
really is that good.
After watching Oldboy I was a little disappointed by the rest of Park's work, some
of it is good but it never approaches the level of humour and originality that
Oldboy had. This one does, it is nothing like Oldboy in plot or style but the same
level of quality is there. The acting is good with Kang-ho Song, OK-bin
Kim and Ha-kyun Shin delivering excellent performances. Kim in particular manages
to swap from the creepy horror scenes to the surreal comedy without the slightest
misstep. The plot is strange with lots of twists and turns and takes a
big swipe at the vampire clichés. The directing is spot on with tons of
pace and humour throughout and some of the most memorable scenes I have ever seen.
It does boast what is probably the weirdest love scene you will ever see. This is just a great film.
What would it be like to be accused of being a subversive? This is what this film
explores through the eyes of 2 characters, one being the accused subversive, the
other being the interrogator. It is a frightening journey from the beginning to the
end. This film is not for everybody and if you do not understand political
governments thoroughly, you will never get the point of this film, as proved by 90%
of the reviews here.
This movie took me by surprise. I first saw it more than 10 years ago, and it stays
with me still. It's got it's just plain boring points, and I, personally, would
have ended it differently- this has not in the least bit discouraged me from
watching it over and over and recommending it to others. The acting is _fantastic_.
The cast and director do an amazing job with the script, and anyone who likes
'different' movies, who has the patience to sit and say, "What the hell is this?",
and allow themselves to be drawn in should give this film a chance. If you just
want Alan Rickman to be goofy or to see things explode this is not the movie for
you.
I really love this movie. It has a very real feel to it. I believe it was never
popular because of the subject matter, however, because of the subject matter, it
makes the movie all that much more important. This is an "A" movie and I
recommend it highly. If you liked "1984" book or movie, I think you will like this
one as well. This is harsh, to say the least, including mental and
physical acts of torture, some pretty vile. Not for the week at heart or stomach.
No gore, but his movie is so great at projecting the mental anticipation it doesn't
need blood and guts. If you are not a realist or a pestimistic person I
don't think you will enjoy it. It leaves you with an uneasy feeling about humans,
what they're capable of, and the very real possibility that our government(s)does
not necessarily have our personal best interest in it's heart.
I am profoundly grateful to have seen this movie. The acting is astonishing, the
movie itself is powerful and clear, and the issues involved are handled with
subtlety and depth. This is an important movie. It could be profoundly
transformative. I would pay good money never, ever to see it again.
Because it *is* so good and so complex, it is extremely difficult to watch. I admit
that my taste in movies tends strongly toward light entertainment; the visual
medium can be so powerful that I tend to avoid it for anything really important.
Those of you with greater fortitude than I have may find it easier to handle. But I strongly encourage people to see it at least once. Preferably with
others, so you can talk to each other, and have someone around to remind you that
there's more to the world than the movie.
Even the trailer for this movie makes me cry, like the first time I saw this movie.
Not for people who are easily upset by intense material! The finest performances by
Alan Rickman and Madelaine Stowe, without a doubt. This dreadful tale of a society
with the power to kidnap and torture it's citizens for ANY reason, whether they are
anarchist's or the writer of children's books will chill you to the bone. I saw it
when it first came out 1991 and I remember every frame. It still scares the hell
out me today. It's happening now. Apparently, IMDb requires ten lines to
meet their criteria for a film review. IMDb might want to GET A GRIP! Some of us
are a little more succinct about writing opinions.
This two-character drama is extremely well-acted and has a valid message and some
TRULY shocking moments (shocking not because they are graphic, but because you're
not prepared for them when they come). But eventually it does become oppressive,
just like the somewhat similar "A Pure Formality" did. Still, Alan Rickman should
have gotten an Oscar nomination for his multi-dimensional performance, no doubt
about it. (**1/2)
"Closet Land" tells a powerful story and has many different subtle elements. You
could read lots of stuff about the movie's plot before hand, but you don't really
need to. All you need to know is that the movie is all about an interrogation.
Along the way, we learn lots of things about the interrogator and the person being
interrogated. We also learn that the world can be a dark and scary place.
Especially when you have absolutely no control over it. In the end, the
movie amounts to a warning (really though, the movie has several different aspects
to it) about what happens to people's freedoms when they "look the other way" and
ignore injustices happening to those around them. If you've got about an
hour and a half and know where you can rent this, I strongly recommend that you do
so.
This movie gave me recurring nightmares, with Alan Rickman's voice representing an
omnipotent, insidious, fascist ruler. The scariest movie I have ever seen -
psychological terror more powerful than anything any "horror" movie has ever
achieved. Alan Rickman's voice will always represent to me the power and terror of
a totalitarian state, reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. This movie describes to those
who don't care the reality of a large part of current world governments. This film
is disturbing, but in a way that everyone should watch it - it's a description of a
reality that no one should ever have to experience, but so many do.
Acting, of course! Think about it, Closet Land could easily have turned out so
horribly - an entire movie filmed in one room with only two people, they better
have some damned interesting things to chat about. But it didn't turn
out horribly. On the contrary, thanks to incredible portrayals by both Stowe and
Rickman, Closet Land is a masterpiece in its own right. That's not to
say it is for everyone. Persons who have had their attention spans decreased
through glitzy sex scenes and random gun fire may have trouble digesting Closet
Land. However, those who can appreciate good story telling without explosions
should give it a look (no matter how many video stores you have to call to find
someone who has it in stock).
This film hits the heart with a reality like no other I have seen. It shows what us
what we, in a democratic society, take for granted, and just what we are lucky
enough not to be experiencing. The acting in the film is superb, sometimes you have
to remind yourself that the movie is a dramatization, and not real life. Mr.
Rickman does wonders with his role (as he does with all roles) making the
interrogator fully dimensional and human. The set is incredible. It gives the
feeling of 'in the round" theater. Which does not add or take away from the emotion
of the action. This movie seeks to open the eyes of the viewer, and I'd say they
have made a success of that goal.
Now that I have seen it, it was NOT what I was expecting, at least not until the
very END. I read some of the other reviews before picking up a used copy of this
from Amazon and was glad I did. Having been first introduced to Park's work via
Oldboy, I was curious to how he'd treat the genre and was rather pleased at the
clever manner in which he executed it. I think Park has matured in terms of
presentation because while Oldboy and some of his other work has very nice and
deliberate camera work, he has some nice innovations in Bakjwi that I had not seen
in other vamp movies. For example the scene where Father Hyeon is realizing the
"beast" growing within him as he gives his shoes to the always barefoot Tae-ju and
he is able to SEE the blood pumping through Tae-ju's skin and his eye's widen in
blood-lust for it. That was a nice effect. I was also happy that Park did not CG
the crap out of the movie and the is in fact very little CG at all. I came away
from Bakjwi being totally set up to think one thing was going to happen and get
taken for a ride in true Park fashion. Additionally, I liked that Park played with
a little symbolism and reversal whereas we don't usually get this is Asia cinema.
During the beginning of the movie we see the plot develop slowly and get to know
the characters and you feel like an invisible observer to the thing that are
transpiring. Park treats you a little like Ghost of Christmas future coming to show
you, albeit a bit boringly, what life is like outside your world. Ah, but then we
start to feel a little kinship with the befallen Father and his burgeoning lust for
Tae-ju and conflict with duty as a priest. We almost start to root for them even
until Park not so nicely slaps us back into reality and we really see that in the
end Bakjwi is a movie about moral dilemma and right and wrong. It won't spoil it if
I tell you to watch Bakjwi from the mindset of a priest and I think you'll come
away from it with what Park wants you to come away with. Don't expect Oldboy and
stylization because that's not what you'll get here. A very interesting take on the
genre indeed. Those who missed the MANY literary elements and religious allusions
watched some other movie, not Bakjwi. After Bakjwi, watch Let The Right One IN,
it's also not what you'll expect either.
"Closet Land" was sponsored by Amnesty International and does have a lot of
political overtones, but there's so much more to this richly stirring story than
that... This is not just about the political tension of the late 80s -
it's about the personal persecution that a woman puts herself through as a child
who was molested by a family friend. We see the subtle allusion to the parallels of
a dishonest government/society structure and the culture of sexual predation where
one in four young children are molested and one in three women has experienced some
form of rape. For me, it brings up a chilling chicken-and-egg question:
does the attitude of our sexual repression-leading-to-predation create the
political environment of fear and censoring, or does the socio-political
dysfunction fuel a culture of sexual predation? The psychological ramifications of
even asking this question force us to a place where we are brought to develop our
own answers. In the end, our young lady writer (Stowe) has a similar
moment to the one at the end of Hensen's "Labyrinth" - she realizes in one shining,
brilliant moment that the idea of having her power stolen from her by the secret
police (Rickman) is an illusion. No one can steal your power - they can only trick
you into giving it up, and then you have the right to take it back at any
time. This is not a movie to be entered into lightly, and you most
certainly do ENTER it. The minimalist aspects coupled with the child-like animation
stirs the deepest parts of the psyche and leaves no viewer unchanged.
Closet Land. The title itself conjures up thoughts of secrets. And that is really
what's at the heart of this Amnesty International film. Government secrets,
personal secrets, both are integral pieces of this story. By far the
greatest acting seen in too long a time, both Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe were
phenomenal in their portrayal of a Government Interrogator and Victim respectively.
With only the two actors in this unusual standard length film, it is instantly
clear that both actors were dedicated and talented enough to pull the viewer into
this tiny bubble of a world and shut the door. A WORD OF
CAUTION... What isn't mentioned on the description of this movie is that
there is a subplot that deals with childhood sexual abuse. While there is no
graphic detail about the abuse, the nature of it may be difficult for some viewers
to watch - especially given the intensity of the film on whole. I'm not
a big fan of Amnesty International films, but this movie drew me in because the
acting was so exceptional, and I can't help but make this movie one of my personal
favorites.
Rachel and Chuck Yoman (Valerie Harper, Gerald McRaney), decided the city is too
busy and dangerous for their family, so they packed up their reluctant son (Gregory
Togel) and daughter (Tammy Lauren) and moved back to a lake like the one Rachel
lived at as a child. They say you can not go home again but this is an
ideal rural home with what at first seems like a Mayberry feel. Later the residence
seems to be more like the people in Deliverance. Soon bodies start turning up and
everybody looks suspect with the exception of a few friendly faces. This does not
keep the family from enjoying running around and messing around in the woods. We find that they have to be super ignorant to find the secrets and not
tell anyone until they get ax-cepted as the antagonists. Can the
ignored young Stevie save his parents or will their pursuer(s) put his/her foot in
it? This film is more than most parodies as it was played with strait
faces. They could not have chosen better actors and Daryl Anderson was
exceptionally creepy. An added plus is that they let us know what is happening
before the characters find out, instead of pulling a clue out of the hat after the
fact. Anyway this made for TV movie is good for a few laughs.
The premise of the story is common enough; average family wants out of the rat
race; wants to find the simple life....so they move from Sherman Oaks,California to
Lake Tomahawk; kids in tow. The lake is beautiful, they have leased an
old house....but wait; there may be something in the lake; people are being
murdered, and no one knows how (never mind why). Gerald McRaney is excellent, a
familiar face for Lifetime viewers; Valerie Harper is also good; since this film
was made in '88 maybe the writer should produce a sequel!. You will also
enjoy Barry Corbin as the town eccentric, and Darryl Anderson as a Bruce Dern-
lookalike/crazed military man. While the story plot is a bit over the
top; if you are a movie buff you will be reminded of similar scenarios from
""Psycho""; ""Deliverance""; as well as other horror stories of that genre. Several
camera shots and sequences will give you a sense of deja vu. Sit back
and enjoy; if you don't take it too seriously it is very entertaining; and better
than, for example the more recent movie: ""I Know What You Did Last
Summer""; it seems they made better movies in the good old 80's!.
This Is one of those classic American made for TV movies that are just made for
watching on a rainy afternoon. Although the script is highly implausible it never
takes itself too seriously and neither do the cast which leads to a great tongue in
cheek murder mystery / horror film best enjoyed with a bid bag of popcorn or box of
chocolates. A big bonus of this film is the fantastic location filming and despite
the strange goings on and even stranger residents round Lake Tommahawk I for one
would not mind living there! All in all a great film to watch over and
over again.
Not a film of entertainment, but of real lives & limited ambition for the working
class in 60's. Enjoyable because of my upbringing, not sure it'd work for most
people. Typical Loach. Full of TV actors/actresses of 70's/80's/90's.
Recently released on British DVD, this is a good movie (as long as you have an
attention span and IQ of more than a fruit fly). Not as depressing as it could have
been, this is kitchen-sink at its most dirty. Terrance Stamp is great in it, the
music is sweet, Carol White is very believeable as the single mum tart who can't
stop loving criminals. My favourite scene is where Carol and her friend
who works in the pub with her (the one with the enormous beehive hairdo which comes
down over one eye) sit outisde and gossip about all the men who walk past. The only thing that marred this was the shakey acting of Carol's first husband,
but if you can get past that, you're OK. And Donovan provides some of the most
languid, mellow, bittersweet lyrics to come out of the 60s.
One of the best of the 'kitchen-sinks'. Fantastic views of London and invaluable
snippets of working class life of the 60's. Loach's eye seems to capture
everything, yet makes no judgment - a taste of things to come. As with 'Kes',
'Riff-raff' and 'Sweet Sixteen', it serves as a cinematic social history of
Britain. Carol White is completely convincing, you love her, fancy her, want to
take care of her, but hold your head at her self-destructive decisions and still
follow her in some vain hope. Well backed up by Terence Stamp, ( fresh off 'The
collector', also catch 'The Hit' ) and a plethora of English faces ( all looking
very young ). Pefectly set to Donovan's dulcet tones. Stamp sings 'Yellow is the
color', in a lovely scene, ending with him saying, " Getting better, ain't I "
( song also used in 'The rules of Attraction' - I think ) Watch Carol Whites screen
mum getting ready to 'go out and get a bloke', putting on her false eye-lashes to
the sound of 'Rosie' on the radio - priceless. A treasure for anyone who was around
at the time and a reminder of how good life is now in England. Incidentally
Soderburgh used clips from 'Poor cow' in 'The Limey'.
Ken Loach showed the world the down-and-out flip side of Swinging London with "Poor
Cow", about London woman Joy (Carol White) hooking up with a thief and having a son
with him, only to see the man end up in the slammer. While his friend (Terence
Stamp) manages to help her out some, he proves to be little better in what a loser
he is. It soon becomes clear to Joy that she's going to have to make a serious
decision about where she's going in her life. One thing that I
determined - I don't know whether or not this is accurate - was a use of irony in
the movie. Her name is Joy, but she experiences no joy in her life. Even if that
wasn't intended, it's still a movie that I recommend to everyone. Featuring songs
by Donovan (one of which - "Colors" - appeared in another Terence Stamp movie: "The
Limey" (which, incidentally, came out in 1999, when I was as old as my parents were
when "Poor Cow" came out)).
Back in the 60's, this grim study of Joy, a young proletarian wife, was the
introduction to the career of Ken Loach, who became one of the most distinguished
and respected British filmmakers of all time. By then I knew very little about
Brecht, politics or the reality of the under-privileged, and I was quite impressed
by the aesthetic of the film, its free style, its austere color cinematography, and
Joy's monologues in front of the camera. I was also much surprised to find that
Terence Stamp (who had become a celebrity, thanks to "Billy Budd", "The Collector"
and "Modesty Blaise") had so little screen time. Although 20th Century Fox
distributed "Poor Cow" in Panama, Loach did not stay in mainstream cinema (which
this film hardly is) and I lost contact with his films. I just heard of his
successes, "Kes", "Family Life", "Black Jack". until I caught up in the 80's. The
beautiful title song by Donovan, by the way, is available in his anthology
"Troubadour".
No pun intended. I'm not going to spoil anything about the story, but it's safe to
assume that you already know, what kind of character the main actor portrays. And
of course being a priest while being "naughty" exaggerates all that. Plus this is
the most erotic movie from Park Chan Wook yet. If you have seen Wook's
previous works/movies you know he is very visual (in a good way) and it shows again
here. While it strays away from the vengeance theme of his prior movies on the
surface, it still has quite some heat hidden underneath. And when that boils, quite
a few bad things start to happen. But through all that dark, there also moments of
light (fun) to be had too. A very stylistic and though provoking movie, that lives
outside the mainstream and does a very good job ...
I sort of liked this Columbo movie its atmosphere, which was real thriller like and
its approach even at times reminded me of film-noir, in the movie its first 30
minutes or so. It's really nice and done in a good old fashioned way, with the
right camera angles and use of light. It doesn't mean instantly that this movie is
a brilliant one though but its solid enough to consider this a good late Columbo
movie entry. It's definitely a better movie than the average 'later' Columbo movie
entry. 26 years after his previous Columbo movie appearance, George
Hamilton returns once again to play the main lead opposite Peter Falk, again as the
murderer, in a total different and new role of course. I liked him in his role and
he was a good Columbo 'villain', who gave the good old Lieutenant some good
competition. They had some nice sequences together. Problem with the 'modern' new
Columbo movies always sort of had been that it didn't feature a good well known
actor opposite Peter Falk. This movie obviously doesn't suffer from this problem.
But I must say though that this movie doesn't feature Peter Falk at this best. He
has certainly played the character better and his performance isn't quite
consistent enough within this movie, which is probably also due to he movie its
director Daryl Duke, who also directed the really dreadful movie "Tai-Pan", among
many other projects. It has a rather good and enjoyable story but the
fact that the same sort of plot to cover up the murder had been used before in an
earlier Columbo movie also doesn't help of course. It got used before in the 1975
movie "Columbo: Playback". Nevertheless it of course also still has plenty enough
'original' moments of its own with its story, even though of course in essence
every Columbo movie is more or less the same. But oh well, that is what made the
Columbo series so great and consistent. If it ain't broke don't fix it. It also is true that within this movie more clues than usual are left out for the
Lieutenant, which doesn't mean that the movie its murderer is more stupid or sloppy
but I more see it as the writers being more overly enthusiastic than others. It
doesn't make the movie or story bad and it in fact perhaps even makes it more
enjoyable, to see Columbo hard at work and discovering all kind of small but
important clues. Luckily the movie is also filled with some enjoyable effective
relieving Columbo-comedy. Simply a good late Columbo movie entry. 7/10
After being off the air for a while, Columbo returned with some new made-for-TV
mysteries that, while not being as good as the original series, are better than the
shows that were done in the later '90s. "Murder Can Be Hazardous to Your
Health" used the then (and I guess now, if you think about it) true crime shows as
the situation for a murder. The murder is committed by a very successful,
egomaniacal true crime show host, George Hamilton (in a nice bit of casting). His
chain-smoking nemesis, who lost the job to him, played by Peter Haskell, attempts
to blackmail Hamilton when he discovers a porno video Hamilton made with an
underage actress in his salad days. Hamilton uses Haskell's cigarettes to deliver
the death blow via poison, giving himself an alibi as well. Columbo is
brought in to find out what happened. You know the rest. Highly entertaining.
This movie takes the psychological thriller to new depths. Well written by Shane
Black, the film is executed phenomenally by the cast under the watchful eye of
Director Jack Swanstrom. Clearly, Swanstrom is a director that we should look out
for in the future. His strength lies in his adaptation of personal experiences both
on screen and in the classroom. This thought-provoking film is a must
see for anyone who can appreciate action, drama, suspense, and mystery. As with all
good films, the viewer goes on a journey of their own to find their individual
interpretation of the movie. The mystical aspect of the film is intriguing and adds
to the suspense. You find your self looking for the answers along with Marquette.
Audiences have liked the movie on the festival circuit - with many awards received,
they must have agreed that A.W.O.L. (2006) is well worth watching. I'd
love to own a copy - how do I go about getting one?
If you're into alternate realities, contemplating what's real and what's just a
fantasy, this is an edge-of-your-seat thriller that'll keep you guessing and really
make you think. Try to get a copy of it and see for yourself! I watched it at an
L.A. film festival recently and it was by far the best one in the group that I saw.
It helped that it was actually about something, unlike the others that were
screened. It's very well directed and the production value is top notch. I would
compare it to Jacob's Ladder in that it keeps you guessing as to what the true
reality is of the world that we're in. You should definitely try to hunt this film
down and if it's screening at any festivals near you, try to check it out.
I too saw this film at a film festival, but unlike the previous poster I found it
both interesting and original. In a sea of terrible features, shorts are often
twice as bad do to small budgets and poor acting, A.W.O.L however is a taut little
thriller that hearkens back to "The Outer Limits." The performances are solid, not
that one would expect otherwise from Morse or McGinley, and the directing is sharp
and on the money. I personally find it difficult to reconcile the previous poster's
comments with the film I saw. A.W.O.L is quite aptly written by Shane Black, who,
as is usually the case, plays with the genre both paying homage to the stories pulp
sensibilities, while simultaneously winking at the audience and never taking itself
too seriously. All in all A.W.O.L proves to be an extremely well executed and fun
film.
Excellent story, wonderful acting, amazing production values and a cool, action-
packed short with a perfect twist at the end. What a great short film! I saw this film in Vail or Aspen at a film festival and was wowed by it. Then I
saw it again at another festival (where it won again) and I was even more impressed
because subtle touches become evident the second time around - for a short film,
this packs a lot of clever layers into a short time. AWOL is not for the
faint of heart, but it is very well done and completely impressive for a short film
- for any film actually. It's an interesting story told very well, and every scene
moves the story, which reveals good film-making instincts went into making this
film. The film looks gorgeous and David Morse is also stunning, with a dynamic
performance delivered in every scene. Watching his character attempt to defeat the
curveballs life is throwing him makes a great viewing experience. It
also should be noted, that when tortures of war are in the headlines everyday, the
lines between reality, good and evil, can get very gray while the rhetoric gets
loud and attempts to make things black and white. AWOL smartly allows the audience
to decide for themselves what they think the message is, what is real and what is
not, which adds to the mystery. Both times I've seen it, the audience
was WAY more into this movie than the others playing with it, which is saying a
lot. There are a lot of shorts out there right now, but few deliver the kind of all
around excellence and complex subject matter that AWOL does. It sounds
to me like the previous reviewer is off his or her rocker, or has some personal
agenda, because this really is a great example of short independent film-making. I
see a LOT of short films, and I must say if only ALL the shorts making the festival
rounds were this good, THEN the shorts business would have some serious legs.
I gave this 9 stars out of a possible 10. If it had had just a teensy weensy bit
more plot line I would have given it 10. Nonetheless it is a highly
interesting film. Judith Ivey, playing a likable old floozy, should have
been given the Oscar for her performance. Emily Grace (portraying
Alice), whom I had never seen before, also does an excellent job and has THE
sexiest body I think I've ever seen on film. In a beat to heck old car,
Alice has lit out from the n.e. for Florida where she has a friend (or maybe it's
her sister, I'm not sure, and that's my fault, not the film's), and high hopes of
going to college, which she and her family can't really afford. She
seems rather vulnerable out there on the road alone, and sure enough she encounters
some slightly rough looking characters and shortly after that it's discovered
there's a hole in one of her tires. She is at a rest stop at the time
and is assisted by a woman named Sandra and her husband, Bill, an older couple who
are traveling in an RV. They're going south, to Florida, and take her
under their wing, but is everyone quite the way they're presenting themselves?
Flashbacks and paranoia enter the story as our young heroine learns some new
lessons about life.
"What Alice Found" is the greatest movie that nobody's ever heard of! I
underestimated it when I heard of it, and I though that it would all sex, no plot,
and just really stupid, but in reality, it was really good. They say all indie
movies suck, but this one, and "Napoleon Dynamite" didn't suck. I asked my friend,
who'd seen it before I did, and she said that Alice has all these three-ways, and
you see all this nudity, but no, there is no three-way that I remember, and little
nudity. The movie did have a point, and it taught me never trust hitchhikers. I
liked that in the end, they got Alice a little dolphin In the end, on her way to
Flordia. I totally suggest seeing this movie.
Fantastic film! Wow - this is really a treat. I can't believe that I discovered
such a gem of a movie. A pretty young girl traveling south to Florida
meets a friendly older couple with an RV, after she has a flat at a rest stop.
However she learns that things aren't as they seem and the couple gets a bit creepy
after she spends some time on the road with them. Everyone in it was
just so perfect for their parts you just about believe that you are watching this
happen in real life in front of you. Newcomer Emily Grace did a
fantastic job as the really cute, yet somewhat shy Alice. Emily gives you the
feeling that you can understand what she is experiencing and you can see just how
she got into the situation that develops in the film. I'm sure we'll be seeing
Emily in more films in the future. Contrary to what some others have
said, the lighting and photography in this were just perfect. The editing was done
well too - just the right way to put together images of the highway to give you the
feeling that you are traveling along with the cast on their road trip. I
didn't see it on the big screen, but I can only urge everyone to go out and see it.
More films like this are *exactly* what we need. SF
I wasn't expecting a whole lot when I rented this film, as a lot of independent
films seem to be a bit overrated these days (well, Hollywood films too for that
matter) but this movie was fantastic, really great, it's too bad it didn't reach a
huge audience because it's just superb. I really love Alice's determination, it
really makes me look upon my life as a gift, and i see how privileged I am just to
have an education. But all of that aside, this movie really proves that a good
artist can tell a good story, no matter what the budget, it's an excellent film and
everyone should watch it, they will love it and definitely learn something from it.
I don't have to be roger ebert to know it's one of the best movies I've seen all
year, and certainly one of the most truthful.
The vampire "craze" has, in my opinion, actually proved its worthiness of such
infamous categorization. There were many sub-genre films last year from a multitude
of countries. I've reviewed many and have a few more to discuss. Forgive my
indulgence, but since I've recognized the trend as a phenomenon (which it is and,
coincidentally, features my favorite horror staple). I'm going to now move outside
of North America for a bit and introduce you to hopefully meaning films that you
didn't see as of now. Of the many effects of Twilight is the creation of
"guy" and "girl" vampire movies. I hate this sexist categorization, which has the
effect of polarizing an entire generation of fans into "sides". I think men are
prone to hate Stephenie Meyer's work (and its offspring) to some degree because
they feel some sense of betrayal that an archetype which was always theirs is now
liberated. Women may be unlikely to enjoy future "neutral" pics since they grew up
with ironclad expectations that were enforced four times. We need more directors to
create vampire films which either gender is capable of enjoying (unequally) if
vampires are going to survive the craze and remain relevant. Cue: Thirst This
Korean film was directed by Park Chan-Wook of Oldboy fame. There are two ways to
dissect it. Either it straddles between gender expectations and is universally
marginally enjoyable, or it is a floundering mess that doesn't decide which target
audience it prefers and should therefore be viewed by no one. Don't let me convince
you that the film has no inclinations. Its director is a man whose fame is story-
driven action films. Its protagonist is male and has a passive-aggressive interest
in his lover (more on this later). Still, his desire for a woman he has known both
before and after mortal life is not contrived, and his attention is returned. There
is a male slant to this picture, yet it is not so one-sided that women could not
enjoy it. The same cannot be said of Daybreakers or New Moon. The plot
follows an Emile Zola novel called Thérèse Raquin, which I have not read. According
to Wikipedia, the novel is about an affair that develops between a married woman
and a single man. He kills her husband during a fishing trip and begins dating her.
The two of them are incapable of having sex because they picture the dead man's
body between them. They are thus driven to insanity, but care for the woman's
ailing mother. At the novel's conclusion, they try to kill each other, discover
each other's plans, and commit suicide. Now, transcribe this nearly 150
year old French novel into modern South Korea and you've got Thirst. Chan-Wook
doesn't embellish the story enough to elevate this to must-see. He often ignores
many of his own ideas in favor of following his inspiration. I think the most
memorable parts are when his scruples are unhinged by narrative. His use of the
mother-in-law as the foil for their bad romance is just perfect. See it. The protagonist is originally a devout Christian who becomes a vampire
after a faulty blood transfusion following his volunteering for a new medicine. He
thus becomes the god he once was smitten with. People flock to him and view him as
a grand healer. OK. That's really cool and could have provided a great basis for
his relationship. Yet this idea is given little idea screen time as he changes into
a realistic Christ figure who tries to maintain his virtue even though his
lifestyle demands that he relinquish it. Instead of confronting the delusional
people, he instead sips blood out of comatose hospital patients. Let's
continue with the Christian allusion. The woman tricks the vampire man into killing
her husband. Her overprotective mother-in-law suffers a stroke and eventually warns
friends of the family of her daughter-in-law's treachery (finger waggles). The man
kills her but resurrects her. The two of them invite former friends over and the
woman begins mercilessly harassing the humans. The man says enough is enough and
decides to drive to a beach and forces her into waiting for sunrise with him. They
both die, but he atones for her crimes (and his own but the film portrays her evil
more prominently). The woman character is a caricature, and her
profession offers an explanation for her behavior. She is a housewife with no
education, while the man is a priest whose mortal life was restrictive. Vampirism
magnifies their characteristics. She becomes a monster like one would expect of
someone without knowledge. He becomes a demigod with a spirit. His life is how
atheists view themselves and her life is how religious people view those without
divine intervention.
This is most likely the best picture not many will see. It presented a culture in a
real unhollywoodized way. A must see for all who like Indie and for those who
don't. I think this movie will draw more into the Indie scene. The acting was top
notch! The character of Alice was portreyed so well. With perfect akwardness. This
movie ahould be brought to the mainstream! I think it would do phenominally! ALICE
is the most real look at an element of our culture that I have seen since GO ASK
ALICE. A look that is untouched by the Hollywood hand. Movies like this show young
people that these things aren't glamorous but that they are real and compelling. If
you liked PIECES OF APRIL you will love this one!
at the story. It is reality mixed with Americana- and very original. Emily Grace is a young girl tired of her boring life working at a minimum wage
job, in New England. Her sleazy boss propositions her- she quits and takes a little
bit of cash from the register. Driving from New Hampshire to Miami, Florida, is not
a short trip, and her Ford Escort dies out. She then meets a personable older
couple, portrayed by Judith Ivey and Bill Raymond. They have an RV and graciously
offer to help her out- it isn't safe for a girl to be alone on the road. Especially
I-95. Emily Grace is very realistic as Alice, and initially lets the
Judith Ivey character help her; buy her decent clothes, cosmetics, etc. At first it
is a nice vacation for Alice, who hopes to hook up with her girlfriend, who attends
college in Miami. There is interesting cinematography, as the trio drives the RV
down to Florida: the rest-stops, bland scenery and eventually beautiful mountains
of North Carolina. Eventually there is something awry, and the Ivey
character apparently has fabricated stories about her daughter, as well as her
husband, who now seems a bit sinister. I will not spoil the outcome of
this film- but it ends positively as the audience waits in suspense- This film
reminded me a bit of Spielberg's "Duel"- while it was initially not as menacing-
the moral of the story is - you never know what people are thinking- especially if
you are driving cross-country. Beware!!. You will enjoy this film.
Judith Ivey as the scamming old whore is awesome. Emily Grace the young girl. Is
innocent and exciting as she learns whats going down. Excellent direction and
camera. Story is dark and disturbing.Supporting cast is good. Shows what happens
and can happen with a run of bad luck. Great independent film. Small cast. Pace is
slow at first and then moves good. A good movie to show your teen age daughter who
has aspirations of leaving home early, for the open road and adventure. This movie,
film has a low budget feel to it, but it works because of the low lifes and areas
that these people move in. I will never stop a rest stop again with out thinking of
this movie and checking my tires before I go.
I just saw this on cable. I liked it. It held my interest and the dramatic choices
were good. The old couple were very good and good at being subtly creepy. The
cinematography is not so great, but the shabby video also adds to the sense of
realism, so its a trade-off, you know? At times the girl would hit the New England
accent to hard. The accent would sort of come and go. Anyway, I thought the film
was well done overall, though. The storyline was strong and dramatic tension was
held because you felt their was some subtle mystery going on, even though things
seemed mundane. Good job on a low budget. Another good SUNY Purchase filmmaker. Way
to go.
A great performance by Emily Grace! I stumbled upon this movie while browsing my
satellite listings and was curious by the summary of the plot giving by my
satellite service provider. I was high entertained and had much compassion for the
character "Alice" played by Emily Grace. The story had me guessing in what would
happen to Alice and was not predicable. The overall story was refreshing and had
some great twists to the supporting characters. The ending of the story ended on a
rather fair way. I will purchase this DVD to add to my library. I am a new fan of
Emily Grace and I high anticipate in seeing more from her performances.
At the first glance of this film the camera angles immediately make you think that
this is a low budget film that will bore you to tears or make you press the stop
button. Surprisingly, the storyline comes forward and is played through the screen
in a way that I feel most would relate to. I scored this movie at 7 but like most
would, felt it should be a 10, you will understand as you watch it because its a
rare thing for a film to be in touch with a persons feelings and how life should be
shown by a TV set. Most films try to leave you in awe of their special effects,
twists and turns etc, this film dealt a true hand showed a good film backed by an
Alabama style storyline that most would feel was a good waste of a couple of hours.
Wish I had put the popcorn maker on after all well done!
Six out of seven people who took the time to comment on this movie have very
positive responses. The one negative review happens to reside (or did) on the first
page of the movie's location in the IMDb. I found "What Alice Found" to
be one of the best movies almost no one's heard of that I have seen this year. It's
6.4 rating is misleading and may be more a function of the difficult subject matter
than the quality of the movie. Who would think that a movie purportedly about truck
stop prostitution would be worth seeing? Guess again. For me, "Alice"
was a positively gripping psychological thriller. I was virtually on the edge of my
seat the entire time. It's a very credible story with a realistic script and is
very well cast. In a fairer world, actress Judith Ivey would win awards for keeping
you guessing whether she was good or evil. Ignore the rating and see
this terrific movie. (And by the way, I wish there was a soundtrack album.)
There's nothing much to the story. A young woman steals some money from the dreary
Vermont supermarket where she works, decides to run away to Florida where he has
dreams of attending school with her friend Julie, and encounters an odd couple on
the highway. If you remember the elderly couple from "Rosemary's Baby," you have
some idea of what these two are like. Bill has a comical face and is retired from
the Army. Sandra is an ex stripper now become a truckstop whore, although we don't
find this out at once. They're affectionate, helpful, and full of common
sense. They more or less adopt the girl, Alice, and promise to give her
a ride in their elaborate RV, although they are not driving "directly" to
Florida. This is where the film could have gone one-hundred-percent
wrong. All the film makers had to do was turn the elderly couple into the
personification of evil. They would take the virginal Alice (handcuffed to the bed
or whatever) and sell her body to any greaseball driver who has a lot of money and
likes rough sex. (Alice would have had a heck of a time escaping, with lots of
aborted attempts, before the final shootout.) But, no. The couple really IS pretty
nice, and Alice is far from virginal. Alice overhears Sandra with a customer, asks
about the business, and tries to turn a trick on her own. Bill prevents anything
from happening and insists she do the job right if she's going to do it at all.
They don't talk her into it. They guide her. Alice makes several hundred
dollars, which is several hundred dollars more than she had when she met the
couple. Bill and Sandra keep her money in the safe where customers aren't going to
find it. Alice misunderstands. She doesn't find whoring very pleasant work, and she
thinks she'll never be paid off because every time she asks to be dropped off,
Sandra responds with, "What? Not here, honey. Not in the middle of nowhere."
However, after she is talked into handing her gun over to Sandra, the couple give
her the money she wants and rather lovingly release her to continue her trip to
Florida. You know what I found the most tragic moment in the film? It
had nothing to do with prostitution or thievery. Alice has been expecting to room
with her friend Julie after she arrives in Miami. Julie is after all a legitimate
student. But when Alice calls her friend from someplace in Alabama to assure her
she's on her way but will be late, Julie hesitates and says, "Well -- my mother
doesn't think you should room with us. And to tell you the truth, my roommate isn't
cool on it either. I invited you down, sure, but I thought it was just like a visit
for a week or something. Go back to Milford, Alice" There is a long silence before
Alice hangs up. Only one shot is fired (a few white frames of film) and
no one is hit. Tears appear only once. Nobody slugs anybody else. No car explodes
in a fireball. No cop chases them down the Interstate. The direction is
occasionally clumsy. Too much cross-cutting between Sandra trying to disarm Alice
and Alice's hand holding the wobbling pistol. There is hardly any musical score.
There is brief male and female nudity and it's awkward, as it's probably supposed
to be. Alice isn't unattractive but she is not babalicious either. She sports
Asiatic eyes, a kind of robust version of Molly Parker. The cinematography looks
cheap and the colors are washed out. The direction is a straightforward narrative,
with a few illuminating flashbacks. Nothing is wasted. And it was all evidently
shot around Danbury, Connecticut. The city sticks in my mind because I drove
through it after one of its floods and remember the cars caked with a film of mud
all the way up to the door handles. I don't know exactly What Alice
Found. (I dread even THINKING that the answer to the riddle is that "she found
herself.") The acting isn't bad at all. Judith Ivey is better than that. It's
definitely worth seeing, a quiet, orderly film that treats the audience like
adults.
This is a very amazing movie! The characters seemed so realistic to me, it was hard
to believe they weren't real people. Being from the South, I thought Judith Ivey's
character seemed especially real, and as everyone else has mentioned, she does an
outstanding acting job. The characters are not beautiful and look nothing like the
average Hollywood stars - their imperfect bodies and personalities seem so much
more natural and real. One reviewer mentioned that the main character,
Alice, had no good reason to run away from home, which is true - she didn't have
any moral or upstanding reason to run away, such as escaping child abuse, etc. I
thought that she was just fed up with dead-end jobs in a working class life and
wanted to flee down to Florida where her friend lived the appealing and privileged
life of a college student in Miami. The actress shows Alice's confusion,
uncertainty, and questioning turn into decisiveness and willingness to take control
of her life with impressive naturalness. The film also shows how Alice is trapped
in situations with seemingly no options, causing her to panic, take action, and
reach out for help. At first, the grainy filming style put me off and
made me think that it was a very low budget or homemade movie, but in actuality it
is very well done. The home movie quality really makes you feel like you are there
with the characters, a part of their RV trip across the country. This is definitely
a film worth seeing, although I don't quite understand all the descriptions of it
as a heart-warming coming of age tale. It is rather vulgar and disturbing at times,
even if it is not completely sad in the end.
While I can understand some of the points made regarding the cinematography (I
thought a more purposeful approach would have better supported the low-fi, home
movie feel) I must say that I thought the script and acting of WHAT ALICE FOUND
were excellent! Dean Bell has crafted a real gem that Judith Ivey charms with
character-driven delight. Her performance of Sandra is a pleasure -- unfolding,
alternately, as diabolical and romantic. We are at once intrigued and repulsed by
her actions... and never given more information than is necessary. Her's and the
supporting cast's efforts meet Bell's post-modern fairy tale with arms wide open.
Emily Grace's Alice is infused with a doey-eyed magic. She seems to mold like clay
before us, morphing into some sort of beautiful, lost beast. By the end, we are at
odds with words, as she is, saying goodbye to her mother. Kudos also should be
doled out to Jane Lincoln Taylor -- whose Mother provides the right amount of
tragic historic weight -- and Justin Parkinson -- whose shy first-time John, Sam,
provides one of the sweetest, if not most awkward, sex scenes in film. Bell has
created a first rate story and assembled a plethora of talent to make it.
From the director of Oldboy comes this slick vampire flick. Kang-ho Song stars as a
priest who is accidentally changed into a vampire while being cured of a deadly,
mysterious virus. His vampirism and priesthood are quite at conflict, but he is
able to survive by robbing the hospital's blood bank and unconscious patients who
might not mind some siphoned blood. Because of his supposedly miraculous survival,
he comes into the lives of Ha-kyun Shin's family. Shin has cancer, and his mother
believes that Song can cure it. Unfortunately, Song's vampirism raises his levels
of lust to a height where he can't help but fall for Shin's young wife, OK-vin Kim.
Kim is intensely interested in the world of vampirism, and the two become lovers.
The film from there goes in weird directions that I think one should experience for
themselves. What really should be mentioned is Chan-wook Park's mastery of the
medium of cinema. My God, I've rarely seen such a masterful visual artist at the
peak of his powers. The major flaw of the film is that it's a little incoherent,
especially near the beginning. Park is interested in telling his stories mostly in
the visuals, which can be difficult to follow at times. But when it works, man,
does it fly. The film is also perversely hilarious. The final sequence, easily one
of the best of the decade, is simultaneously heartbreaking and delightfully
ridiculous. OK-vin Kim should become a worldwide star after this film. She gives
one of the best performances of the year.
It's a sad state in corporate Hollywood when a movie surprises you by not taking
routes you've been seeing in the movie house since day one. I had literally no idea
how this film was going to end, because it went left when I expected it to go
right, zigged when I expected a zag, etc. This could have easily unraveled into
generic suspense thriller, or depressing white trash drama, but it stayed a course
all its own till the end. It is a sad story, though. Not because of what happens to
Alice, but because of the sad world that surrounds her and leads her down this
path. The plot has a quiet dignity of form that's usually reserved for
theater, but the pacing could use some tightening up. Either way, it's a very good
film, and for some reason I suspect sour grapes from those who have scored this one
low.
Having worked professionally with young girls on the run, I found this film
surprisingly authentic. I would never have found it had a friend not loaned his
videotape. There are classic themes here: Coming of Age, Mother/Daughter
Estrangement, The Limited Choices of the Underprivileged, Who is the Good
Samaritan, Tragedy is in Every Life & the many layers or relationships. Flashbacks
are meaningful (when Alice acquires a gun we know she has some familiarity with how
to use it) and it does not end in cliché. The cast really "sells" their roles. It
is adult material and the audio is a bit too grainy. Allow it 15 minutes to so to
draw you in.
This is a low budget, well acted little gem. Alice, a small town Massachusetts
teenager, fed up with her existence, takes to the road to escape her mother who
flips burgers and her own job as a check out in a super market. She sets out for
Florida and to stay with her wealthier high school friend who is a freshman at
Miami. After her car suspiciously breaks down on the thruway and she loses all her
money, she ends up with a retired couple in an RV who also happen to be traveling
to Florida.. The couple, brilliantly played by Judith Ivy and Bill Raymond are
overly hospitable and, it turns out, a prostitute and and her pimp. Slowly, Alice
is lured into truck stop prostitution as the RV meanders down the thruway in the
general direction of Florida. Through intermittent flashbacks, we learn a little
more about Alice and her desire to leave tiny Milford. We also see the couple in a
new light and their life and the choices made by the couple and Alice all seem
quite credible. An excellent, well made film that you will think about when it is
over.
Writer-director Dean Bell offered many surprises and engaging moments in this
modest yet compelling road film. His dialogue was snappy, and his use of very short
flashback sequences was especially effective in the film's narrative
structure. At the heart of the film is the character of Alice, who is
running away from her New England past in a desperate effort to get to Florida.
Along the way, she travels with a pair of eccentrics, Bill and Sandra, who
incredibly make the attempt to groom Alice as a prostitute earning money at truck
stops. As a newcomer performing in her first screen role, Emily Grace as
Alice is sensational. There is not a false note in her character choices. But the
film is worth watching above all for the wily yet sensitive character of Sandra, as
masterfully created by Judith Ivey. There is an especially sly subtext to virtually
every moment in which Ivey is on-camera. As a viewer, I found myself stopping the
tape, hitting rewind, and reviewing her scenes in order to attempt to discern the
psychological subtleties. The film raises the following question about
the characters: Are Bill and Sandra good Samaritans, or are they an evil pair of
Dickensian predators preying upon the youthful Alice? One of the strengths of the
film is that it never quite fully answers that question. Alice seems more self-
confident than she started out as a result of her experiences with Bill and Sandra.
But is she really a better person? Part comedy, part road picture, and
part coming-of-age drama, this carefully crafted film succeeds in involving us on
many levels.
Until I did a Web search on "What Alice Found", I didn't realize that the name of
the film is embedded in the title of one of Lewis Carroll's books. The book's
complete title is "Through the Looking-Glass (And What Alice Found There)". The Alice of the film comes from a background quite different from that of
Lewis Carroll's Alice. Her fresh and assertive character, however, is similar. The
movie Alice begins as a young woman in New Hampshire who steals money from her ass-
patting boss and takes off for Miami, vaguely planning to study marine biology and
play with dolphins. She encounters a middle-aged couple in a motor home (the
husband's retired from the military) who rescue her from a strange man at a
roadside stop and from her car's breakdown (perhaps caused by their
mechanizations). As it turns out, the couple is heavily involved in
truck stop prostitution and see sweet, young Alice as a promising recruit. The wife
(played by Judith Ivey in a performance worthy of some big award) buys Alice sexy
clothing and shows her how to apply hot makeup. Initially, Alice passively accepts
her ministrations and, with the couple's instructions, does several tricks. The
encounter shown in the most detail is quite different from most cinematic sex but
may be typical of what most often happens in real life. The man is shy and
deferential and apologizes for "finishing" too fast. What's wonderful
about Alice (and different from her prototypes from Clarissa to Sister Carrie) is
that she learns from her experiences and asserts herself. This is how things really
are. Prostitution is everywhere. People are neither all good or all bad. Alice
leaves the motor home with her well-earned money and a feeling of mutual respect.
"What Alice Found" was a pleasant discovery. As written and directed by A. Dean
Bell, this is combination of a road movie with a cautionary tale, as well as a
voyage of discovery. If you haven't seen the film, maybe you should stop
reading here. Alice is a case study of a young woman that wants to break
away from the unhappy life she leads in a New England town. Her pretext for leaving
is going to join her best friend, who is away studying at a Miami university. Alice
is the product of a single mother's home, one that is struggling to make ends meet,
in sharp contrast with the life of ease her friend seems to inhabit. In flashbacks
we get to see Alice's life before going on the road. Alice, like her
namesake in "Alice in Wonderland", embarks in a trip to the unknown that life
hasn't prepared her for. The highways of America are full of predators in search of
the weak and innocent. Alice meets with disaster when her car breaks down the road
and a friendly Southern couple come to her assistance when a strange man approaches
in the darkness with the excuse he wants to help her. Sandra and Bill convince her
to come along in their plush R.V. on her way down South. Nothing has
prepared Alice for what this couple turns out to be. After all, in her sheltered
life, she hasn't dealt with what Sandra and Bill, her new benefactors do during the
overnight stays at the rest stops in the American highways. It comes as a shock to
her the realization that the kind Sandra is nothing but a prostitute that plies her
trade among the truck driving populace one meets in those places. Alice,
brilliantly played by Emily Grace, is a study in how the young woman awakens to the
new reality she can't escape. In fact, Sandra makes it seem so easy that Alice
tries her luck at the oldest profession on earth in order to raise some badly
needed money. Judith Ivey gives a tremendous performance as Sandra. Ms.
Ivey is perfect as the seemingly normal woman, one wouldn't suspect she is doing
the nasty with clients she and Bill find along the route they travel. Ms. Ivey is
amazing when she reveals the truth about her life to an accusing Alice. As the
husband, Bill Raymond is good in his portrayal as the husband, that in reality is a
procurer. Under the excellent direction of Mr. Dean Bell, the film is
not afraid to go to places mainstream films dare not to go. Congratulations to this
director who has written a plausible story and has gathered the perfect cast to
play it for our benefit.
Just finished this impressively nutty affair and whilst I can't say as it was as
good as I had hyped it up to be in my mind it was still an effective and at time
pretty nasty piece of brain warped and misogyny fuelled J-trash. Its story tells of
a poor gal searching for her sister who winds up getting raped and drugged by
Yakuza scumbags, and the helpful lady doctor who sets out to avenge her, doing so
in bizarrely gruesome fashion after a similar bout of rape and drugging. Oh yeah
and there's a bit of straightforward sex in there as well, sadly its all soft core,
as per the Japanese disapproval of below the belt nudity, but pixelation is
minimal, in fact only really noticeable in a hilarious blow-job scene. Although
writer/director Kazuo "Gaira" Komizu fails in creating an especially compelling
tale this is at least pretty scuzzy stuff, diving early on into the well of filth
with a pretty unsettling rape (made worse by the fact that the gal looks kinda
young, though I'm pretty sure she was of age). Also, for the most part this is
pretty professional looking stuff, maybe not stylish but it has a certain flair and
the content is handled reasonably well, with particular kudos for largely avoiding
having to employ much pixellation. Things are mostly sex/rape based for about two
thirds of the sharp runtime and its pretty watchable if you groove to such fare, it
gets a bit numbing after a while but the ladies are easy on the eye and it is
reasonably harsh at times. The music, from Yôichi Takahashi is occasionally
effective, though hardly a key part of the show it does in a few spots complement
the action neatly, at any rate enough for me to notice it. More important are the
effects, by Nobuaki Koga, which pack an impressively splattery punch when they
appear, helped out by the lunatic nature of the climactic shenanigans. Things even
pull to a curiously affecting ending, sure it ain't a weepy or anything, but for a
film so gutter level for most of its runtime it is relatively poignant. Altogether
this is a pretty entertaining diversion for mean spirited trash fans, especially
those with a taste for Japanese rapey adventures. I could really have done with a
longer revenge section and more gore, also perhaps more of a point/brains, but hey,
it kept me watching and it is pretty nicely stocked with memorably wtf moments. So
if you dig this sort of degenerate junk, probably worth your while, just maybe
don't expect the second coming.
If they gave out awards for the most depraved and messed-up movies in the world,
Japanese cinema would clean up: their exploitation cinema wipes the floor with most
other contenders, the most extreme examples being absolutely jaw-dropping exercises
in bad taste, nauseating gore, freakish weirdness, and misogynistic sex. Guts of a Beauty is a prime example of such whacked out filth, offering
discerning viewers just over an hour of full-on debauchery and gratuitous violence
topped off with some very insane J-splatter goodness. The film opens
with a young woman named Yoshimi, whose search for her missing sister has led her
into the hands of some nasty yakuza, who proceed to rape her and shoot her full of
strong dope called Angel Rain. After the gangsters have finished having their fun
with the poor woman, she manages to escape and flees to a nearby hospital where
sexy psychologist Hiromi (Megumi Ozawa) attempts to help. However, the distraught
and confused Yoshimi ends up throwing herself off the hospital roof, turning into a
water melon as she hits the ground (at least that what it looked like to
me!). Seeking to avenge Yoshimi's death, Hiromi lures Higashi, a member
of the yakuza, to her office, and, whilst jacking him off, hypnotises him into
attacking his fellow gang members. After Higashi goes slash happy with a knife in
the yakuza HQ, he is severely beaten and stabbed, forced to tell of his meeting
with Hiromi, and then hacked into itty bitty pieces. The psychologist is
then captured by the gang, subjected to a spot of forced buggery (whilst
simultaneously being forced to give head to a yakuza slut), and injected with Angel
Rainafter which she promptly carks it. The gangsters then plonk her body in the
boot of their car, along with the remains of Higashi, ready for disposal. Before they can ditch the corpses, however, the super dope has an
unexpected effect on Hiromi: she returns from the dead as a hermaphroditic monster
with a toothy penis and a ravenous gash, and, hellbent on revenge, sets about
killing the yakuza one-by-one; this leads to some memorable scenes of outrageously
gory splatter, including a messy head squish, a man being suffocated by the
monster's oozing vagina, and a woman being screwed to death by its giant, gnashing
phallus. As you can most likely tell from the above synopsis, this is
some crazy, screwed up stuff, and probably not to the taste of most sane people,
but for those weirdos who have long tired of mainstream cinema and are already well
versed in Asian excess, Guts Of A Beauty should prove to be delightfully diverting
and deviant fun. 7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.
Kazuo Komizu strikes again with "Entrails of a Beautiful Woman", the sequel to
"Entrails of a Virgin". This time around the story is based around a psychologist
(Megumi Ozawa) who decides to take on the Yakuza to avenge the suicide of a doped-
up and raped patient that winds up on her doorstep one day. When she gets over her
head and the Yakuza capture her, she learns their insidious plat of doping up girls
and selling them into slavery. It apparently ends badly when she overdoses from the
cocaine. But she soon melds with another body to be disposed of to becomedum, dum,
dum "Super Slime Hermaphrodite Zord"! This he, she = it makes mince meat out of
the yakuza and saves the daynot really. Well it is better than
"Entrails of a Virgin", but not by much. Most of the film (a whopping 67 minutes)
consists of rape and sex with fogging and the usual ho-hum stuff. Almost towards
the end we finally get our gore groove on with a few cool sequence (like an Alien-
inspired penis-monster through the stomach scene and a gooey asphyxiation) but it
still suffers from a hyper low budget feel that makes it fun but can't elevate it
from z-grade soft horror-core fare.
GUTS OF A BEAUTY is a bit better than its predecessor GUTS OF A VIRGIN. Although
this film isn't really a sequel in the sense that it has absolutely nothing to do
with the first installment, I did find BEAUTY to be a little stronger and better
put together all-the-way-around than VIRGIN...but then again, that's not really
saying much. BEAUTY starts off as a pretty rough and straight-faced
exploit film. A couple of Yakuza cats are holding a young woman prisoner and begin
gang raping her in pretty brutal fashion. As this nastiness is going on, the head
guy tells the girl that they did the same to her sister and sold her into slavery
in Africa, and that they're gonna do the same to her. They then shoot her up with
some drugs and rape her some more. She somehow gets away and ends up at a clinic
where the nurse there listens to her sob story. The rapee ends up freaking out from
the stress of her prior experience and commits suicide. The clinic worker, moved by
the young lady's story, decides to take revenge on the gang by seducing one of the
lower-level guys and trying to hypnotize him to make him kill the Yakuza leaders.
This whole plan backfires, so now Ms. Vigilante-Clinic-Worker gets exposed to much
the same treatment that our original rapee got - only worse (some pretty rough
butt-rape ensues along with the pre-requisite gang rape...). She too is drugged,
but the drug has a strange side effect on our seemingly hapless victim ----- it
turns her into a raging hermaphroditic BLOOD DEMON!!! (no sh!t, that's what really
happens!!!) This is when BEAUTY really takes off with some pretty f!cking insane
kill scenes - including a very classy chest-burst-rape that looks like a cross
between ALIEN and a bad porn, and my favorite - a head-engulfed-by-demon-vagina
kill (complete with demon vagina-slime...)that has to be seen to be
believed... Definitely some promising stuff going on in GUTS OF A
BEAUTY, but still very disjointed feeling. BEAUTY almost feels like two different
films being forced together in a non-compatible way. Still, I have to give the film
credit - the rape scenes are very rough and misogynistic, and the kill scenes are
just totally off the wall. A solid 7/10 for another crazy J-horror "classic".
I won't bore you with any synopsis, chances are you already know them. And
hopefully you are already familiar with Park Chan-Wook's work. I
STRONGLY disagree with some of the other commentators in saying that "Park has not
moved on from the vengeance trilogy blah blah blah." Because you know what? He
HAS!!! The vengeance trilogy were different from each other in style to begin with,
how can you even compare the sombreness and subtlety of "Sympathy For Mr Vengeance"
with the frantic and extravagance of "Oldboy"? Park Chan-Wook has incredible style,
but his movies don't all share the SAME style! That has been true and remains true
with the release of "Thirst". "Thirst" is an incredible picture, it
literally has EVERYTHING you want in a movie. Jaw-dropping violence, tasteful gore,
great humour, incredible suspense and even very realistic sex scenes. The story is
so crazy that at no point can you guess what will happen next. I'm so happy to say
that Park is back in top form with this fantastic dark-comic-vampire-love-story.
Watch it as soon as you can!
This movie, I would like to say, was completely great. I can see how many people
would think that it's just a shocker film. This isn't completely untrue, but it's
as much of shocker fiction as Chuck Palahniuk's books are. One of my favorite
movies of all time, Bijo no Harawata is a certain type of crudely made movie that
you can have just about any reaction to. It's scary, funny, silly, gross, full of
off-the-top material and to some people, arousing. The fist time I saw this, it was
with my friend, and his mother had brought it home for him to see it. He said it
was just some screwed up Japanese movie, but I saw so much more of it. It's badly
made, yes, but it has a certain type of poignancy as to be beautiful, too. As the
Director says himself, this is a shocker movie made for a certain reason. Its like
atrophy. If you leave audiences soft, then the entire human race is going to be
soft. I think this is a good philosophy, and I agree with it one-hundred percent.
Bijo no Harawata is the type of movie that gang rapes the hell out of fitness,
yogurt, and all of this new-wave stuff.
I know that Guts of a Beauty and Guts of a Virgin are crap films and are hated by
many but I'm gonna put myself under the bus here and say I like 'em, especially
Guts of a Beauty (aka Entrails of a Beautiful Woman). Watched it the other night
with some folks at the pad and I was surprised how well it actually went
over. Entrails is the type of madcap cheapo horror softcore sleaze epic
that you really just don't find too much of outside of Asia (specifically Japan in
this case). It's basically a rape/revenge flick with a reincarnated monster instead
of some silly shotgun murders or a motorboat-propelled noose or even a ticked off
Daddy with a chainsaw...That stuff's just silly. Wouldn't you rather see a
hermaphroditic monster with a hilarious little snake monster for a winky? PERVERSION FACTOR: This movie is high in graphic, sometimes wacky rape
sequences, fake pop shots, and satisfying masturbation and monster sex sequences
that you oughta like if you like Corman nuggets like Humanoids From The Deep. I
dunno, maybe that's a stretch but I personally didn't think Entrails of a Beautiful
Woman let me down as an avid fan of Asian sleaze and bizarro B-pics. Yeah, I know sometimes some of my recommendations are not always everyone's cuppa
tea (even for those of you who like the same kind of garbage as I do) but I stand
behind this one. 8/10.
"Entrails of a Beauty" features a gang of Yakuza blokes gang-raping a woman and
they drug her,and later on she dies and returns as this big slimy monster with a
huge penis that has sharp teeth and also a big sloppy vagina.Crazy film,but not
very good.The gore doesn't come until the last 20 minutes and most of the film is a
standard soft core sex with lots of rape.Worth checking out,unfortunately heavily
censored optically and nowhere near as much fun as "Entrails of a Virgin".
I recently saw Episodes 1-4, and now I can't wait for 5 & 6 to be available! (I've
heard they are coming soon.) Commander's Log seems destined to become a cult hit
among the university crowd and all others with a taste for quirky comedy. It's
obvious that the budget was small, but the care taken in crafting the script is
quite evident. In fact, the simplicity of the show allowed me appreciate the
writing and the acting more. Bowlsby is a master of the put-down... I just wish I
could remember all the best ones for later use on unsuspecting co-workers! Let's
just say that if you don't like Commander's Log, I'll personally see to it that
your undies get extra starch!
I first heard about Commander's Log when I was on the concom for the local science
fiction convention. Craig Bowlsby, Linden Banks, Sophie Banks, and Brian Oberquell
came out to show the video and give a couple of panels on making TV on a shoestring
budget. I have to say that I was very pleased when I finally had the chance to see
the show. Comparisons with Red Dwarf are inevitable, since the first seasons of Red
Dwarf were also shot on a low budget (although Commander's Log has to set some kind
of record for the least amount of money spent per minute of air time), and thus
have to make up for the lack of "eye candy" with good writing and acting. Linden
Banks, who plays Chief Petty Officer Blather, does a particularly good job of
presenting an earnest but clueless persona. Bowlsby's original idea was
for the story to be told in two minute "interstitials", shown in between other
shows over the course of an evening, although for some reason, Space didn't get how
cool an idea this would have been, and so the interstitials were all rolled up into
a one-hour show, which Space normally showed in two half-hour episodes. The
existing DVD doesn't include episode 3 (which premiered at Cascadia-Con in Seattle
in 2005) or episode 4 (which was previewed at VCON in Vancouver in 2006), but if
you're in touch with your local fannish community, you may catch news of a showing
somewhere near you.
After the death of all senior officers, Commander Craig-Scott, of the Laundry and
Morale Corps, finds himself promoted to command of an intergalactic spaceship owned
by Starcups Corporation. Its chief mission is to search for inhabitable planets
and, of course, long-term coffee markets. Craig-Scott and his second in
command, Chief Blather, find themselves ill-prepared for command, except insofar as
they are fully able to keep the crew's undies clean--which is not to diminish the
importance of clean undies, especially when incompetent commanders cause those same
undies to be, well, soiled on a regular basis. The episodes are
presented as a series of short, 2-3 minutes reports by the Commander to Earth. The
humor is a mix of wry deadpan and outrageous physical comedy. Think Yes Minister
meets Red Dwarf, but on a shoe-string budget. All the usual plot devices of sci-fi
are here--aliens, nuclear weapons, computer malfunctions--but each is improved by
the fresh lemony scent of high-grade laundry detergent. Commander's Log
is definitely low-budget, but the somewhat cheesy effects and props fit the absurd
premise of the show. Remember those hilarious hockey helmets they wore on the old
Battlestar Galactica? With the "Jofa" brand-name still visible? Okay, there's a lot
of that in Commander's Log, but it's cute. Commander's Log ain't high-
art, but that's not what it's trying to be. It's just a little bit of off-kilter
fun. It does a good job of being that.
A kooky, but funny bit of diversion. You kind of have to see it from the beginning
to follow what's happening, but each report to earth has it's own little joke.
Pretty good special effects for a very low budget sci-fi t.v. show. It's fun to
watch. Sort of in the vein of Red Dwarf, but even more low budget. For someone
who's just coming in in the middle of one of the episodes, what you have to realize
is that these guys are all incompetent, because they've been moved up the ladder of
command, because the other officers died. Also, the main guys are from the laundry
corps, which is why they have laundry in everything. If you like Red Dwarf, you'll
probably like this. Slightly different t.v. concept, in that all you see is the
Commander's report each day. It would be better if this were explained
more, not just in the very beginning of the first episode, but then it was pretty
hard to figure out what had happened in Red Dwarf too, if you hadn't been told.
Visconti's Death in Venice qualifies as one of the most beautiful films ever made.
While watching, we acknowledge we are in the hands of a visionary genius. Endlessly
opulent Death in Venice surely is; but in other important ways, it's an
unsatisfying film. Thomas Mann writes with contempt and from a distance of von
Aschenbach's literary career and output; of his imperious manner, his layer-upon-
layer of programmed, self-conscious behavior. When Tadzio appears and obsession
arises, it's evident that Aschenbach hasn't the slightest idea who he is beneath
his Gilded-Age trappings and carefully lived life. In fact, upon seeing Tadzio, the
'Solitary,' as Mann sometimes calls him, splits in two. Aschenbach No. 1 absorbs
the sight of a beautiful 14-year old boy, then attempts to intellectually process
the giddy jolt in blood pressure as he would a work of art - a 'divine' work of
art. But Aschenbach No. 2, emerges as a stalker who takes control of, then
replaces, the rational Aschenbach No. 1. Like the original Aschenbach, his sexual-
doppelganger is mortified to make human contact with the object of his obsession -
and thus Tadzio remains a far-off ideal. Thomas Mann has no mercy for this game.
Every shred of self knowledge comes too strong and too late; the excitement of
sexual flush is too great to resist. That Venice is gripped by disease means
nothing to Aschenbach - except that his game now has higher stakes. When he finally
whispers beneath his breath 'I love you,' he knows that all is lost, and the abyss
awaits. Is any of this filmable? Perhaps, and Visconti creates a visual feast
impossible to look away from. But there are errors: He and Dirk Bogarde create
Aschenbach as sympathetic; Mann, again, did not. Aschenbach's POV dominates the
film and we are expected to identify. But nowhere on screen is there a man being
torn apart from within. Bogarde toggles between the sublimely controlled and the
ridiculously temperamental with ease - but what's underneath? Bogard's reactive
performance has no mooring. Mann writes a character who is, in his imagination,
doing the Dance of the Seven Veils, all too aware of the consequences such freedom
invites, yet unable, unwilling to resist. Also, Visconti's screenplay creates a
character not in the original - Alfred, a friend of Aschenbach's - to dramatize
Mann's discussion of Art and Artists. These scenes are badly written disasters, and
the actor who portrays Alfred is difficult to watch. Also, Visconti's Aschenbach is
a Gilded-Age Teutonic composer, which I think works for the film; and the
symphonies of Mahler substitute for Aschenbach's novels. Mahler's great music
unfortunately is badly recorded and very badly played. So Death in Venice, as
Visconti hands it to us, is not the complete success it might have been, but as a
purely visual experience its power cannot be denied. All students of film,
especially cinematography, will want to take a look.
Luchino Visconti has become famous to the world after his marvelous production THE
LEOPARD. Movie fans got to know the style of the director who introduced himself as
one among the post war new realists, an aristocrat who developed his individual
free thinking and, consequently, expressed them as an artist. However, when applied
to this movie, MORTE A VENEZIA based upon the novel by Thomas Mann, it's a slightly
different story. The entire film is, at first view, so unique, so
psychological and so much influenced by the various thoughts of an artist (both
director and main character Gustav von Aschenbach) that it seems to be
"unwatchable" for many viewers. Therefore, such opinions about the movie rose as
being "too slow", "unendurable" or "endless boredom". Why? The reason seems to lie
in a significant view widespread nowadays: "GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO FLAWLESS
ACTION." Here, it would be appropriate to say: "GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO NO
ACTION." As a matter of fact, everyone would be able to say one sentence about the
whole movie's content and that would suffice. All that we find in MORTE A VENEZIA
has a sense of vague reality filled with both profoundity and shallowness that
appear to be significant for the sake of each single moment. And it is so when we
notice the psychedelic scenes in Venice, when we see Gustav at the railroad
station, when we are supplied with his intensely emotional memories. The insight
into his decaying mind is sometimes so intense that the only way for the viewer to
go on watching the film is to do his/her best to feel and experience rather than
see and think. All is doomed to fade, to wither like flowers on meadow when their
time comes. In other words, all has a sense of loss and death without many events
or even dialogs. As a result, it is quite unlikely that you will get the idea of
the movie after a single viewing. It must be seen more than twice with the mind
that is constantly open. If you'll like it or not...that's a different story, very
personal one. The artistic values are the factor that is noticeable at
first sight and stays with us throughout. Beauty as something very meaningful for
the main character that appears to come and leave; rest as something he's heading
for so badly and which comes to him in the most unexpected way; feeling that he
finds in a teenage boy who appears as a model of all the dreams and desires, as a
forbidden fruit of homosexual lust which vanishes. The costume designer Piero Tosi
does a splendid job in this movie. Through lots of wonderful wardrobe he supplies
us with a very realistic view of 1911 when the action takes place. The
cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis provides us with a terrific visual experience
that can be called a real feast for the eyes. And in the background comes Gustav
Mahler's music, the composer whose life inspired Thomas Mann to introduce the
character. The performances are top notch, particularly from Dirk
Bogart as the main character, Gustav von Aschenbach, who wants a rest after hard
artistic job and vainly attempts to find it in crowded Venice. For the majority of
the film, we have a great insight into his thoughts, feelings and acts of anger,
exhaust and despair. Though sometimes depressing, he keeps us on the right track
till the end not losing hope for the less tragic end... Tadzio (Bjorn Andersen)
depicts the model of decadent homosexual desire but also a model of beauty and
purity that appears to last pretty short... "Adieu Tadzio, it was all too short"
says the main character. A great, though very controversial, job is done by Mark
Burns as a sort of "super ego" Alfred with whom Gustav polemics about such ideals
as beauty, justice, hope, human dignity. For Alfred, beauty belongs to the senses.
How Freudian, yet how dangerous the idea might be! And ever present in artistic
Italian movies of the time, Silvana Mangano - here as an elegant lady from Poland,
Tadzio's mother. Memorable moments indeed constitute the movie's strong
points; yet, not all viewers will find them unforgettable. They, similarly to the
whole odd movie, require much effort to get onto the right track in director's
individual ego and within the four walls of his psyche. Among such scenes, I
consider the beach sequence pretty important, particularly the way Gustav observes
Tadzio. The physical distance accurately represents the lack of courage to come
closer... I also appreciate the shots when Gustav is sitting in the gondola and the
city's view moves in the background - how memorably that may raise existential
thoughts of transfer. Aren't we, people, a sort of "passangers" in the world, in
the journey that life is. In the end, I must tell you one important
thing. I had found MORTE A VENEZIA extremely weird until I started to look deeper
at what the director is really trying to convey. Then, every scene turned out to be
meaningful in its interpretation with which you don't have to agree (I hardly agree
with anything the main character does) but you should at least tolerate this as
something the author badly wanted to say. Listen to his voice, allow him for a few
words in one page of reality... Therefore, there is a long way towards
understanding the film since not many movies like that were being made in 1971 and
are being made now. Paradoxically, it seems that we are all bound to have the right
feelings about this film in the long run similarly to that we are all bound to
experience once a strange, unavoidable, usually unexpected reality that death is...
7/10
This is a ravishing, yet spare adaption of Thomas Mann's novelette of the same
title. Dirk Bogarde gives his finest screen performance - he himself believed so.
The dialogue is minimal, so his face must register the nuances of his anguished
character - a composer (a writer in the novelette - the only major alteration) who
travels to Venice in 1910. Visconti revels in the portrayal of beauty, it's
passing, and the whiff of decay beneath.Trained as an opera director, Visconti
blends Mahler's music and imagery seamlessly in his finest film since "The Leopard"
(another stunning film, which greatly influenced Coppola's Sicily in the
"Godfather").
Thirst I found that this film was beautifully crafted. The
cinematography was well above excellent. I though almost any frame could be frozen,
and you would have yourself an exquisite photograph. The use of color stands out
most. In many instances the camera was gliding through the scene and the work was
flawless. Park Chan Wook's direction was fantastic. He had me believing
unwaveringly in his far- fetched universe. There were several touches of verbal and
visual humor (of a dark nature) that just added another depth to the picture as a
whole. The acting I would not call outstanding but it suited the film
and worked well enough. For me, the only place where this film lacked
was in the story. At times, I will not lie, the goings on between characters just
did not make sense. Sometimes the story flow was clunky. Overall, I was
disappointed with the subdued narrative, and I felt it ran a little too long. But I still recommend this film, for its vision, its visual flourish, its
dark humor, and at the end of the day, it is an interesting film even if imperfect.
9/10
Relish every moment of this languorous spectacle with music to match (Mahler's 5th
is gorgeous, but listen to the vocal portion of the 3rd symphony so beautifully
utilised in this film). There are many aspects to this film, but the main subject
is the overpowering force of beauty, its spontaneous nature, absence of logic for
love and adoration. I am also an ardent fan of Bogarde and believe he was rarely as
wonderful (try him in "The Servant" however). Note: I recommmend multiple viewings.
 This film is a summary of Visconti's obssessions: the decadence of
nobility, death, aesthetic search, homosexuality...All mingled with melancholic
mastery. Slow-paced just to make you abler to contemplate all its beauty (which is
in the music and the images as well as in the story)this is the type of film we are
not allowed to enjoy anymore, brave, deeply personal and intelligent. The genuine
fruit of a genius like Visconti.
Morte a Venezia is one of my favorite movies. More than beautiful, it's really
sublime. It gives you important aesthetic experiences, it's a masterpiece. I also
recommend the novel. Luchino Visconti is a genius.
Death in Venice is a movie I need to see once every ten years. It is always
different, because I am always at a different stage of life. The movie
is about art, beauty, longing, death. Some scenes are painfully slow, others simply
annoying to watch, especially if you have seem them before. Yet I would not want to
miss a single frame. The music is repetitive, the main theme of the adagietto from
Mahler's fifth is used again and again. Yet I would not want to miss a single note.
When the last image fades, the last note dies, I am left numb and exhausted. This movie is a monument to film making. As with most really good movies,
the saturday evening crowd should stay away from it. And this is simply the best
movie ever.
CAUTION: SPOILERS Although this film moved a bit slow at times, the
brilliant scenery, richness of the characters and powerful themes make `Morte a
Venezia' a rewarding experience. I have not read Thomas Mann's book, but I am
certain that Visconti's visual splendour, musical score, and powerful evocation of
conflict and desire must do it justice. The study of Gustav von
Aschenbach alludes to the human tendency to rationalize and quantify our emotions,
behaviour and passion. This tendency is demonstrated in the scene in Germany
between Alfred and Gustav when Alfred describes Music as being both mathematical--
i.e. quantifiable--and emotional. This conflict arises again in the scene where
young Tadzio is alone playing `Fuer Elise' in lobby of the Hotel and Gustav recalls
his visit to a bordello where he is drawn to a prostitute who plays the same song.
In his flashback, after paying the prostitute, Gustav is clearly physically seized
by the consequences of his actions. This reaction acts as a reminder of the moral
reaction to the temptations that Tadzio represents. Ultimately, Gustav
is forced to make his biggest decision: stay in Venice and resign himself to his
lust and temptations? Or flee Venice to save his own life? His early attempt to
flee Venice at the train station resulted in a futility and foreshadows the outcome
of prolonging his stay. Complimenting the captivating character
interaction, Visconti's powerful scenery (especially of Venice at Dawn and the
final scene of Tadzio walking into the water and pointing to the horizon) renders
this film a true masterpiece.
If all movies had to be destroyed and only one could be spared, Death in Venice
would have to be it. It is a monument in movie history. Much criticized for being
slow, boring and too obvious in stating it's point (an old man discovers beauty in
a young boy and is tragically destroyed, first mentally, then physically), we
should appreciate this movie for what it is. 'Morte a Venezia' was shot over 30
years ago, and it portrays a period even further back, at the beginning of the
twentieth century. Life was slow then, compared to now. People were
supposed to behave in a certain way, hiding their true emotions even from
themselves. Director Visconti and Dirk Bogarde, the leading actor, admirably
succeed in showing how the aging composer Von Aschenbach discovers his romantic
interest in a young boy. For a man like Von Aschenbach, in his time, this must have
been a shock too powerful to come to terms with. We see his inner struggle, mostly
on the face of Bogarde, against the beautiful backdrop of Venice and accompanied by
the most wonderful music, composed by Gustav Mahler. This movie is slow,
there is no denying it. No special effects, car chases or fights to keep the
audience pinned to their seats. No perverted sex scenes either; the interaction
between man and boy is limited to stolen glances from afar and the occasional
smile. So, basically, nothing much happens in this movie? Not if you
want your senses to be hit like a base drum. If you want them to be played like the
strings of a violin in a romantic concerto, this is the movie to do it.
The greatest tragedy man faces is that, capable so often of the divine he settles
for the banal.From this fact does so much great tragedy emerge. Death in Venice is
one of very few films with the patience and bravery to tackle this fact head-on.It
confronts the human eye with beauty and inspiration in their two most inevitable
human forms-self denial and decay. Undoubtedly this is the greatest film to have no
discernable influence on mainstream cinema. Its austerely refined look, echoey
sound, mixture of unsubtitled languages, and highly challenging themes being
impossible to copy: as much an accident of its peculiar production as of the vision
of its director. The central performance, at once rigid, aroused, and vulnerable in
the face of expression and decadence highlights Bogarde as if not the best British
actor of his generation then certainly the most adventurous. Able to hold on to
sympathy as his desires take him over and interesting despite the endless close-ups
and Mahler score playing above him Not one for a Friday night with your girlfriend
but certainly OK if you want to explore the limits of human spiritual limitation.
A film to divide its viewers. Just criticism points at its funereal pace, over-used
snap zooms and persistent, lingering gazes between the protagonists. Advocates
point to Dirk Bogarde's mighty performance and Pasqualino De Santis' benchmark
photography of Venice. Taken altogether, this might suggest an
indulgent, romanticised elegy for the nobility of homosexual love (at a time, 1971,
when it was becoming consensually legal). In fact Visconti has succeeded in making
a richer, more complex film than such a single-issue vehicle. He has knit his ideas
- foibles and all - into a meticulously paced arc. Inside this does
indeed sit the central performance of Bogarde's Aschenbach. Rather than a
simpering, Johnny-come-lately gay, he manages to give a pathetic composer beaten by
tragedy and misunderstood integrity who sees salvation in Tadzio. His mesmerised
staggering around an increasingly hellish Venice after the boy is a straight
metaphor for the artist's tenacity for truth in the teeth of the dilettante mob
(and it is explicitly cut with such a flashback). Mahler's music is
possibly a little over-used although it is well appropriated. The Italian overdub
is a wearing anachronism but thankfully the acting doesn't suffer too much. 7/10
His music, especially what we hear of it here, is very slow. From around the time
of Bach's death composers had been working out ways of making music progress at a
slower and slower pace: over a century later, Wagner and then Mahler wrote pieces
that are about as slow as it is possible for music to get. -Of course, one can
cheat by writing a 4/4 march and then specifying a tempo of, say, semiquaver = 1,
but that tempo wouldn't be the correct tempo. Wagner and Mahler wrote music that is
PROPERLY played at a snail's pace. Given that the slowness in no sense sounds too
slow "snail's pace" is the wrong expression. A critic wrote of a famous Wagner
conductor, "He doesn't beat time, he beats eternity." For all I know this was meant
as a compliment. I get the feeling that around the early 1970s directors
worked out how to make the slowest possible films: there's "Death in Venice", and
there's "Solyaris". I much prefer the former. For one thing, "Solyaris" steps over
the line, or some line, and becomes soporific; "Death in Venice" is gripping from
beginning to end. Not much happens, but it all happens in the right sequence, at
the right pace, with photography you can get lost in Another way of
cheating with music, by the way, is to write something that doesn't really have a
tempo at all. Such music sounds slow, but is really just unmusical, just as many
films feel slow because they lack rhythm and form. "Death in Venice" isn't one of
them. Beautiful in every respect, it will remind you of the timelessness and
contextlessness of quality. You need no theoretical knowledge to respond to
Visconti's mastery, as you do to respond to a lesser director's incompetence. It's
a great work.
I'm not sure where to start with this. In short, it was a disappointing movie.
Having taught the novella, I was aware that it would be a hard story to turn into a
movie. The movie has a couple of interesting lines (mainly between Alfred and
Aschenbach) but it doesn't represent the debate on art that basically shapes the
novella. For one, I was expecting an older Aschenbach and a younger
Tadzio. In the book, Tadzio is fourteen, but he is described as pure, ideal,
innocent, whereas in the movie he reeks of sexuality and is a tease. He is an
accomplice to Aschenbach, he always looks back at him, almost provokingly. In the
book, it is Aschenbach who steals glances at the boy. As for Aschenbach, I imagined
something closer to the professor-turned-clown in The Blue Angel (based on a story
by Thomas Mann's brother Heinrich) than this forty-year old with hardly any gray
hair. In all fairness, I do think that Dirk Bogarde did a good job, but either
someone else should have done that, or he should have made to look older at the
beginning. I know that the discovery of homosexuality is important to
the story, but the movie minimizes the talk about art and the duality between the
Apollonian and Dyonisian inspirations and focuses instead on Aschenbach's obsession
of Tadzio and does not justify it. I liked the fact that Mahler's music was used,
because ultimately he did inspire Mann to write his story. I'm not sure turning
Aschenbach into a musician was a particularly good move. Or the creation of Alfred
who I don't remember in the book. And one thing that really got to me
was the sound and how it did not match the actors' lips. I was wondering if it was
dubbed because I expected it to be in Italian. But then I remembered that each
Italian movie I have watched has this problem. It just bothers me because these
directors (Fellini is the other person I'm thinking of) are supposed to epitomize
perfection in Italian cinema, and here are their characters laughing without sound,
then you hear a noise that doesn't correspond to their faces (I'm thinking of the
scenes when Aschenbach almost collapses and starts laughing. This scene
could/should have been the strongest, but it was annoying instead).
If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic,
tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's
style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is
gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous
love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and
there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic
character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are
nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in
on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently
surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-
wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY
VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical.
But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and
rewarding. If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT
ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one
of the best films of 2009.
As others that have commented around the web... I'm a 130 pilot in the Coast Guard.
Having said that, and being the skeptic I am, I went expecting the over-the-top
cheese factors. There was some cheese, but all in all, not much.. and the film was
pretty accurate. I watched the trailer again today. After seeing the
film yesterday, I've realized the trailer gives the impression the movie is nothing
but rescue after rescue action scenes. This isn't the case. The movie is
truly more character/story driven than action. The inner struggles both Costner and
Kutcher are dealing with.. Kutcher's is revealed further into than movie than
Costner's is. Of course, there is a minor love story.. no surprise
there. But for the most part, the movie tells the tale of two lives that come
together, and after some time, help each other heal old wounds. As
girlie as it sounds, Costner and, as much as I try not to like him, Kutcher do
actually work quite well together and compliment each other very well in the
movie. As critics have stated, you've seen it all before.. Top Gun,
Officer and a Gentlemen, etc. But what movie hasn't been remade a million times. I can recall only one F word being spoken.. and can't really recall any
other language. The movie is 2+ hours, and for some, may tend to get a
little long towards the end. You'll laugh, you may cry, but I can
honestly say, it was worth the $4 I paid. I hope you enjoy the movie.
 Philistines beware, especially American ones! This has all the elements
you'll hate - a langorous approach to film language, a painterly sense of
composition, an intense homoerotic focus to its elegant narrative, a wonderful and
unusual use of music and, even worse, it's based on a story you'd probably hate as
well... If, however, you do feel that films don't to have derivative plotlines, be
full of action and crappy dialogue, don't need the visual grammar of MTV/TV
Commercials, then watch this. It's one of my favourite films, and is perhaps
Visconti's most perfectly formed piece of work. It's sublime, like the movement of
Mahler he uses insistently throughout the film.
I saw this film many years ago, and absolutely hated it -- I could not wait for it
to end, and would have walked out, but there was a girl sleeping on my shoulder.
You know what? I have never forgotten this film, and more, I would say that it
continues to haunt me with its images and music over the years. How many movies
have I wept over and laughed over in the moviehouse, then forgotten as soon as I
hit the street, like ... you see, I can't even think of one! Rarer are films like
Death in Venice that enter your consciousness and work sea changes. The French like
to say film is an art, and movies like this one prove they are right. I give it 10
stars, up from the 3 I gave it the night I saw it.
Visconti's masterpiece! I admit that I am unfamiliar with much of his work but I
cannot imagine his other work surpassing this fabulous film. Last night I watched
Death in Venice after an absence of about 25 years and was totally captivated by
all that I saw. This captivation was a pastiche composed of many elements: The
extraordinary shots directed by Visconte, primarily his love of long, languorous
shots of people dining, swimming, walking and containing a significant character
passing through this mass of people; the cinematographers brilliant interpretation
of Visconti's shot selection; the acting by the principles without over-riding
dialog and conveying the scenes complexity through facial features alone. It is true: young people watching this film for the first time must be
aware that they are watching a unique film, a film that could not be made in 2006.
A film whose time rests in those brief handful of years in the Sixties and early
Seventies of the last century when artistic license was passed to film directors
and money-men took secondary roles. As many of the recent IMDb commentator's have
written, this film, in their judgment, is long, boring (too little action) and
pretentious. I suppose by the standards of Hollywood pap, these comments contain
merit. Unfortunately they tragically minimize the amazing beauty and depth of this
work and others like it from those years. Please, if you have not seen
Death in Venice, rent a copy and immerse yourself in a film and story from another
time. You will be rewarded.
Personally, I can only but agree with Stephen-12: indulge. There's really no point
in trying to 'capture' this film. I like movies where nothing (explicitly) happens.
Herzog's 'Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes' has got the same nothingness, though that movie
is less convincing, since the climaxes are rather in the beginning of the story, so
Herzog had to focus on nature versus Kinski. Morte a Venezia is wholly different
though, since it has several climaxes, turns, etc. In fact, from the point where
Aschenbach's luggage is lost, the movie almost 'rushes' to its grand finale (his
final grains of sand begin running through the hourglass after the moment of bliss
where he fantasises about warning the Polish family and caressing Tadzio's
hair). You can, if you want to, seek some real clues/symbols in this one
(his trying to leave behind his luggage from the moment he arrives, the pointing
Tadzio at the end, the fact that in the whole film content and form are completely
in sinc), but there's no point in doing this: it won't make the film better or
worse, since its force lies in the whole storyline's undertow, which is never made
explicit. Tons of history, decaying Europe, the end of the 'romantic era' as we've
come to know it, which has proven to be only the beginning of it (individual
emotions & expression are more important now than they ever were). But wait, now I
myself am beginning to develop the one minor (tiny) flaw of the film: the 'let's
talk about art'-parts. Now there's one thing never to do. I myself believe it could
have been expressed by other means. Furthermore, I believe it becomes already very
clear in the rest of the film. I don't like explicit films. I can read
books, so I don't want a storyline that speaks merely to my rationale. I prefer
films that you cannot explain in words, but only in film (Lynch's Lost Highway,
Weir's Picknick at Hanging Rock and Roeg's Man Who fell To Earth also belong in
this category), for then, and then only, it has a reason to exist as film and not
merely as a book. So what about Thomas Mann's novella? I've never read it, but
forget about it! The movie gives a different point of view: it says things you can
never say in a book. It uses the movie-art to make you feel, through images and
music, the same thing that Mann made you feel, using text. Equally brilliant, but
different worlds.
Contains Spoilers Luchino Visconti's film adaptation of Thomas Mann's
novella is visually, if not philosophically, faithful to its source (Britten's
opera offers a more faithful reading of the Apollonian/Dionysian struggles which
consume the aging writer). It is certainly one of the most gorgeous films ever
made. In the Visconti version, the emphasis is more on the physical
aspects of the story. Never has Venice looked more beautiful and alluring, more
decadent and effete. If you've read the novella, it's like having the descriptions
on its pages come to life. Dirk Bogarde gives an outstanding performance as Gustav
von Aschenbach. Although he has very little dialogue, he conveys the bitterness,
aroused passion and finally, pitiful yearning of Aschenbach through facial
expressions alone. Bjorn Andresen, the young actor who plays Tadzio, the beautiful
object of Aschenbach's desire, was perfectly cast. He too plays the part with
facial expressions and gestures. The Tadzio character is pivotal to the story, so
any actor in this role must be worthy of inspiring passion and desire. Visconti,
with his incredible eye for beauty, knew exactly what he was doing. And changing
Ashenbach from a writer to a composer based on Gustav Mahler, and then using
Mahler's music, especially the Adagietto from the 5th Symphony, was another
brilliant stroke. Although I'd read the Mann story before the film, Mahler's music
and Death in Venice will always be inextricably linked in my mind. As will the
haunting images which appear throughout the film, especially that last one of
Ashenbach dying on the beach as Tadzio walks slowly into the sea. One
day this film will be released in DVD widescreen format and its visual splendors
completely restored to us.
From the first to the last scene of the movie, director Visconti excels at his art,
to the extent that the movie is ensured to remain as a cultural treasure for only
God knows how long. It is perfection - as a movie, that is, but the story has some
minor shortcomings. Thomas Mann's novel is also a perfect piece of art,
so of course it is impossible to bring into another media. Visconti follows the
story pretty much, and it is only when he allows himself to deviate slightly, that
the transition falters. And no matter how wonderful the scenery is, the tension in
the air between the characters, the hundreds of subtle signals and allegories, the
almost unbearably heightened serving of Mahler's music - still, the minute
anomalies in the plot disturb me. Maybe I'm just a victim of man's
desire to flaw the flawless. Nevertheless, I will offer one example, which I regard
as crucial. WARNING: SPOILERS In Mann's story, Aschenbach
eats the strawberries which probably contain the disease that will kill him, after
giving up his frustrated chase of the boy Tadzio in Venice. Unable to catch one
delight, he settles for another - which poisons him. It is very subtle in the book,
but it is there. The forbidden fruit, of sorts, but more a sign of him surrendering
life itself. In Visconti's film, he also eats strawberries, but in a
rather insignificant scene by the beach. The chase in Venice ends in a much more
melodramatic way. It works, too, but lacks some subtlety, indeed, and also the
multi-layered symbolism, giving food for thought. But that's all
forgiven, when the film allows us to feast on beautiful sceneries, faces and
constellations, and certainly as many other symbols as we can possibly digest - the
last gesture of Tadzio, standing in the water, being the equally sublime and
mysterious finale.
It may be hard to explain how, but this film is a masterpiece. Perhaps, because i
never imagined that a plot like this or a film with so few words would convey all
this poetry. The true poetry and aristocracy of human passions and obsession.
Bogard is amazing and needless to say that Venice is utilised as a perfect scenery:
dark, sinking and dreary just like Bogard's soul. And classical music is more that
a simple background escort to human feelings. In my opinion, a classic masterpiece
of european film-making.
I can't quite explain why I find this so alluring and "The Leopard" not; it may be
because the focus here is on all that was great with that film, those intimate
moments that Visconti can render so magnificently. Like that film, it has a
majestically slow pace, but this time it isn't overlong. It's the kind of film
where nothing happens but twenty minutes passes like that. I think that must be due
in part to the way the film deals with flashbacks that act as their own mini-story.
Like "The Leopard," it has a sympathetic lead who brings out the same kind of worn
pathos -- though Bogard's performance is more willing to open itself to being
unlikable, especially in look: he has a really stupid grin that's easy to dislike.
It's often quite beautiful in the quiet moments. It's the opulence of Visconti's
films, the grandeur of the ball scenes, that I find tedious, as they exchange
individual clarity with mass precision. But here, that is part of the point --
Gustav surrounded by a visual din. The way in which the object of
Gustav's affection is introduced to us is quite brilliant -- the camera shows a
girl, girl, girl, then this beautiful, feminine-featured boy. It's like an allusion
to Shakespeare's sonnets, and it doesn't feel heavy-handed. (It's not until the
camera views Tadzio fully, pulls back and we see his long, slender legs, that we
realize he is not a boy, but an adolescent -- at first we're forced to question
Gustav's attraction in an uncomfortable way; Visconti must have known that, and he
doesn't shy away from it.) Visconti is extremely patient with Gustav; we get a
sense of the man, we know him. It's a largely silent performance, and when he does
open his mouth it's to spew venom; no wonder he wants the angelic, open-featured
boy to project himself onto. There's a difference with Tadzio (we never know him,
just as we never know a handful of Fellini grotesques; but that's because his life
is another, its own film), but it's not as flirtatious as it's been made to seem
(there is one scene, however, where he twirls around a pole that's too much).
Tadzio isn't necessarily leading him on -- he's looking at him; Visconti just zooms
in is all. The film doesn't detail Gustav as being gay -- Tadzio isn't
even really male, he's a prettified version of a boy (delicate, pale, wispy, with
golden locks) that everyone seems to love (including one gorgeous, slightly older
young man who he wrestles with). The closest they go to showing what could be
understood as a reference to Gustav's homosexuality is the famous barber scene,
which unlocks his repressed vanity. It isn't totally successful -- the
whole section with Alfred is a waste, and some unnecessary scenes, people carrying
bags in long shot, could have been excised. Some parts are heavy-handed, such as
when Gustav's boat pulls in and rowdy boys pass him by -- the looks on his face are
too obvious. (But during the same scene Gustav throws a fit, wanting a new rower,
something so unexplainable that it makes up for it.) But there are some scenes --
touching for the first time -- that build up a remarkable, quiet intensity. Tadzio
repeating a piano song again and again, the notes quivering in the air, may be the
best example of the anxiety the film has. There is one discussion that contains a
debate I'm especially interested: Can art be spiritual if it satisfies the senses,
or does it have to go beyond them? (We can consider Tarkovsky, who esteems both
Visconti and Mann, to be the prime example of someone going beyond mere sensory
sensations.) I think this one manages to do both. 9/10
In Luchino Visconti's film Death in Venice, it is not only the beauty in the
surrounding world that decays, but in the pursuit of beauty itself Gustav von
Aschenbach decays into a mere shell of a man. To understand the decay, we must
acknowledge the beauty which enchants us, it is best described, and explained in a
quote from Socrates found in Thomas Mann's version of Death in Venice, "beauty
alone, is lovely and visible at once it is the sole aspect of the spiritual which
we can perceive through our senses Else whatif the divine, if reason and virtue
and truth were to speak to us through the senses? Should we not perish and become
consumed by love?" We see in the film this very thing happen, the man becomes
enveloped by a longing for beauty, which turns into a longing for the boy, Tadzio.
Even though the levelheaded part of his mind tells him that adoration of beauty can
lead to sensuousness and abandon, he cannot contain himself. It would
be easy to describe this as a beautiful film; early on we see the extravagance of
the parlor, and we are treated to a perfect summarization of turn-of-the century
upper class life, all captured on film perfectly by cinematographer Pasqualino De
Santis. But Visconti does not indulge in the picturesque aspects of Venice.
Instead, the glorious and sensuous artistic achievements of the past are based on
materialism and sensuous beauty, and these things are relegated to the past. The
city we know to be of incomparable beauty and uniqueness is nothing more than a
leisure resort with a nosy hotel staff. The streets become exhausting labyrinths
filled with disgusting filth and rot, the city decays in step with the protagonist.
Only through the flashbacks are we allowed a glimpse of why this famous composer is
a frail and innocuous man. The death of his daughter, and presumably his wife,
along with the failure of his music allow us to understand why he is destroying
himself. Alfred, with whom Aschenbach has in depth conversations on the
meaning of beauty and who can create it; but Alfred is more than a friend, he is
Aschenbach's alter-ego, and what Alfred says articulates the composer's own doubts
and fears. The scene in which Aschenbach decides to leave Venice is immediately
followed by a clip of Alfred telling him that he is weak, alienated and lacks
feelings. In the end we might be able to conclude that these flashbacks are not
reality at all. It is a decay of memory, rather than objective renderings of the
past, these flashbacks become distorted memories. We can say that these are decayed
memories because even Aschenbach alludes to it, he declares, "reality distracts and
degrades us;" and, following the scene in the travel agent's office we see
Aschenbach confront Tadzio and his family and warn them - leave Venice, but
directly after the encounter we see him sitting with the clerk again and realize it
was all in his imagination, he employs long scenes without dialogue that are framed
by the poignant music of Gustav Mahler. He allows the viewer's mind to wander as we
watch Aschenbach's life and respectability decay with the beauty around him. Slowly the viewer realizes that our hero is overwhelmed by exhaustion that
is mixed with a growing awareness that the town is suffocating in filth. The
crumbling city sets the stage for the middle aged man's attraction to Tadzio, it is
romantic longing for something so idealized and ambiguous that it can never be
consumed, even in fantasy. The beauty of this Polish boy kindles a fire in him
that, at first, makes him glow, then consumes him. The film concludes with von
Aschenbach sitting feebly in a beach chair watching Tadzio fight with his friend,
we see the black dye from his hair running down on his cheek and it looks like
rotten blood, it is a vision of his life's expiring moments, though before his last
breath. The final decay has happened, all around him the city is soiled, and with
it he has become what he detests. As Aschenbach dies he has the same painted face
as the old man on the ferry at the beginning of the film, a man that had disturbed
him. It was the pursuit of beauty that initiated his decay, in the pursuit of
artistic beauty he could not sense his own demise, and that of the city around him;
his sensuality is indulged in, while constantly kept in check by the presence of
death and decay. It is these three themes that tie The Damned and Death in Venice
together, beauty, death, and decay, these themes are Visconti's art, the beauty of
his work is in the decay of beauty itself. In this film we are treated
to the deliquescence of one great man. We see the honored composer Gustav von
Aschenbach in the pursuit of true and pure beauty, and it is in the pursuit of this
trait that it decays all around him and leads him to a miserable, lonely death
watching the target of his affection. I believe that through these movies Visconti
is trying to tell us that what is beautiful cannot last. Decay is intrinsic in the
world around us, and when we become distracted, it can destroy the splendor. In
Death in Venice, it is because of culture and through the pursuit of beauty that
all is deleted. Beauty and deliquescence are woven together like thorns in
Visconti's works, at once beautiful and destructive, it is these themes that define
his art.
Story of a strange love and a fall desire. Poem about beauty and his perfection,
fear and touch.A slice of Visconti, Mahler and Mann. And an agonize Venice. Idon't
know if it is a masterpiece, a poem or the reflection of a film director's world.
It is, absolutely, a" memento mori". and a exploration of illusion. A old mirror of
limits, signs and death's delicacy. A trip in an old space, nostalgic, cruel and
splendid. "Death" is a Orfeu's trip copy in the immediate reality. And the essence
is the music. A soft, sweet music, like honey or winter's fire. Like every regret
and every sorrow. Like a refuge in deep solitude. Gustav is gay by accident. He is
the Researcher of last form of God's presence. The Beauty, that beauty who gives
life's sense, who is sin and virtue in same time, the gift of expectations and
sufferings. He dies because he has right to hope, to believe in the reality of
miracle and in his way. A victim? No way! Only Tadzio may give the freedom like an
insignificant sacrifice. Who saw the sun can hope to live in same condition?
Not for the squeamish, but the number of twists, inventive uses of situations using
vampire mythology, gorgeous visual extremes, together with interesting and quirky
characters make this one of the most stunning horror films I've ever seen. It
descends into utter madness along with characters, but never seems exploitative or
horrific without purpose. There are copious amounts of bloodletting accompanied by
some nasty sucking and squishing sounds, but also subtle moments where you laugh
out loud. As he tends to do, Chan-wook Park keeps you off center with leaps in time
and plot and situation that you have to fill in for yourself forcing your
involvement in the story and characters. And there's a lot of literal
leaping. Keeping in the vein of vampire myth (pun intended), they have superhuman
strength and can nearly leap tall buildings in a single bound (to coin a phrase).
The first time our heroine is carried by the across the tops of buildings by the
troubled vampire priest, it has all the magical romance of Lois Lane and Superman -
but this romance becomes increasingly disturbing - but driven by a strange and
conflicted 'love affair' not by mere horror. The acting is superb,
particularly OK-vin Kim, the gorgeous actress in the female lead role who, at 22,
shows a range that is remarkable. The character borders on a kind of black widow
film noir type. She careens from innocent to impish to vixen to demon with utter
conviction. This is a really smooth and nervy performance. If you love
real art in horror, or are a fan of Oldboy - don't wait for the video, see it
immediately.
Set in Venice mainly on the Lido, Visconti's "Death in Venice" is a triumph of
filmmaking combining the excellence of Dirk Bogarde's characterisation and expert
photography of the resort area in all its various daily moods. For those who love
Venice, this is a film to cherish. Mahler's music frequently heard
throughout the film heightens the drama. The mood it creates is not always happy.
But then what else would you expect with a title like that? There is not
a lot of dialogue in the film. Rather sparse in fact. It's mainly background noises
and chatter and laughter among the hotel guests. The intriguing part is to
interpret the exchange of glances between Gustav von Aschenbach a composer of some
renown and a slim teenage youth Tadzio who see each other from time to time across
the tables of the hotel dining room, on the beach and at odd unexpected places
around Venice. They seem to acknowledge each other's presence shyly at first with
little more than the suggestion of a smile but later with a strong and riveting and
urgent gaze. Each viewer will have his own interpretation. The composer
has lost a child of his own. Is this behaviour an expression of yearning for the
child he loved? Is it perhaps a sexual attraction towards this fragile young man
with his dazed somewhat girlish stare? Could he be discovering some new inspiration
for a yet unwritten musical masterpiece? Who knows? From beginning to
end this film captures the true spirit of 19th Century Venice. The elegance of the
ladies, the deck chairs on the sand, the children frolicking in their neck-to-knee
bathing costumes, the glow of sunsets and a general feeling of satisfaction with
the world. While some may think the pace is rather slow at times, the film has an
overall gentle quality, but with a simmering indecision between two repressed human
beings. Be prepared for a sad and beautiful ending.
Are sea side resorts the sad, dreary places they're always depicted as in movies
and novels? Certainly this movie, along with the near-contemporary "Don't Look Now"
depicts Venice as a particularly squalid and decadent tourist trap (for a more
light-hearted approach, see "Just Married" with Ashton Kutcher and Brittany
Murphy). Having never been to Venice I can't say for sure, but it does make a
perfect setting for this somber but sumptuous spectacle from Luchino Visconti, one
of the great stylists of world cinema. Having seen the movie I now wish I had
gotten around to reading the Thomas Mann novella it's based on (which also inspired
an opera by Sir Benjamin Britten). Since I don't know the back story and the movie
has little in the way of plot or exposition, I'm left wondering about Aschenbach
(Dirk Bogarde)'s obsession with young Tadzio. Is he a homosexual? A pedophile? Or
is his longing for the beautiful youth something more innocent? Perhaps Tadzio
reminds him of what he could have been and now knows he never will be. Those who
complain of the slow pace of this movie should stick to car crashes and kung-fu: at
2 hours and 15 minutes it's not particularly long, and it moves at a leisurely but
hardly sluggish pace. The film benefits from the ravishing music of Gustave Mahler,
on whom Aschenbach's character is clearly based. Dirk Bogarde gives a moving
performance, and the movie is graced by the presence of Silvana Mangano, one of
Italy's great beauties, as Tadzio's mother.
Thomas Mann's controversial novel is the basis for the film "A Death in Venice. "
Although in the book, the hero is an author, in the film the director Luchino
Visconti who also wrote the screenplay, transforms him into a Composer. As such,
the Author/Composer, Gustav Von Aschebach (Dirk Bogarde) on the verge of mental
exhaustion is a burned-out artisan. After a long and successful career now seeks
the peace and tranquility of a less hectic life. He decides to go on vacation to
Venice where he hopes to rejuvenate his dwindling ambition. However, while staying
at the picturesque seaside resort, he captures the attention of a beautiful young
teenage boy, Tadzio (Björn Andrésen) who eyes him with curious interest and is
immediately smitten by him. Although Gustav is captivated by the wondrous youth, he
nevertheless must find some private time away from the boy's governess (Nora
Ricci), while having to cope with a invading plague which seems to have infested
the city. The movie dialog, like the novel remains subtle as are the few brief
encounters between the boy and the artist. In the end. the audience unlike the book
is hampered with innuendos and imaginative flights of fancy. Their affair is never
given wing, substance or opportunity and were it not for the brief resolution in
the book, the film allows only the possibility of 'what if.' Nevertheless, one can
sympathize with the hero and wish him a moment's peace to obtain that which is
forbidden, elusive but definitely criticized by prying eyes. Great story and a
Bogarde Classic. ****
Cinema's greatest period started in post-War Europe with Italy's Neo-Realist
movement. During the next 2 or 3 decades that followed, France's New Wavers caught
everyone's attention, and there was always Bergman up there on his desolate
Scandinavian island somewhere, making bitter masterpieces. But in 1971, Luchino
Visconti brought the art-form to full circle, geographically speaking, with his
miraculous work *Death in Venice*, which might as well be called *The Death of
Europoean Cinema*. After the Sixties wound down, so did the great European
filmmakers, who, with some exceptions, generally grew exhausted and passed the
torch to a new American generation of Movie Brats (Coppola, Scorsese, & Co.). This
movie absolutely feels like a grand summing-up, not just of Visconti's particular
obsessions, but of the general attempt of European filmmakers to achieve the
aesthetic ideal in movies. And rest assured, you will find no sterner task-master
than the Visconti revealed here. He's not playing to the crowd, folks: either you
get behind him and follow along, or you get left behind. The pacing is a challenge:
slow, but never without emotional weight. "Incidents" are few and far between, but
each seems loaded with symbolic significance in a sturm-und-drang cosmos. We will probably never be in such rarefied company again, in terms of the
movies: one of the century's great writers who inspired the tale (Thomas Mann), one
of the greatest filmmakers directing it (Visconti), one of the greatest actors in
the lead role (Dirk Bogarde), and swelling almost ceaselessly in the background,
Gustav Mahler's 5th Symphony. Taking full advantage of Mahler's ability to inspire
Romanticism in even the most cynical breast, Visconti changes the main character,
Aschenbach, into a decrepit composer from his original persona as a writer, even
making Bogarde up to LOOK like Mahler (geeky mustache, specs, shaggy hair, duck-
like walk). Bogarde, by the way, delivers what is probably greatest performance of
an actor in the history of movies: it's a largely silent performance, and the actor
has to deliver reams of meaning in a gesture or a glance -- a difficult trick
without mugging like Chaplin or merely acting like an animated corpse. Cinema just doesn't get better than this. I'll ignore the complaints from the
Ritalin-addicts out there who say that it's too slow, but even the more legitimate
gripe concerning some of Aschenbach's flashbacks with that antagonistic friend of
his is misplaced. The flashbacks fit neatly within the movie's thematic concerns
(i.e., which is the better path to aesthetic perfection: passion or discipline?),
and the suddenness and shrillness of these interruptions serve to prevent
sleepiness among the viewers. (Of course, some viewers will sleep through this
movie, anyway.) A nonstop stream of Mahler and beautiful, dying Venice would be
nothing more than a pretty picture; but this movie is actually about something. And
what it's mostly about is suffering: Romantic (capital R) suffering, in particular.
As a suffering Romantic himself, Visconti knew whereof he spoke. [SPOILER . . . I guess] If for nothing else, see *Death in Venice* for its
portentous opening credits . . . and for its unforgettable ending, with Bogarde's
jet-black hair-dye dripping off of his sweaty, dying head and onto his chalk-white
face. Meanwhile, off in the distance, young Tadzio, the object of Bogarde's dying
desire, stands in the ocean and points toward the horizon like a Michelangelo
sculpture. The climatic sequence sums up with agonizing economy everything that the
movie is about: love, lust, beauty, loss, the ending of a life set against the
beginning of another life, and cold death in the midst of warm, sunny beauty.
*Death in Venice* is a miraculous work of art. [DVD tip: as with the
simultaneously released Visconti masterpiece *The Damned*, I recommend that you
turn the English subtitles ON while watching this movie. It's ostensibly in
English, but the DVD's sound seems muddy and there's a lot of Italian spoken during
the film, anyway.] 
I first saw "Death in Venice" 1971) about 15 years ago, found it profoundly moving
and often thought about it. Watching it again few days ago, I realized that it is
close to the top of the great works of cinema. With hardly any dialog it captivates
a viewer with the beautiful cinematography, the fine acting, and, above all, the
Mahler's music without which the movie simply could not exist. "Death in
Venice" is a stunning Luchino Visconti's adaptation of the Thomas Mann novella
about a famous composer (in the novella he was a writer but making him a composer
in a movie was a great idea that works admirably) Gustav von Aschenbach (loosely
based on Gustav Mahler) who travels to Venice in the summer of 1911 to recover from
personal losses and professional failures. His search for beauty and perfection
seems to be completed when he sees a boy of incredible divine beauty. Ashenbach
(Dirk Bogard) follows the boy everywhere never trying to approach him. The boy,
Tadzio, belonged to very rare creatures that own an enigmatic and inconceivable
power which captivates you, enchants you, conquers you and makes you its prisoner.
Ashenbach became one of the prisoners of Tadzio spellbinding charms. He became
addicted to him; he fell in love with him. Was it bless or curse for him? I think
both. He died from unreachable, impossible yet beautiful love which object was
perfection itself. The last image Ashenbach's eyes captured was that of the boy's
silhouette surrounded by the sea and golden sun light. Nothing could compare to the
beauty and charm of the scene and to take it with you to the grave is the death one
can only dream about. If he could, Ashenbach probably would've said, "I was able to
witness one of the faces of perfection, I could not bear it but I was chosen to
learn that it exists here, in this world and I can die in peace now because it did
happen to me." Unforgettable music, Gustav Mahler's haunting adagietto
of his Fifth Symphony found perfect use in a perfect movie. It reflects every
emotion of a main character - it sobs, it longs, it begs for hope, and it
summarizes the idea that once you are blessed to encounter beauty you are condemned
to die. I may come up with hundreds movies that use classical music to perfection
but nothing will ever compare to "Death in Venice". I dare say that Mahler's music
IS its main character - it would change and sound differently depending on what was
happening on the screen. It sounded triumphantly when Ashenbach returned back to
Venice, to what he thought would be his happiness but turned to be his death. It
sounded gloomy when he first entered Venice from the sea. You can hear so many
different feelings in it - tenderness and adoration, confusion and self-loathing,
worship and melancholy, but always - LOVE that gives the purest happiness and
breaks the hearts (literally). The movie for a viewer is similar to what the boy
was for the aging composer/writer/Artist. We are enchanted and captivated by its
power and beauty as much as Achenbach was by the boy's mysterious charm.
Brett Piper again makes a very good film that is trashed by the so called film
"experts." it is low budget, but fun, and the leading lady is very sexy. I wish i
could see more of Irene Joseph. Good viewing fun. I bought the DVD and enjoyed it.
The special effects are stop motion animation, and much better than the computer
generated crap they call effects today. I always enjoy Brett Piper movies, and if
you liked this I recommend Bite Me, Screaming Dead and anything else he has done. I
look forward to seeing more of his work and well as more of Ms. Joseph. I simply
cannot see why this woman hasn't been in more movies, as her acting is excellent.
I bought this DVD from Walmart for cheap, thinking it would be a typical, crap
straight-to-video monster junk, but it turned out much better than expected. There
isn't really any criticism to say about it... it's obviously low budget, but that
just adds to the cheesy old fashioned fun. It's very cool and entertaining. There's everything: horror, sex, a great plane crash and good characters.
And I'd say it's pretty original, cuz it really doesn't come off as any other movie
I've seen. It has it's own unique look, which I liked very much, that's why this
film deserves credit. I look forward to seeing more of these awesome movies from
"The Scare Master", Brett Piper, whom I've never heard before this one. The DVD menu is really creative with groovy music playing over it, so it's
perfect just to keep it on when you're not yet ready to sit down and watch it. It
also includes some special features, which are really interesting. But we never get
to see the director or hear him in the commentary, must be shy. This comes out of
Edgewood Studios in Vermont, USA. I highly recommend it to all horror buffs, you'll
love it!
In defense of this movie I must repeat what I had stated previously. The movie is
called Arachina, it has a no name cast and I do not mean no name as in actors who
play in little seen art house films. I mean no name as in your local high school
decided to make a film no name and it might have a 2 dollar budget. So what does
one expect? Hitchcock? I felt the movie never took itself seriously
which automatically takes it out of the worst movie list. That list is only for big
budget all star cast movies that takes itself way too seriously. THe movie The
Oscar comes to mind, most of Sylvester Stallone's movies. THe two leads were not
Hepburn and Tracy but they did their jobs well enough for this movie. The woman
kicked butt and the guy was not a blithering idiot. The actor who played the old
man was actually very good. The man who played anal retentive professor was no
Clifton Webb but he did a god job. And the Bimbo's for lack of a better were played
by two competent actors. I laughed at the 50 cent special effects. But that was
part of the charm of the movie. It played like a hybrid Tremors meets Night of the
Living Dead. The premise of the movie is just like all Giant Bug movies of the
50's. A Meteor or radiation stir up the ecosystem and before you know it we have
Giant Ants, Lobsters, rocks or Lizards terrorizing the locals. A meteor was the
cause of the problems this time. I was was very entertained. I didn't expect much
and I go a lot more then I bargained for.
OK, I am a sucker. I loved it. I had no expectations and had them all fulfilled. It
was a terrible movie. I loved it. I have managed to wear out a DVD from over use.
No one can understand my obsession. I can't either, to tell the truth. For those
who have seen the movie this will come as no surprise, but I asked the clerk at the
video store if I could buy a copy and I could because there were two in stock and
only one had been check out and over half of the time it had been to me. Now, the movie is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The acting is
terrible, but I loved it. The actors are silly, the plot silly, the goofs
numerous--like being able to see through the monsters, The "arachnids" looked like
they were made out of plastic garbage bags (maybe they were), There was light
underground, TNT wasn't deafening, etc... You must really love B-Movies
to get any enjoyment out of this...alcohol helps enormously for others.
This is a low budget stop motion monster movie from Brett (A Nymphoid Barbarian in
Dinosaur Hell) Piper... and it delivers just what I'd expect from such a
production: light-hearted (though cheesy) dialogue, some cute actresses and lots of
stop motion critters. That's why I've given the film 10 out of 10 - because it
delivers what I expected it to deliver... and a bit more: Brett doesn't penny-pinch
when it comes to putting his critters on screen. He hurls lots of bugs at his cast
for the finale. And, anyway, I LOVE stop motion monsters which, compared to CGI
critters in bigger budgeted movies, just seem to be that much fun to watch.
I know little or nothing about astronomy, but nevertheless; I was, at first, a
little sceptical about the plot of this movie. It follows three children that were
all born during a solar eclipse and so have no emotion, and thus (naturally) become
ruthless serial killers. The plot does sound ridiculous at first, but once you
realise that a solar eclipse blocks out Saturn and, as you know, Saturn is the
emotion planet, it all falls into place; makes complete sense and it's then that
you know you aren't simply watching another silly 80's slasher with a pea brain
plot. Thank god for that! Seriously, though, Bloody Birthday is based on a
ridiculous premise, but it more than makes up for that with it's originality.
Having a bunch of kids going round slaughtering people may not be the most
ingenious masterstroke ever seen in cinema, but when given the choice between this
and another dull Friday the 13th clone - I know what I'd choose. Also
helping the film out of the hole that some people would think it's silly plot dug
it into is the fact that it's extremely entertaining. Many slashers become
formulaic far too quickly and the audience ends up watching simply to see some
gore. This film, however, keeps itself going with some great creepy performances
from the kids (which harks back to creepy kid classics such as Village of the
Damned), a constant stream of sick humour and a small, but impressive for the type
of film, dose of suspense and tension. One thing that I liked a lot about this
movie was the vast array of weaponry. There's nothing worse than a slasher where
the killer uses the same weapon over and over again (cough Halloween cough), but
that's not the case here as Bloody Birthday finds room for everything from skipping
ropes to bow and arrows. There wasn't any room for a chainsaw, which is a huge
shame, but I suppose not every film can have a chainsaw in it.
As is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my
understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together
over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face
value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against
them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have
this book and movie. I found myself thinking, "That's pretty cool. Why did they do
that?" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter
what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like
watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They
know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to
really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon,
you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been
saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was
fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to
look at and never stops for a second.
I recently got the movie and all I can say it is a good movie. There's a lot of
famous Rome monuments and historical locations.It is from the same writer and
director from The Da Vinci Code. Tom Hanks stars along with Ewan McGregor and
Ayelet Zurer. The movie starts out with the space and time experiment in Sweden
until one of the canisters is stolen by the church's most hated enemy the
Illuminati. The plot is hard to discuss about without spoiling anything. Its a race
all of Rome following the Illuminati trail to get to the Illuminati secret meeting
place. While racing against time to find the path of the Illuminati. Over all its a
movie worth seeing hell I watched it 3 times and I still like it so in the end go
buy it. It is a lot better than the movie 2010. And the ending has one awesome plot
twist.
First i gotta say that this film is way less pretentious than The Da Vinci Code.
sure, you have the religion vs science problem but it doesn't try to make a big
statement about it. its basically an action thriller that moves from one scene to
another very well. one scene particularly (that involves fire) i found extremely
well done. Second, the changes from book to film. although when i was
following the development of the film i complained about the change of some
characters and the complete removal of others, i gotta admit i was wrong. it was
refreshing that the film didn't follow the book in exactly the same way like it was
done in Da Vinci. if you are a purist of the book some of them may upset you
though. However the BIG TWIST is still there so don't worry about that. finally i'm
glad they removed some silly sub-plots and didn't even try to hint at the
possibility of Langdon and Vittoria getting together. The performances
are really good, but nothing out of the ordinary. that's okay for a film like this.
 i'd give it a 9/10, mainly because it delivers what it promises,
entertainment, pure entertainment
So first things first.. Angels and Demons is a much better and very
different film than the Da- Vinci code. Following the recent slew of
comic book movies, remakes and questionable resurrections of aged franchises. it is
refreshing to watch a very solid and entertaining film that is devoid of shaky cam
filming techniques, lens flare, excessive GCI and over the top action sequences. In this respect Angels and Demons almost feels old fashioned.It offers a
good and considered debate on the age old subject of religion Vs science, offers an
insight in to the parallels between the grand houses of God in Rome (beautifully
shot by the way) and the temple of modern science that is CERN's large hadron
collider facility. Hanks is Hanks pretending to be the smart guy and he
fits the role much better second time around than his wooden performance in Da-
Vinci. good support is offered by a rock solid cast, with a particular highlight
being Armin Mueller-Stahl's stoic Cardinal. but the films main saving grace is it's
pace. for the entire running time I was totally engrossed in the story and the film
never really gave me time to sit and pick apart its faults in logic. My
only serious criticism is that some of the science depicted is at best debatable
regards real world authenticity. But that is not the fault of the film makers,
rather an observation of the old adage that you should never let the truth get in
the way of a good story.. Speaking of which the story is a cracker,
mixing adventure and a race against time with a good sprinkling of intelligence and
a nice twist or two along the way. overall I would highly recommend this
to fans of either of the national treasure movies (which this clearly mimics but
with a much more serious vibe) and fans of ripping adventure tales in general.
As I sat in the theater almost crying to myself in dismay over the atrocity Ron
Howard and Tom Hanks call the Da Vinci Code, I could not see the light at the end
of the tunnel that is Angels and Demons. Hanks and Company are back for
the Sequel-Prequel Angels and Demons, and they have learned their lesson. Acting wise everyone is much better. Aylet Zurer is very good as Vittoria
Vetra, and better than the girl who played Sophie Neveau. Tom Hanks is very good as
always, he is better in this though, because he works harder at giving the movie
the feeling that it is a thriller. I think Ewan McGregor does the best job of any
of the actors. He might even deserve a nomination come March, but doubtful. He had
me convinced right until the very end. He's Dynamic and faithful, but rational, and
realizes that the Church needs to put their past behind them. The minor actors also
do very good jobs. Technically and Visually the movie is much improved.
The Cinematography is much...much better, and the Visual Effects are superb. The
final explosion sequence at the end is excellent. Howard does a masterful job,
taking you through a tour of Rome. Pacing wise, Ron Howard does an
amazing job this time around at keeping the story moving, and not boring us with a
history lesson deemed at denouncing Christianity. The movie also makes you feel
like more is at stake. In our feeble minds discovering whether or not Jesus had
children, is not as high up on the list compared to a cataclysmic explosion killing
thousands including the Roman Catholic Church. Part of the reason I think the story
is so fast paced is due to the excellent score. I cannot say enough about the
score. It was epic at times, like something from Lord of the Rings, but then
sometimes it felt like a Bourne Movie, which is a nice mix. My only
complaint about this movie is that it is ridiculously far fetched. The chances of
the Carmelengo being someone of Ewan McGregors age are highly improbable, and the
chances of a Cardinal with an adopted son getting elected Pope are even more
ridiculous. Not to mention the whole Antimatter thing, which has yet to be created,
and Dan Brown wrote the book in 2003... Overall Angels and Demons is
much tighter knitt, faster paced, more exciting, and more important movie than the
Da Vinci Code. This is must see thriller for anyone who loves history and mystery
combined into one.
As a fan of the book, this work is fantastically adapted; remaining true to the
source materials, and demonstrating an honest respect for the literary work. The
intrigues translate well to film by virtue of Ron Howard's good eye for detail and
sound devotion to authenticity. I like Hanks as Robert Langdon. His
portrayal is genuine and earthy, with only the barest glint of the Kip we all knew
and loved, back in "the day." He is a good dramatic actor and, while I miss his
comedic efforts, I do enjoy his more serious performances. The subject
matter is no less controversial than the DaVinci Code, and the Vatican seems to
never learn their lesson. As with the aforementioned film, the Holy See issued a
scathing rebuke and called for a global Catholic boycott of the film, which of
course, generated millions in ticket sales. Although the story of the
"God Particle" was played down dramatically, and the science was written out of
this piece of science fiction, the fiction that was left, was entertaining and
extremely well done. And, the truth be known, people who have not read the book,
will not notice any missing or lesser element to the story, as the screen version
carries the main story well on its own. In fact, it is not necessary to
have seen the first installment of this franchise, in order to enjoy this second,
which should have been a prequel in all honesty, although that does not lessen the
effectiveness, nor does it meddle with the continuity or flow of this second
work. All in all, this is good for a Friday/Saturday night's viewing,
although the execution may be a bit rough for the small ones. It rates
an 8.8/10 from... the Fiend :.
Still haven't read a single Dan Brown book, but I watched all his movies
adaptations. I won't fall into the game to rate this one with the previous because
the scope isn't really the same: actually, this one is a thriller, a race against
time filled with puzzles. The plot is very twisted, imaginative and the
cast is excellent: I never been a great fan of Hanks but he delivers well. I
noticed his jeans shirt (the one spilled with blood) because I search for one like
this in vain! The Italian searcher is a brilliant newcomer for me but I really
applauded Ewan MacGregor portrayal: his inner faith and calm is really
impressive. I really like the debate between science and religion. The
action taking place in the Vatican, it felt like vacation. At last, I am not sure
it helps to add new converts into Christianism. With all the gold and man presence
displayed, any one would ask what charity means and why women are so dismissed of
the church life whereas they stand for half or more the believers.
Was excited at the opening to hear part of "Chevaliers De Sangreal" but wanted more
so I bought said Hans Zimmer piece. Possibly the most inspiring and beautiful 4
minutes of music ever written! This movie is an exciting thriller masterpiece even
w/o the religious considerations. You get to tour the Vatican and parts of Rome
with excellent cinematography. The opening at CERN where the "God Particle" or
largest quantity of Antimatter is created with STUNNING visuals is an immediate
clue which foretells the excellence of this movie. Who doesn't love Hanks? The
storyline and twists in this film are just superb and well drawn out until the
amazingly twisted climax. This film suggests a satisfying compromise between
Science and Religion though plenty of closed heads will persist on both sides.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." A.Einstein
This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is
novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent
story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at
the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks
were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very
weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly.
From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book,
they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book
very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of
Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not
in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but
could have been done better.
Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called to Rome to help decipher the mystery
behind the Illuminati before a new science experiment blows up the city. The Da Vinci Code broke records in 2006 but for the vast majority of Dan
Brown followers it did not do his award winning book justice and though running at
a good 2 and a half hours, seemed to bore many. Having read the book, I
was perhaps one of the few who enjoyed Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou attempt to solve
the mystery of the murder in the Louvre but for Angels and Demons the scales were
raised once more as lead star and director return. Having asked around,
most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an
entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully
justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release. This
Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da
Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious
activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time
limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that
certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning
murder sequences. The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the
constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are
all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall
power to the situation. This really does justify the tag of thriller
with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given
a full working over. Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and
discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the
key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other
pressing circumstances. It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer;
he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling
sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario
of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and
the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to,
if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as
there is so much in the novel, this was always likely. Ron Howard, who
kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps
the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep
the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks
to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and
this is by no means Bourne. Slick and stylized this is faster and more
interesting than Da Vinci
Three children are born at the exact same time,during a lunar eclipse.Just before
their 10th birthday they embark on a killing spree."Bloody Birthday" is a typical
slasher from early 80's.It's a pretty average stuff with plenty of nudity.The evil
children never generate any menace and there is almost no suspense.There is also no
gore or scares in "Bloody Birthday",but the film is mildly
entertaining.Unfortunately no real explanation is provided for the kids sudden
homicidal mania.The murder scenes are quite gruesome for example we've got death by
handgun,baseball bat,skipping rope and shovel.So if you're a fan of early 80's
slasher movies give this one a look.
I was at the premier of the movie last night in Rome. I am not an expert in the
book, however there are a great deal of changes from the book to the movie. The
pacing of this movie is much faster than the Davinci code. Many things were trimmed
otherwise this would be a 4 hour movie. Many things were also changed to give the
movie a fast pace. I think what matters is the feel of the movie and that works
well for Hanks, Brown and company. There are some things in the book
that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers,
except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How
Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be
interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor
details are are also cut from the movie. Although they did film in Rome,
they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day
before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel.
Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job
and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course
they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the
Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria
Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks. This movie should be
received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned
several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that
this is just a movie.
I go to the movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by the first film in
this series: The DaVinci Code. It had plenty of twists and turns throughout to keep
me very interested. Angels and Demons is no different. If you enjoyed the DaVinci
Code, then you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie as well. Angels and Demons is made
pretty much with the exact same style as the previous film, but faster paced, which
I liked. Ron Howard kept me glued to my seat for the full two hours without boring
me one bit. What I really liked about this movie was that even though it
is obviously fictitious, they leave enough real history to make it seem very
believable. If there is one thing that I didn't like about this movie, it is that
the plot itself is very unbelievable (don't want to give any spoilers). But hey,
it's a movie. I was entertained throughout the whole thing and was very satisfied
with what I saw.
I read Angels and Demons about 3 years ago, and I can honestly say to is one of the
few books that I couldn't put down while reading. The movie however was
pretty much what i expected, a lot of action, with somewhat of a mystery storyline.
Tom Hanks plays, in my opinion, a much better role, of Professor Langdon than in
The Da Vinci Code. You won't have to worry about this being as bad as
The Da Vinci Code, this is everything that it wasn't. Much more interesting, more
action, more suspense, and less of the unneeded controversy. If you haven't read
the book, no worries you will still find it very interesting. And if you have read
the book, well lets say you might be a little let down because I found many scenes
missing that I was looking forward to. Overall, Pretty impressive film
for any everyday movie goer. But, maybe not something too special for Dan Brown
fans.
Where Da Vinci code introduced us to Dr. Robert Langdon and his knack for solving
puzzles, Angels and Demons ups the ante by providing a huge puzzle with an 8 hour
limit. With a cast of award winning actors, Ron Howard does a good job
of directing a story that was easy to follow and even easier to accept. The Da
Vinci code threw so many angles at you in such a short time that a quick bathroom
break would leave you a bit confused on return. I didn't feel this was with Angels
and Demons, the plot was straight-forward and the action kept the interest level
peaked throughout. Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) was easily my
favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood
rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his
treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), you will find yourself
choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom
Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this
did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first
movie. Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to
be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited
and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of
things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's "familiar" more-so
than a necessary partner. The plot is as such, one of the organizations
that the Catholic Church wronged in the past (there have been quite a few) has
sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and
are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself
will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams
up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at
the hands of the church's enemy. Music staying relevant and the
cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes
Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most
amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-
guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this
movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left
the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety. If you are religious
and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where
The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels
and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a
collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided
men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks.
Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any
uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of
hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because
Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and
expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and
mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value. The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist
Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-
election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick
McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a
secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican
City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his
intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of
finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on
the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of
the anti-matter. The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute
Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next
minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes,
evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It
makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way. The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor
does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna,
famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and
physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen
Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard.
Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and
instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets.
 However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling
fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St.
Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb
counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this
second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely
exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost). While
newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is
still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of
Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies
drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it
generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen
this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder. A good book-to-movie
adaption that will both appeal and entertain. 7.4/10
Tom Hanks returns as Dan Brown's symbologist Robert Langdon in his first adventure
Angels & Demons, which Hollywood decided to make after The Da Vinci Code, given the
latter's more controversial subject striking a raw nerve on the faith itself. The
Catholic Church was up in arms over the first film, but seemingly nonchalant about
this one. And it's not hard to see why, considering Ron Howard had opted to do a
flat-out action piece that serves as a great tourism video of Rome and Vatican
City, and would probably boost visitor numbers given the many beautiful on-location
scenes, save for St Peter's Square and Basilica which was a scaled model
used. So I guess with the bulk of the budget going toward the sets, the
ensemble cast had to be correspondingly scaled down. Ayelet Zurer tried to step
into the female void left by Audrey Tautou, but given Tautou's character then
having a lot more stake in the film, Zurer's scientist Vittoria had a lot less to
do other than just waiting in the wings to change some batteries on a canister
filled with anti-matter. In the book she's the fodder of course for Langdon to
converse his vast knowledge of the Vatican, the Illuminati and the great feud
between the two, but here she's neither love interest, nor his intellectual
equal. Ewan McGregor on the other hand, chews up each scene he's in as
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, who is temporarily taking care of the Papal office
while the other prominent cardinals are in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new Pope.
And he plays Patrick with that glint in the eye, with nuances enough to let you
know there's more than meets the eye. There's no surprises here for readers of the
novel, but McGregor's performance here is one of the highlights of the film as
Hanks plays well, Tom Hanks. The book itself is rich with arguably
accurate content as always, and had a lot more plot points on science versus
religion, and a wealth of information that Dan Brown researched and linked together
in an engaging fictional piece of work. While reading the book some years ago, I
thought that should a film be made of it, it's easy to lapse and dwell more on the
set action pieces. Sadly, that's what this Ron Howard film did, with a pace that
doesn't allow a temporary breather. Unlike the first film where you had the
characters sit down for some "discussion time" over a cup of tea, this one moved
things along so quickly, it's like reading the book all over again, page after page
being skipped just to get to the thick of the action. Catholic reviewers
have called Angels & Demons harmless, because I guess it didn't dwell on its many
controversies, unlike The Da Vinci Code which struck a raw nerve at the centre of
the faith. And if anything, this film served as a great tourism promotional video
with a nice showcase of the many prominent touristy landmarks that would entice
many around the world to go pay a visit. Naturally certain areas like the catacombs
beneath St Peter's Basilica, and the Vatican archives remain out of bounds, but the
walk along the Path of Illumination, now that's almost free. Nothing new
for those who have read the book other than to see it come alive, but for those who
haven't, this film may just compel you to pick up Dan Brown's novel just to read a
bit more about the significance about the landmarks, and characters such as
Galileo, Michelangelo and Bernini who are intricately linked to the plot, but much
left unsaid. Satisfying pop-corn entertainment leaving you with nothing
spectacular.
Yeah, I know my title sucks. I couldn't think of any other title. x] Ice is a
brilliant first season episode. Very interesting idea and good acting as well. The
whole worm-looking-thing was really creepy in my opinion. I've never been a fan of
insects, so all the insect episodes are creepy to me. x] Anyway, lets go on to the
good and bad things about this episode, The Good: The parasite thing.
Awesome! Scully finally trusting Mulder. Awww... <33 It was a
good idea to put another parasite in the ear. Though if someone told me they had to
put that thing in my ear... I think the whole cabin would be dead. The
Bad: How did the dog stay alive for so long? How didn't Huffman get
those black spots? Or maybe she did, but no-one saw it... Conclusion:
Very good episode, especially for Season 1. 8/10
This definitely the most tension filled X-Files episode of the first season. this
episode is what I think of when I hear "X-Files". the plot is simple but exiting.
Our main cast plus a few scientist go to investigate an Alskan outpost in which
it's research team appears to have killed each other. It turns out a small parasite
that got dug up from the ice, had infected the research team. The parasite attaches
itself to the brain and causes paranoia and insanity. Soon none can tell who they
can trust, or who's infected or not. This episode was a direct tribute
to John Carpenters great horror film "the THING". the Thing is set in Antarctica
and a team of scientist find a destroyed outpost in which it's occupant have been
killed or killed themselves. An alien that had been buried in the ice for a 10000
years had been thawed out. It has the abilities to imitate any life form. therefore
the main characters can no longer distinct friends from foes. Believe me
The THING is one of the most exiting, and tension filled horror movies you'll ever
see. if you liked the episode ICE I advice you to see it. Or if you have only seen
the THING I advice you to see ICE. ICE is the best direct tribute/homage
to John Carpenter's The THING I have ever seen, and it lives up to it's inspiration
as one of the best X-Files episodes. I give it a 10/10.
This is one of the best episodes from the entire X-Files series, creepy beyond
words. The tension and suspense in this episode is very well executed, in its
entire 45 minutes it managed to be almost as scary as an entire movie. This episode
joins the ranks of best episodes with such greats as "Home", "Humbug" "Bad Blood"
and "Milagro" for being the best in their respective season. Mulder and
Scully's growing relationship is put to the test in this episode: Can they really
trust each other? This episode also contains a tiny scene that will leave romantic
viewers smiling. Mulder: "Bring your mittens"
Okay, that was just brilliant. I wish that the rest of Season 1 had been this
strong. It really needed more episodes like this. The cast worked
perfectly, even though they were all nobodies back in the day. Writing was
fantastic and so was the editing. Great job in all accounts. The
episode was thrilling, suspenseful and just kept you guessing until the very end.
Which is what most MOTW episodes had tried, but failed until now. The
first FIVE star episode for me. Really good, almost like a movie. I didn't even
remember it being this good. I think it's even better than the great horror movie
called 'The Thing'.
I thought I was going to watch another Friday The 13th or a Halloween rip off, But
I was surprised, It's about 3 psycho kids who kill, There's not too many movies
like that, I can think of Mikey, Children Of The Corn and a few others, It's not
the greatest horror movie but it's a least worth a rent.
FBI Agents Mulder and Scully get assigned to probe the mystery of what happened to
an Arctic drilling team, in this early 'X-Files' episode that David Duchovny
himself considers one of their first "rockin'" episodes. It pays loving homage to
the much lauded John Carpenter 1982 theatrical feature "The Thing", and one can see
the similarities. Visually, color and lighting schemes combine to give the story a
hellish quality. Production design / art direction are especially impressive; the
shots of the exterior of the Arctic camp are so reminiscent of the earlier film as
to automatically create feelings of deja vu for some viewers. Naturally, our heroes
are threatened by the weather, so the sound design, involving wind, evokes memories
of "The Thing". The culprit is an ancient worm that had been exposed to
the team; once inside a host, it stimulates aggressive behavior. This allows the
paranoia aspect to take full hold, and the way the script is set up we can't be too
sure of who's infected and who's not. This gives rise to the inevitable scene of
testing. This episode certainly works at portraying the way that tensions can cause
breakdowns in groups. It even allows Mulder and Scully to have moments where
they're not sure if they can trust each other. Guest starring are a good
small group of actors: Xander Berkeley, Felicity Huffman, and Steve Hytner as the
scientists obliged to accompany Mulder and Scully on the mission, and Jeff Kober as
the pilot who takes them to the camp. You can also see one time Jason Voorhees
portrayer Ken Kirzinger as one of the ill-fated original team members. Incidentally, there's one direct link between 'Ice' and "The Thing": art director
Graeme Murray, who worked on both projects. 8/10
This was truly a tense and dark episode. Excellently executed, wonderful acting and
atmospheric directing, 'Ice' is one of my favorite episodes. Along with 'Pusher'
'Grotesque' 'Wetwired' and 'Home' (these are quite good in dark atmosphere in my
case) It seem quite realistic to me, their paranoia, their suspicion and their ever
growing rage was perfectly executed by the great actors. However, 'Ice' had a
problem that I got over after a few watches: IT WAS TOO SHORT! I WANTED MORE! Overall, 'ice' had what 98% of all X Files episodes have: Excellent acting,
Intense story-writing, gritty directing. All the works. 10 out of 10
Ice the Limerick: A virus pulled out of the ice Just didn't
know how to play nice. If infected you'll kill Because you
are ill. The cure is to be infected twice. Ice is a great
episode; one of the greats from season 1 that began shaping the show and if you ask
me you really couldn't ask for much better throughout the entire series. It starts
out with an awesome teaser which in my opinion is really one of the best teasers of
the series also. A group of scientists in Alaska have drilled something out of the
ice core which has for some reason caused them to kill each other. Now Mulder and
Scully are sent with three other scientists to investigate what happened. As Mulder
says this is either because they are brilliant or expendable. I take this to mean
that they had better be brilliant or else... The group soon finds out that the
cause of mayhem is a small parasite pulled out of the ice core. A little worm that
gets into the bloodstream and causes violent behavior. Since the pilot is infected
the rest of the show turns to a suspenseful sort of who-done-it paranoiac thriller
as the others begin to suspect each other of being infected. This is not helped at
all by an overly paranoid doctor Hodge who is un-trusting of anyone which we learn
early on by the first thing he asks: to see everyone's credentials to "make sure we
are who we say we are". Events lead to finding out the one who is infected and
learning how to cure them. There are a number of things I like about the
episode and of course certain characters that I want to smack in the face from this
episode, as well as a couple loopholes but most can be attributed to heightened
caution and not thinking clearly. I like Bear from the moment I first meet him. Its
a shame he has to die. I also like the scene shown from the other scientist's point
of view as Mulder and Scully argue in the other room. It gives an interesting twist
to our typical perception as a viewer and for me seems to say maybe we shouldn't
assume that just because someone is government means they know all sorts of
conspiracy secrets. As much as Hodges frustrates me in this episode I do think that
Mulder was as much to blame for some of the rash actions taken as any. I really
like Scully in this episode. First of all she can tackle like a frickin linebacker!
Second I really like the focus on her terror of what can happen to them out there
and how she tries not to let trust and friendship of Mulder keep her from biasing
her judgment. I love the scene when she goes into the room to sleep and first looks
as the picture of the previous group all hugging and the birthday presents from
them to whoever used to sleep in that room and then how she suddenly freaks out and
pushes the dresser in front of the door and in a final touch of subtlety as she
sits on the floor with her knees pulled into her chest we see the bottom of a
poster on the wall that says "Bosom Buddies". This is such great writing. A way to
say without any words that Scully is worried that she may not be able to trust even
her very best friend. Unfortunately this heightened suspicion leads the
group to believe Mulder to be infected since he discover's Murphy's dead body even
though they haven't inspected him at all to find out for sure. That was my main
problem with the behavior of the characters is they could easily have solved all
the suspicion simply by giving blood. But I guess I probably would have acted
rashly in that situation too. But then stupid Hodges decides that he has to assume
Mulder is infected even though Mulder willingly surrenders and then is going
willingly to be inspected and almost infects Mulder in the process. Luckily he sees
that it is really Dasilva that is infected and we finally reach a resolution. At
least as much as you can expect from an X-File. The "government" wastes no time in
torching the evidence as always happens in these cases and Mulder is left with yet
another frustrating "unsolved" case. In closing I give "Ice" and easy 10/10 and I
leave you with a haiku. "We're not who we are. It goes no further than
this. It ends right here right now."
Wow! It's hard to put into words my feelings for this episode. Ice is one of the
best episodes of season one for sure. It's my favorite of the season. Six people
and a dog in a claustrophobic structure isolated in the middle of the arctic with
an unknown organism that causes murderous aggression, the drama can't get any
better than that. Paranoia reigns supreme as even Mulder and Scully have doubts
about each other's sanity. I've heard people complain about this episode's
similarities to the movie 'The Thing'. I haven't seen it, so I wouldn't know. Ice
is more than worth watching just to see Mulder and Scully truly testing their still
developing trust of one another. This episode is intense and suspenseful to the
end. You won't be disappointed!
A true stand out episode from season 1 is what Ice is.An artic
location,claustrophobic conditions and a general feel of paranoia looming in the
freezing air makes this is a must see episode from season one.The previous
occupants of the artic station Mulder,Scully and four others go to have either
killed each other or killed themselves.A virus is bringing out murderous aggression
and is responsible for bringing out deadly paranoia and fear.Mulder and Scully
actually begin to question each others sanity.Tension is that high.The writers have
to receive great credit for creating that sort of scenario where the atmosphere is
so tense Mulder and Scully come into conflict in such a direct manner
A team varied between Scully and Mulder, two other scientists, a pilot, and the guy
who plays Bana on Seinfeld, go up to an Arctic research post where all members have
died off by either killing each other or killing themselves. They discover there's
a worm- a virus- that is parasitic to the point of madness and death. The problem
is, after a certain dog lashes out, anyone could be infected, but who? This is not
just my favorite episode of season 1, but also one of my favorites from the show.
The Arctic environment encloses the characters and, of course like Carpenter's the
Thing, it's a lot of fun watching these even-tempered characters suddenly start to
flip out in dramatic scenes. And the visual effects of the worm and its effects
under the skin are cheesy, I didn't mind them at all. The drama between the
characters ends up working more than it would usually because of the tension and
because all of the actors (including the Bana guy) understand what's going on in
the story. And, as usual, I loved the ambiguity of the ending. Highly recommended.
This isn't a bad TV movie. Shtrafbat is short for Shtrafnoy Batallion, which means
Penal Batallion. Such battallions were formed due to the increasing demand for
soldiers as the Soviet Union was taking heavy casualties all through out the war.
These battalions consisted of convicts and dishonored soldiers who were given the
chance to clear their names by proving themselves in combat. They were looked down
upon as scum and were expended easily during combat without much regret, or much
honor, on the part of military. They were often sent on suicide missions and
suffered extreme casualties. The ones who refused to fight were executed on sight.
Needless to say, their lives sucked. There were some very nice
performances by the cast, especially by Yuri Stepanov who played Antip, Aleksandr
Bashirov who played Stirah, and Roman Madyanov who played Major Kharchenko. However
the series isn't really that addictive, in part because it's too long, it could've
a lot shorter and as effective. Although it's about war, Shtrafbat has
very mild violence and pretty much no gore. It relies solely on the actors to make
it work, and after all, it's a TV series, so the producers didn't want to scare off
the viewers and the sponsors. Shtrafbat explores the cruelty of the
Soviet regime, and explaines why so many men chose to fight the Nazis instead of
joining them. Personally I'd rather be a Fascist then a Communist given the
circumstances presented in the film. One character explains that the Soviets
stripped his farm clean and his family died of starvation. Out of anger he burned
it down which got him arrested for destroying Kolhoz property and he ended up in
the penal battalion as a criminal. Antip reminisced on how his mother killed her
youngest son to feed the rest of the family. Both men explained that they fought
for their motherland, rather than the for the Soviets. The penal
battalion had one Marine(Naval Infantry) who raped a girl, killing his comrade in
the prosess, threatened his other comrade to keep his mouth shut about both
ordeals, and then feigned injury when it came to fighting. On top of all that the
girl committed suicide due to shame. I imagine if enough Marines watched this movie
they'd pick up banners and riot on the streets calling for a boycott or an official
apology from the producers. To say the least, I'd recommend it to anyone
with the slightest interest in the former Soviet Union or World War II. I don't
think I wasted 500+ minutes of my life.
Shtrafbat - Penal Battalion is a moving, and mostly honest, look at the lives and
deaths of Soviet soldiers who were sentenced to wash away their crimes with blood
during World War Two. One can almost call it the Russian equivalent of highly
acclaimed "Band of Brothers" miniseries. Formed in July of 1942 on the
eve of Battle of Stalingrad, the penal battalions were considered expendable units
and suffered horrible casualties (sometimes as high as 90%). Prisoners of GULAG
(political prison/concentration camps), deserters, soldiers who were captured by
Germans but managed to escape, soldiers accused of breaching protocol, were all
given a chance to join the Shtrafbat and prove that there were not "Traitors of the
Motherland" with their lives. Those who sustained injuries and those who died in
battle were considered rehabilitated and were reinstated in the eyes of the law. This miniseries features a look at one such Shtrafbat, under the command of
Tverdokhlebov - an honorable officer who was captured by the Germans, was shot and
left for dead. It features a colorful and varied group of people, thrust into a
situation from which there is no escape. The authoritative yet honorable crime boss
Antip "Kulak" (The Fist) and his little gang of unreformed criminals, a young
Jewish intellectual who struck his anti-Semite officer, Father (Orthodox Priest)
Mikhail who joins the battalion when his parish is destroyed in the house-to-house
fighting, political prisoners who hate the regime that condemned them to the GULAG
but who are nonetheless willing to fight one last time for their people and
country, must all find their courage and their reasons to keep on living, and to
keep on fighting. Although set during a war, not every episode features
combat, in fact what combat scenes there are, are often chaotic, sporadic, and
short - which was probably the intent of the director. In between, the miniseries
focuses on various relationships between the cast, their backgrounds, their
thoughts and tragedies. The rape of a young woman by one of Shtrafbat's soldier and
then his execution, execution for supposed AWOL, periods of boredom on the march,
the celebration (and subsequent consequences) of finding a German bunker stocked
with food (and champagne), the moral dilemma of officers unable to save their men
from their own superiors, cheating on a spouse, and other situations, feature
prominently. The camera is unflinching - it does not turn away from the ugliness of
war and the ugliness of human nature, nor from raw human emotions. The dialog
likewise does not censor out the swearing. The acting is superb and
deep, and the script is likewise well written. Everything from rage, to weariness,
to resignation, to finding a scrap of joy to hang on to, is rendered almost
faultlessly. One complaint might be that some of Russian linguistic and cultural
idiosyncrasies may not always be understood by someone not familiar with the
language and culture. Because it is a history drama in a sense, some of the terms
and situations (military rank, mention of other battles, certain historical
references) may be lost on some viewers. This understanding is not needed to
thoroughly enjoy Shtrafbat, but these references are a nice touch of authenticity.
Another complain that could be levied, is an occasional anachronism and bending of
history to suit the plot, but frankly this is such a riveting miniseries that one
will likely forgive these slight mishaps.
Shtrafbat is the story only Russians could tell about the Second World War. The
largest front of the whole conflict has been, ironically, the least appearing
subject on the silver screen after the war. While the Western Allies war-effort has
been pictured in almost every possible detail and manner, the East has been left
out or the job has been left to only some old propaganda movies of little else than
historical footage value. There is no chance that Shtrafbat could
compete with Band of Brothers in every detail but neither you want to look at the
screen with examining petty visual effects in mind. That the soldiers are Russians
is enough big reason to forgive the less eye-captivating battle scenes and you can
concentrate on the story that is the most interesting. So much different was the
war in the Eastern front, and the nature of the Russian army, that you might wish
people to produce more dramatizations from the other fronts, and of armies. Shtrafbat is no way perfect, but it has some rare specialties that augment
the overall rating. It tends to crush myths people have about the Second World War,
the true heroes were Russian people and not their leaders who sent them to missions
where they could only perish. Another great myth bust is that it presents the
enemy, who does not pick up his gun, as an equal human being - an advancement that
has been difficult to try in many acclaimed films as well. Shtrafbat shows how the
war in the eastern front was a war of survival and how the clash of the -isms
grinds people into dust.
Many experienced and excellent actors mixed together in an ongoing plot of an
untold part of world war II on the eastern front. Characters well portrayed and
unforgettable. One episode leaves you wishing for the next. Pay attention to the
closing credits were the thousands of Shtrafbat battalions are listed. An untold
story involving hundreds of thousands of individuals. Sometimes brutal, sometimes
romantic, always filled with real people and dialog. Produced with excellent sets
and camera work. Heroes and villains, criminals and priests, patriots and traitors.
Portrait of people struggling to survive and overcome a most terrible time. I wish
to buy a copy for my own collection so to be able to enjoy the series repeatedly.
Three kids are born during a solar eclipse and turn into vile murderous little
tykes who're above suspicion by everyone, save for Joyce (Lori Lethin) and her
younger brother Timmy. That's the story in a nutshell. The acting in this one is
tolerable for the most part. Notable for MTV-J Julie Brown (not the 'Downtown' one)
showing some skin, and a very early part (albiet small) for Michael Dudikoff. Not a
great film by any stretch of the imagination, but in the 'killer kids' sub-genre
it's a bit of a guilty pleasure. Eye Candy: Julie Brown shows T&A (the
only film thus far, to claim that honor); Sylvia Wright gets topless DVD Extras (R1): 16 minute interview with Producer Max Rosenberg (wherein he
insults the director AND Canada, great stuff); Biography of Ed Hunt; and trailers
for "Kiss of the Taratula", "Don't open the Door", & a red-band one for "Homework"
(which features nudity) My Grade: B-
With the war not going well for the Soviet Union, Stalin accepted volunteers from
the prisons and used the prisoners as shock troops. This is the story of one such
battalion. There are petty crooks, political prisoners, soldiers kicked out of
other units, gray-haired veterans of the White Army plus some dangerous
criminals. They are thrown into battle ill-equipped, untrained and face
the threat of the NKVD if they show signs of cowardice or failure. The
special effects are rudimentary and many of the minor characters are one-
dimensional, but the overall story is very human and riveting. I have
not seen a version with subtitles or dubbing. Viewing the show required liberal use
of the pause button and explanations from a native speaker of Russian.
Rififi, directed by Jules Dassin, is in line with the Melville crime pictures
(particularly Bob le Flameur and to a point Le Cercle Rouge) of being totally
focused on story and character and making sure not a word is spoken that doesn't
need, and was ahead of its time. Ionically, it still has a kind of professionalism
among its characters, a kind of respect (if not for selves than for others, a kind
of duty) that rings well in post-WW2 France. Its actors carry faces for these
characters that say 'we know what these guys are about', and from there the story
takes off. Maybe it's because I have a weak spot for heist pictures, particularly
where we see just the nuts and bolts (err, actual physical side) of how a heist is
pulled off. One of the problems with how the actual heist is filmed in
today's movies is that it's all very fast (i.e. Snatch), or done in ways we've seen
too many times before. Dassin, like Melville years later, decided to create
practically a silent film of a heist, sound effects included. The tension that
builds up in this scene may not top what Melville had in 'Rouge', but on its own
level it achieves its own greatness and momentum, and just as crucial originality
to what's been done before. There are some kept close-ups, for example, as the safe
is being cracked, that mark some of the best I've seen from France at that time. An
added plus for the film, aside from the larval-stage new-wave touch to the film,
which in the end makes it a little more modern, is that the story works so well and
differently. It becomes completely about character at points, and then keeps up the
thrills. The last ten to fifteen minutes are down-right miraculous; like with
another classic heist picture the Asphalt Jungle, it's not even the last stop that
matters, but all about how much one will go past the call of duty, putting humanism
over greed. You almost wonder in all the exhilaration of the camera
flying by the trees at a high speed with the car that he might just make it. Dassin
has here a very entertaining and intuitive film of its genre, with a nifty little
musical number as well.
Fantastic movie! One of the best film noir movies ever made. Bad guys, bad girls, a
jewel heist, a twisted morality, a kidnapping, everything is here. Jean Servais has
a face that would make Bogart proud and the rest of the cast is is full of
character actors who seem to to know they're onto something good. Get some popcorn
and have a great time.
Run, don't walk, to rent this movie. It is re-released on an excellent DVD version.
It is primo acting/directing/cinematography in the world of suspense/film noir.
Tribute this to the blacklisted American director Jules Dassin, who also plays the
Italian safe-cracker. See it!
The ultimate gritty heist film. Elements of Bogie, Welles & Sinatra will leave you
sweating & satisfied. In comparison, it really upsets the proverbial apple cart to
see recent films, such as "Oceans Eleven (remake)", reviewed in such high regard-
especially in Europe. Films like Rififi must be shown, spoke about, and kept alive
to remind younger (pathetic) critics what true classic Noir is. Criterion should be commended in their flawless and classy transfer.
Rififi is a great film that is overlooked. It's a crime drama where a man gets out
of jail and plans another job. It's an over used story but this one is different
from the others. They round up the usual suspects for the job. This film takes a
look at how the family gets torn apart as time goes on. The actual heist scene is
one of the best I have ever seen. Instead of a suspenseful soundtrack the director
decided to go with silence, around thirty minutes of silence. This fits the mood
perfectly and is often copied these days. Of course things get out of hand and
people die and it ends in a great ending that builds up in suspense. So
if you're looking for a great film noir that not a lot of people talk about this is
a great pick up.
"Rififi" is a terrific heist movie, and one from which subsequent heist films have
drawn ever since. Jules Dassin had a feel for the seedy underworld in which these
thieves live---you will not find here the Hollywood glamour of "Ocean's Eleven."
The robbers in "Rififi" don't rob for the thrill, and they're not playing a game.
They rob to survive, to pay for their children's upbringing, to prove to themselves
and others that they still have something to offer the world. The much-lauded heist
scene is a nail biter, filmed in virtual silence. I did have the feeling that the
plot went on a bit longer than it needed to, but the high-speed race to deliver the
child to his mother that ends the film is classic. Be warned---this
movie is very bleak. But it's also very good. Grade: A-
What a gas of a movie! "Film Noir" has always been one of my favorite genres, but
this one stands apart from the rest. Only "The Big Sleep", "Out of the Past",
"Murder My Sweet", and "The Killers" can come close to this caper classic. I know
these four American films I mentioned are not caper movies per se, but rather
detective stories with complicated story lines, which still exude a "noirean",
gritty quality about them, similar to "Rififi". What is different here
is the way Jules Dassin sets into motion the total ambiance of the film, not only
in the gritty realism of the principals, but also in the usage of the streets of
Paris as a subliminal character and co-conspirator unto itself! The movie centers
around "le Stephanois", a dark, moody and complicated ex-con getting pulled into
one last shot at the hefty payoff. Even though he is an unsmiling and hard-nosed
tough guy, one still senses in him a yearning for some kind of redemption by
extricating himself from the demons of his past (hey, he saved little Toni!).
Dassin picked the right guy (Jean Servais) for that role. That aside,
the rest of the story development kind of falls into place as we journey through
the famous "silent" caper scene to the the eventual demise of the principal
"perps". Only their women survive, except for Ida, Mario's honey. They seemed to
best understand the underlying futility of it all!
To start with, I have done some further research on the film. Firslty, Jules Dassin
directed and acted in this extremely imaginative and different film noir crime
film. Secondly, This was a very low budget film, created in the Rennaissance of the
prime moment of film noir. Thirdly, the jewelers where the robbery was attempted is
an actual jewelers. The producers of Rififi asked them to film their, surprisingly,
(I quote Jules Dassin in a recent interview on the subject, "surprisingly, for some
not very obvious reason, they were delighted at the idea of a crime film being set
in their shop). It's impeccable characters and plot fit in so
beautifully with their surroundings. To add on to my praise I will say this; some
might say that this was a typical Hollywood film, on the contrary, this set the
base for the regular plot of a Hollywood crime film. Laslty, I would
like to say that I support this fresh idea of a film where not only one side wins,
and that side doesn't always have to be the good one. For once, I can say that a
film is not predictable! Ten stars!
This 1955 heist film follows Tony le Stephanois, recently released from prison for
theft, as he undertakes the robbery of his life. He teams up with his old heist
buddies and they bring in an expert safe-cracker, Cesar from Milan (played by Jules
Dassin, who also directed. He only directed because he had been blacklisted as a
communist in the U.S. and couldn't work in Hollywood.) The brilliance of this film
is the 1/2 hour during the robbery. During all this time, there is no dialogue and
no music, only the muted sounds of digging through the floor or drilling the safe.
This increases the suspense and draws you in. They get away with several hundred
million francs worth of jewels, but a jewel offered to a dancer by Cesar brings
their haul to the attention of a trio of brutal brothers. They set out to get the
stash for themselves and bring misfortune in their wake. Great heist/gangster
movie, but I prefer J.-P. Melville's films in this genre. This movie is
like some lemonade I had last night. I had gone to a Caribbean restaurant and the
lemonade was made with sugar cane juice instead of sugar. It also had a lot of ice
and was heavy on the lemons, leaving it fairly sour (which I like). The sugar cane
juice imparted a subtle, slightly more mellow taste to it than actual sugar, and
the ice made sure it was cold and refreshing as I sucked it down. 7.5/10
http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies
Three children are born during a solar eclipse and ten years later this has somehow
caused them to grow up without consciences. As their simultaneous tenth birthday
celebrations approach, they become cunning and calculating cold-blooded murderers.
Nice-girl local teen Joyce Russel (Lori Lethin) finds herself confronting these
little terrors when most others are falling for their angelic demeanors. Hearkening back to films like "The Bad Seed" and "Village of the Damned",
this films' premise of evil children may not be wholly original but it's still
pretty disturbing. All three of the child actors - Elizabeth Hoy, Billy Jacoby, and
Andy Freeman - are chillingly convincing. Director Ed Hunt and his co-writer Barry
Pearson maintain the unpleasant yet compelling mood for the duration of the film;
they go so far as to have the little girl charge admission for an unwilling peep
show involving her older sister (future stand-up comedienne and MTV personality
Julie Brown, whose striptease is a real eyeful). Name actors Susan
Strasberg, as an icy teacher, and Jose Ferrer, with barely any screen time as a
doctor, add to the proceedings with their presence, while K.C. Martel, one of the
youngsters from the original "The Amityville Horror", is very likable as Joyces'
kid brother. Other familiar faces like Ellen Geer, B-movie he-man Michael Dudikoff,
Cyril O'Reilly ("Porky's", "Dance of the Damned"), Joe Penny ('Jake and the
Fatman'), and William Boyett ("The Hidden") can be seen as well. Touching upon such parental fears as children playing with guns that they've
discovered and being locked inside old refrigerators, "Bloody Birthday" is a little
more than just a slasher variation with kids as antagonists. Aided and abetted by
Arlon Obers' music score, this film sticks in the memory more than some of its
brethren, without lots of gore to fall back on (although that arrow through the eye
gag works quite well). Bleak, nasty, and downbeat, "Bloody Birthday" is
worth a look for the curious. 7/10
American expatriate Jules Dassin makes an award-winning French gangster film. The
plot involves Tony the Stephanois, a hoodlum just out of prison, who takes his band
of thieves on a $240 million jewel heist. Unfortunately, his ex-wife's relationship
with a notorious gangster named Grutter, an Italian safe-cracker named Cesar with a
weakness for women, and the missteps of his own friend Jo cause the successful
heist to turn into a bloody race against time as Grutter holds Jo's son hostage for
the cash in typical "crime never pays" tragedy fashion. The "rififi" in
the title is explained in a song to mean slang for basically violence and sex, and
the full title, "Du rififi chez les hommes" means roughly "Some naughty in the
house of men", which is pretty much where the fatal flaw of the characters take
place. Leave it to a gangster film to place most of the emphasis on the missteps on
the women, but this time Jo's wife gets the last laugh (if you could call it a
laugh) when she predicts "All of you are just going to kill each other." The
characters aren't the most sympathetic and the women are mostly weak, but Dassin
still builds an extremely well-crafted suspense film out of them as they pull off a
heist that requires the utmost quiet, hide the goods, and then attempt to survive
what basically becomes a cross-country cat and mouse game. In the mix are some very
amazing photography and a fine attention to detail in editing, leading to a pacing
and visual experience that well overstates the otherwise generic plot. It's not
only easy to see why this is held as a classic, it's also easy to see why it's
among the top 250 on the IMDb: it's suspenseful, visually magnificent, full of sex
and violence, and maintains that classy gangster attitude we film buffs like so
much.
There are not many films which I would describe as perfect, but Rififi definitely
fits the bill. No other heist film has come close to it, before or after. The plot
is simple, but engrosses you. It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely gripping
the film is every time you view it. You care for all the characters, even though
they are bank robbers, because they are presented as human beings with all their
problems and flaws. It's hard to imagine any other actor besides Jean Servais in
the role of Tony le Stéphanois. When the members of the crew are each talking about
what they are going to do with their money and finally get to Tony, his answer and
the expression on his face says it all. While the 30 minute heist sequence is the
most famous part of the movie(and rightfully so)the film actually gets better
afterward.The director Jules Dassin knew what he was doing when he decided to not
have any music during the heist scene or the final shootout, but instead inserted a
great climactic score during Tony's final ride towards his destiny. To think that
if Dassin, an American Director, had not been blacklisted in Hollywood and forced
to work in France, this masterpiece of cinema would never have been made the way it
was. It certainly wouldn't have been as good if it was made as an American film
during that time. It was absolutely horrible what Dassin had to go through, but he
did achieve his greatest work because of it, to the benefit of all of us. I'm just
cringing at the thought of the upcoming Al Pacino remake. Most heist films since
Rififi have already borrowed from it in some way or another. There's no reason to
remake this masterpiece other than money. Leave the classics alone!
You can take the crook out of the joint, but it seems exceedingly more difficult to
take the joint out of the crook. We've seen this kind of character in this kind of
situation before (and since): in movies like BOB LE FLAMBEUR, ELEVATOR TO THE
GALLOWS, TOUCHEZ PAS AU GRISBI, THE ANDERSON TAPES, etc. Too many times to mention.
What helps make this one one of the more notable is (of course) the heist itself,
which plays out wordlessly in real time, and the demeanor of the lead. Bogart would
think twice before crossing this guy. The ironic ending is perfectly suited to this
story (it almost demands it). All around, one of the better films noir.
It's a mystery to me as to why I haven't caught up to this masterful 50s caper film
turned brooding noir until now, but I'm certainly glad to report that it didn't
disappoint. I haven't seen any of Jules Dassin's American films for several years
but based on this I'll probably be going back and re-watching "Brute Force" and
"Night and the City" quite soon. Jean Servais, a name unknown to me but
a face rather familiar in its world-weariness and coldness, has recently completed
a lengthy stay in prison and as is the way in these films (hey, there wouldn't be a
story otherwise) isn't coping well with the straight life. An opportunity presents
itself: an easy multi-million-dollar jewel heist that can be done at night with no
fear of discovery by a few men. The taut filming of the robbery, half an hour of
total silence, is what people most remember about the film of course, and indeed
it's pretty remarkable; but I liked the half-completed location of the final
shootout, once the robbery has gone sour thanks to the big mouth of one of the
thieves; the excellent portrayal gritty sides of Paris in stark black and white;
and Servais' channeling of both Eddie Constantine and Humphrey Bogart in his spare
but brutal performance. Perhaps it's a bit too sentimental in the end,
but this is one of those classics that really does live up to its reputation just
as pure entertainment even if what it has to say about the human condition isn't
exactly deep or thought-provoking; George Auric's at turns modernist, romantic, and
jazzy score is another highlight.
I have been wanting to see this since my French teacher recommend it to me over
forty years ago. Perhaps the long wait was worth it, since the Criterion Collection
DVD restoration is impressive. In its outline this movie follows the
time-worn script: a quartet of men diligently plot a difficult heist of a bank
vault, the heist takes place, a small seemingly insignificant event leads to the
ultimate demise of all. Even though the heist footage is transfixing, it occurs
rather early and is ultimately not at the core of the film. This film separates
itself from the typical heist movie by giving us insights into the personalities of
the characters and their motivations - its plays as much as a drama as it does a
thriller. Relationships play a big role and a kidnapping is tacked on, giving us
two movies for the price of one. John Servais plays the idea man Tony le
Stéphanois (always referred to as "le Stéphanois") with such world-weariness that
he could have just stepped out of a Camus novel. Tony has just recently gotten out
of jail and resists re-entering the life of crime until he has a highly unpleasant
interaction with his ex-lover (who has taken up with another man) where, as
punishment, he physically whips her with a belt. Thankfully that scene occurs off
camera, but you are not likely to forget it. After that sobering event, since there
seems little hope of reviving that relationship, Tony meets with two of his old
partners in crime, Jo and Mario, and decides to join them in one last big heist.
They enlist the services of Cesar, an Italian safe cracker - played by director
Dassin himself - and we are off to the heist. The heist goes off without
a hitch. But Cesar's womanizing bent is a personality trait that turns out to be
fatal for all concerned. However, we can understand his attraction to the nightclub
singer he has fallen for, since there is a brilliant set piece where she performs a
sexy and cinematically inspired nightclub act - it has to be one of the most
memorable scenes from any noir film. It is established early on that
Tony has a close relationship with Jo and his family; in fact Jo's son refers to
him as uncle. I think it is partly to help Jo's family that Tony agrees to the
heist. The ending scenes, where Tony saves the life of Jo's kidnapped son,
partially redeems his more brutal and amoral actions. But only partially.
The fact that after 50 years, it is still a highly watchable movie, says a lot
about it. It is more intelligent and interesting than almost all recent movies of
the same genre you can find, and has a certain endearing feeling of innocence to
it. I am not a big fan of this type of movies, but I could watch the whole thing
without being bored, which makes it a good movie to watch with someone who does not
necessarily share your taste in films. I liked the black and white palette, the
excellent casting, the clever heist scene that keeps you guessing about what trick
they will pull next, and the ending like everyone else. Watching the heist sequence
makes one realize the power of silence, which is unfortunately so underused in
today's cinema.
I heard they were going to remake this French classic in 2007, and I see it is in
development for 2011. This will be a shame, as Hollywood kicked writer/director
Jules Dassin out because of the infamous blacklist. They should not have the right
to remake any of his films. I love "caper" films and "film noir," and
this combines the best of both. Tony (Jean Servais) gets out after doing
a nickle, and after he beats up his old girlfriend (Marie Sabouret), he plans a big
score with his friends Mario (Robert Manuel) and Jo (Carl Möhner), What makes this
a great caper flick is the attention to detail in planning the robbery. You see
that reflected in the George Clooney Vegas capers. Nothing is left to chance. The caper goes off great but Grutter (Marcel Lupovici) sends his sons,
Robert Hossein and Pierre Grasset after Tony and the gang. After blowing it with
Mario, they kidnap Jo's son. Lots of bullets fly before it is over. A
great film by a great director. The standard by which other caper films are
measured.
In order to pull off a job like this caper in Rififi (e.g. The Score and its
opines), one has to have nerves of steel. This one apparently demands and commands
it. Jules Dassin is the master. I was on the edge of my seat throughout.
It deserves to be better known, even though it was not at the time of its release
in 1954, due, one supposes, to the director being blacklisted in the hypocritical
Hollywood of its day. I would recommend this film to anyone who has not
has the pleasure of seeing it. I cannot give it enough stars.
After seeing NAKED CITY and NIGHT AND THE CITY (which is still my favorite Dassin)
I was more than excited to watch his "Masterpiece" (O-Word Criterion) RIFIFI. Now i am a little bit disappointed about the story. So I have at
least these five questions in my mind: 1. In the final Countdown Louis
Grutter shot from the inside a house the main Character Tony le Stéphanois. He
couldn't know if he is still alive or not, but he didn't care about it and ran
directly after it outside the house (with the money) to reach his car. So of course
Tony wasn't dead and shot him. BIG QUESTIONMARK. 2. In another important
scene the specialist in safes Cesar gave directly after the robbery as a present a
diamond ring (which was a part of the robbery) a Woman which was working for Louis
Grutter in a night bar. Stupid, because before this character wasn't THAT stupid.
And of course Louis knew directly that Tony planned the jewel robbery. SMALL
QUESTIONMARK. 3.After the Gangsters behind Louis Grutter murder Mario
Ferrati and his wife,Tony and his best friend Joe planned a revenge against Louis
gang. At the same time they don't care for the security of Joe's wife and his five
years old child. Of course Louis gang kidnapped the son. CHEAP and SIMPLE. 4. The perfect heist: Of course this is the best 30min. long scene in the whole
Plot, without any word spoken in the whole time, but was this a perfect heist??
Comparing with other movies which handle with this theme i could only smile when
for example Tony was taken a fire-extinguisher to banned the alarm. Also too
SIMPLE. 5. The Grutter gang went to the house of Mario, because they
knew (however....) the jewels will be there. Then they murder Mario and his Wife.
And then? They are not searching for it! NO. They ran directly out of the
apartment. And more. They not observing the apartment after it so Tony can go after
a while (which was the same day) inside to take the jewels. BIG QUESTIONMARK. Over all: it's a good movie. Because of the brilliant 30min silent heist
scene. Because of the very good cut (The end scene in the car through Paris is
stunning) . Because of a very good actor called Jean Servais. Because of this
Black/White fever you will get while watching it. Because of some other reasons too
other user wrote about, but please don't tell me this is a stunning story.
A recent re-issue of the French crime film (original title 'Du Rififi Chez les
Hommes'), with its famous 20-minute silent jewel heist sequence, now comes in the
US in a gorgeous new print from The Criterion Collection with improved subtitles
and some extras. Jules Dassin was an American (born Julius Dassin in Middletown
Connecticut) who was forced to make films in Europe because he was Blacklisted.
Rififi was well publicized in the US and did well in art houses. Later Dassin
became a lot more famous in the US for 'Never on Sunday' (1960) starring his wife,
the Greek actress and political activist Melina Mercouri. (Greece was again
glamorized and popularized for Americans and others with Anthony Quinn in Mihalis
Kakogiannis' 1964 'Zorba the Greek', which was even a big hit in Cairo.) The new
Rififi DVD includes a recent interview with Dassin. I did not previously realize
that one of the main robbers, Cesar the Milanese, was played by Dassin, who stepped
in when the original actor became unavailable. He's one of the most memorable
characters, a dandified Italian safe cracker who speaks no French. Although this classic has all the trappings of French film noir--the black and
white twilight world of well lit apartments, shiny black cars, men in suits, the
nightclub scenes, including a dramatically filmed and lit title song performed at
the club, the stony faces and the Gauloises in hand or mouth--I don't think it's as
atmospheric or has quite as distinctive a style as Melville's films do. But there's
the mesmerizing robbery, which still holds up today as a tour de force. It goes
like clockwork, with a fine sense of craft and teamwork among the robbers. Some
nosy cops are efficiently dealt with. Things quickly go wrong after they go home
and distribute the loot when one of the players gets sloppy and gives a dame a ring
with a million-dollar bangle in it. Has there ever been a heist film whose perps
lived happily ever after? It's the wordless heist sequence that
guarantees this a special place, and Dassin, an American director who had an
unusually varied and exotic career, deserves full credit for that. He took a novel
so conventional he was going to reject it, and added some key elements that make it
special. In the event, he couldn't pass on doing the adaptation: he needed the
money too much. Jean Servais, who plays the lead character Tony le Stephanois, was
an actor rather down on his luck. His grim face is perfect for the role. He was
later to play the lead in Dassin's He Who Must Die (1957), which used French actors
in Greece for a political tale. 'Topkapi' is a somewhat disappointing 1964 caper
film (it pales compared to 'Rififi') that also got US distribution. It does have a
good setting, but it's wasted, gone all bland and bright and prettified. Of
Dassin's post-Hollywood oeuvre, 'Never on Sunday,' with its catchy theme song and
charismatic heroine, is the popular choice (and won Best Film at Cannes 1960); 'He
Who Must Die' the political choice; 'Rififi' the genre choice. An odd piece is his
'Phaedra' with Mercouri and Tony Perkins (1962). Purists of tough-guy Hollywood
genre work would eschew these and favor Dassin's early films, which include a
prison drama, 'Brute Force' (1947);a cop flick, 'The Naked City' (1948); and two
hard core noirs, 'Thieves' Highway' (1949), and 'Night and the City' (1950).
Personally I tend to like French noir and American neo-noir spinoffs better than
the original American noir source material--hence my enduring fascination with
'Rififi'. But Dassin is rather unique in having not only made Hollywood noir but
then going over to Paris and producing a memorable example of its Fifties French
derivative.
Story about three eclipse (maybe even Indigo, ha) children beginning their love for
murder. Oh, and the people who are "hot" on their trail. Bloody
Birthday, a pretty mediocre title for the film, was a nice lil surprise. I was in
no way expecting a film that dealt with blood-thirsty psychopath kids. And I may
say it's also one of the best flicks I've seen with kids as the villains. By the
end of the movie I seriously wanted these kids to die in horrible fashion. It's a really solid 80s horror flick, but how these kids are getting away with
all this mayhem and murder is just something that you can't not think about. Even
the slightest bit of investigation would easily uncover these lil sh!ts as the
murderers. But there seems to be only a couple police in town, well by the end,
only one, and he seemed like a dimwit, so I suppose they could have gotten away
with it. Haha, yeah, and I'm a Chinese jet-pilot. Nevertheless, this
movie delivered some evilass kids who were more than entertaining, a lot of
premarital sex and a decent amount of boobage. No kiddin! If you're put off by the
less than stellar title, dash it from your mind and give this flick a shot. It's a
very recommendable and underrated 80s horror flick.
Du rififi chez les hommes is a brilliant film which studies criminal minds and
allows viewers to have a better understanding of criminals who are fundamentally
not different from ordinary folks like us.What director Jules Dassin shows is that
criminal do have families and they care a lot for them.That is why they adhere to a
strict code of honor. For them a family is not only made up of wives,mistresses and
children but also include casual acquaintances and close friends.Contrary to what
many might find it hard to believe,Jules Dassin has not tried to glorify crime in
his film as rififi makes it clear that crime never pays.It shows that all kinds of
bad activities result in some kind of human loss.Apart from its philosophical
stance Rifif is worth watching for its technical finesse.While watching one of the
film's most brilliant sequences about breaking of a safe,one would find it hard to
believe meticulous precision with which criminal minds execute their plans.This is
a scene which nobody has dared to copy in Hollywood.
As far as I am concerned, this film noir had two totally different things going for
it as opposed to the film noirs I am used to viewing: 1 - the setting is Paris,
France; 2 - there is 28-minute scene with no dialog. Both make this
movie a bit unique, at least to English-speaking film noir fans. Actually, an
American, Jules Dussain, shot the film, so it's not entirely a European film.
Initially, I was disappointed in this after I had watched the first 40 minutes.
It's an expensive DVD and I was bored. However, once that silent segment started -
the actual heist (you already know what's it about), the film picked up
considerably and just got better and better. In fact, I thought the best
part of the story was what happened after the heist. The best aspect of the entire
film was the cinematography. This is what makes the disc worth owning. It's
excellent film noir photography and a real travelogue for those of us who have
never seen Paris...and this is Paris in the mid 1950s. There are lots of bleak-but-
interesting rain-soaked Paris streets and buildings I found fascinating to view. In
fact, there were many more of those great shots than of London in the much better
known film, The Third Man. The lead actor in here, Jean Servais, I think
his name is, also is interesting to view. Someone described his face as a cross
between Humphrey Bogart and Harry Dean Stanton, and that sums it up perfectly. A
warning for those not expecting profanity or nudity in a classic film. This is
France, not the United States, so there is a little bit of both in here. I
appreciate the DVD offering the choice of subtitles or a dubbed version, too.
If the caper genre owes a lot to Walter Huston, it also has a debt of gratitude to
Jules Dassin, a man that was ahead of his times and who suffered a lot because of
his blacklisting when Edward Dmytryk accused him of being a Communist. The end of
his American career would have meant the end of Mr. Dassin, but moving to Europe
proved he was bigger than the same people that had contributed to his Hollywood
demise. "Rififi" is an elegant film in which all the right elements come
together thanks to Mr. Dassin's vision. He decided to adapt Auguste Le Breton's
novel because he saw the possibilities for turning it into a caper film that became
an instant classic. Jules Dassin was penniless in Paris when he discovered the city
that were going to serve as the background to his film. The bad weather paid off
for Mr. Dassin as the streets were always wet and not much had to be done to show
them that way. When we first meet Tony, he is playing cards. Tony
appears to be in bad health; he coughs all the time and sweats profusely. After
losing all his money, he goes to see Jo, the Swede, who tells him about a
possibility for a robbery at Maupin & Webb, the fancy jewelry store at a tony
section of Paris. They pass the idea through Mario, who suggests Cesar, the
Milanese, an expert safe cracker. Tony, who has come out of prison
recently, learns that Mado, his former lover is now with Grutter, a creep that owns
a night club. Upon confronting Mado, instead of love, all he feels is contempt, and
the meeting ends badly and he throws her out of his place. Grutter has no love for
Tony, who is his natural enemy because of his connection with Mado. When
the day arrives, the gang is able to get to the apartment building where on the
second floor, right above the jewelry store, the owner lives, but he is away.
Everything goes well and the gang gets away with the jewels. Cesar, the Milanese, a
typical ladies' man, takes a ring as a souvenir, which in turn he gives the
chanteuse at the Grutter's night club. This tactical mistake is the spark which
unravels the well thought plan. Jean Servais made an excellent Tony. He
showed a tired man who was possibly doing his last robbery. Carl Mohner, Robert
Manuel and the director, Jules Dassin, are seen as Jo, Mario and Cesar, the quartet
jewelry thieves. Marie Sabouret plays Mado. Marcel Lupovici plays Grutter with a
subdued intensity. Robert Hussein, who would go to direct movies later on, makes an
impression with his Remi, one of Grutter's men. The film best asset is
the great camera work by Philippe Agostini, who captured the atmosphere of Paris
and the locales where all these criminals operate from. Georges Auric's music plays
well with the action in the film. Jules Dassin was peculiar in his choice of films
that he directed, and unfortunately, that is our loss because this man was a genius
as proved mainly with "The Naked City", "Night and the City" and "Rififi".
This film is a work of pure class from start to finish, for a moment forget the
famous 28 minute no dialog heist, forget that it's set in Paris and forget it's
Noir. The film itself, the premise and the execution make this a pure gold
experience.. it's sharp intelligent and thought through in great detail, just like
the heist itself. It portrays real characters that are not only believable but whom
you empathize with. It's a film that doesn't glamorize the notion of a robbery but
shows it for what it is.. theft. It shows that a heist is hard work and ultimately
not worth doing. Now all things considered put on top of that a daring 28 minute
sequence with not a word spoken and set in gorgeous Paris with truly great
attention to detail and fantastic cinematography and that last scene ...when you
look up and see those trees... wonderful use of raw and basic filming techniques...
it is a master piece in my view and I'm glad to have seen it.
The minutiae of what's involved in carrying out a robbery is what makes this one of
the best of all heist movies. Then there's the robbery itself, a wordless, thirty
minute nail-biter that has never been surpassed, followed by what is probably the
cinema's most pronounced example of dishonor among thieves as things begin to
spectacularly unravel, and we have what is unquestionably the greatest of all heist
movies. This was a tough and unsentimental film when it first appeared
in 1955 and it is just as tough and unsentimental today. (It displays some of the
edgy brutality of Dassin's earlier "Brute Force"). There isn't a flabby moment or
duff performance in the entire film and Dassin captures the milieu of seedy clubs
and Parisian back streets like no-one else and the final drive through Paris by a
dying man is one of the most iconic closing sequences of any movie. A classic.
Or vice-versa. This is a French film noir directed by an American film
maker (Jules Dassin) who had to leave the country because of being blacklisted by
Hollywood thanks to HUAC. The premise of the story is rather familiar--one last
jewel heist for Tony le Stephanois and his buds--and so is the ending with
everybody getting... Well, no spoilers here, for sure, since this is the sort of
film in which tension toward the ending is important. Dassin filmed in
realistic lighting in black and white on the streets of Paris using actors and
actresses who are not glamorous. The engaging--sometimes intruding--score by
Georges Auric nicely enhances the movie and will remind viewers of many a similar
score from American film noirs from the forties and early fifties. Jean Servais
plays the hardcore, consumptive lead in a fedora much as Humphrey Bogart might have
played him. Tony's recently out of prison, past his prime, but still tough and
decisive when he has to be, his mind still sharp when focused, the kind of anti-
hero whose eyes water even though the tears will never fall. Dassin
plays the Italian safecracker and would-be ladies man who knows the rules but gets
careless. In film noir we are forced by the logic and focus of the film
to identify with the bad guys. Often there are levels of bad guys, the "good" bad
guys we are identifying with and the "bad" bad guys who are out to do in our good
bad guys, and then maybe there's a really bad, bad bad guy or two. (Here we have
Remi Grutter, played by Robert Hossein, a slightly sadistic druggie.) Then there
are the cops who are irrelevant or nearly so. In more modern film noir the bad guys
are not even "good" bad guys, and they get away with it or something close to that.
In the old film noir, which evolved from the gangster films of the thirties, the
usual motto, following the old Hollywood "code," was "Crime Doesn't Pay," with
every criminal having to pay for his or her crime before the end of the
movie. Probably the most impressive feature of Rififi is how nicely the
film moves along. The plot unfolds quickly and seamlessly much the way the great
film directors always did it, directors like Stanley Kubrick, Louis Malle, and the
best of Hitchcock. Some have actually compared this to Kubrick's The Killing (1956)
and suggest that Kubrick stole a little. Well, directors always steal if need be,
and there are some perhaps telling similarities, such as it being "one last heist"
for the protagonist, and having the girl gum up the works. The similarities may go
deeper because as this film was nearing its end I suddenly thought, oh, no! the
suitcase in the back seat is going to fly out of the convertible, hit the ground,
burst open, and all the money is going to fly into the air! Those of you who have
seen The Killing may recall what happened to the money near the end of the film!
Which reminds me of another film with something bad happening to the money: Oliver
Stone's U Turn (1997) starring Sean Penn. There the money in his backpack gets
blown to smithereens by a shotgun blast. Ha, ha, ha! Getting the dubbed version of
this film would be an act of sacrilege since the dialogue (when there is some: the
heist itself is done entirely without dialogue, about 30 minutes worth) is terse
and easy to follow requiring only an occasional glance at the subtitles, which, by
the way, are quite utilitarian and guiding as opposed to having every word spelled
out. One other thing: all the brutality is done as sex used to be done
in film, that is off camera. A guy gets his throat slit. We don't see it. I kind of
like this approach. We don't have to see the gore. You could almost let your kids
see Rififi--almost. Catch this one now and be on the lookout for a
Hollywood reprise starring Al Pacino and directed by Harold Becker coming out next
year in which you can be sure that the violent scenes will be played out in full.
After five years in prison, Tony le Stéphanois (Jean Servais) meets his dearest
friends Jo (Carl Möhner) and the Italian Mario Ferrati (Robert Manuel) and they
invite Tony to steal a couple of jewels from the show-window of the famous jewelry
Mappin & Webb Ltd, but he declines. Tony finds his former girlfriend Mado (Marie
Sabouret), who became the lover of the gangster owner of the night-club L' Âge d'
Or Louis Grutter (Pierre Grasset), and he humiliates her, beating on her back and
taking her jewels. Then he calls Jo and Mario and proposes a burglary of the safe
of the jewelry. They invite the Italian specialist in safes and elegant wolf Cesar
(Perlo Vita) to join their team and they plot a perfect heist. They are successful
in their plan, but the D. Juan Cesar makes things go wrong when he gives a valuable
ring to his mistress. "Du Rififi Chez les Hommes" is a magnificent film-
noir, certainly among the best I have seen. The screenplay has credibility,
supported by an awesome direction of Jules Dassin, stunning performances of the
cast and great cinematography. Jean Servais has outstanding performance in the role
of a criminal with principles guided by the underworld rules. The famous long
silent sequence of the heist is amazing and extremely tense and certainly among the
best ones of the cinema history. I am listing this great movie in my list of
favorite movies ever. My vote is ten. Title (Brazil): "Rififi"
I see alot of movies at the cinema (103 so far this year) and I have to say that
this is by far and away the best film I have seen this year, even though it was
released back in 1954! I sat in awe and watched this work of genius and
felt quite ashamed that I had never even heard of it before my local art house
cinema decided to show it for a week on what looked like a new print. The best part of the whole movie has to be the 28 minute break in where there is
no speech and no music, merely the sound of the men carrying out the heist. Pure
quality. Although really dark in places it is lightened with the dry
humour. Not many films score 10 out of 10 but this does and also gets a
gold star for effort!! If you ever get a chance to see this movie,
please do not hesitate, it's a classic. 
RIFIFI (Jules Dassin - France 1955) To me, it seems a very risky idea to
attempt a Hollywood-remake of Jules Dassin's 1955 classic RIFIFI. Planned for
release in 2007, Al Pacino apparently is gonna play the lead, taking on the role of
Tony le Stephanois. Risky business... How they're gonna pull this off? Ironically, Dassin was blacklisted in Hollywood and went on to try his luck in
France and made this little masterpiece, aptly called by some "The Grandddady of
all caper- and heist movies". In my opinion, it remains a one-of-a-kind classic,
beautifully filmed with one of the most memorable endings ever to be put on film.
Whatever one's opinion of the film. In the last couple of years RIFIFI
has become dangerously overpraised. Nevertheless, this French noir-classic
shouldn't be forgotten. Go see it, before the remake is out there, in order to have
some ammunition for comparing the two. Camera Obscura --- 9/10
Rififi deservedly gets a lot of mention for the famous heist scene, and, indeed,
that scene deserves all the credit it gets. It's a masterful piece of suspense,
character interaction and photography. But Rififi isn't just this one scene - every
scene in the film is as masterfully put together, and as a whole, the film is not
only taught with suspense, plot and character, but an adroitly told moral tale that
set the scene for film noire for years to come. Cinematically and
technically, the heist sequence may be the most impressive scene of the film, but
for me, it's the final scene that holds the most power - Tony le Stéphanois's
hallucinogenic drive towards redemption.
Bloody Birthday plays on the assumed innocence of children and shows them as
bloodthirsty monsters. Steven (Andy Freeman), Curtis (Billy Jayne;credited as Billy
Jacoby), and Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy), were all born on the same day during an
eclipse. Besides sharing a birthday, they also share a love of murder (and they're
not picky about who they kill either). Young Billy, Elizabeth, and Andy play the
parts of these emotionless monsters quite well but they know when to put on the
charm too. But they can't go on fooling everyone. This is an overall good horror
flick, its not too unrealistic, there are a few good moments of suspense and the
kids portrayed the roles well, (the grown-ups are pretty hammy though). I'd say its
well worth seeing, (I own a copy myself).
Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) can on the surface be described as a French
variation on John Huston's seminal heist film, Asphalt Jungle(1950). The difference
between the two films is Rififi(1955) pays a little more attention in detail to the
robbery sequence. Also, the police aren't involved in the aftermath of the robbery
in Rififi as much as in Asphalt Jungle. In the end Rififi(1955) is in my opinion a
slightly better film than Asphalt Jungle(1950). Remarkable Noir picture that
defines 1950s French Cinema. Spartacus(1960) may have been the one which
broke down the infamous blacklist, but in my opinion Rififi(1955) was the film that
began to break apart the unbreakable Hollywood blacklist. First film in five years
for Jules Dassin who was victimized by the McCarthy communist hunt of the late 40s
to early 50s. He got some sort of retribution when Rififi(1955) became a success
around France and Europe. Thus defying the poisonious Hollywood blacklist in a
major way that probably inspired others to do the same. Rififi(1955) is the most
important film of Dassin's career because it not only restored his name, but also
gave him a second chance at making films. Jules Dassin gave the
filmworld and its ever growing audiences a masterpiece of influential proportions.
His handling of the material is exceptional and direction of the actors is
flawless. Builds up tense situations with precise craftsmanship. Dassin came full
circle in the Film Noir genre by directing his best and last Noir, Rififi(1955).
Marked the end of Dassin's period in filmmaking when he was involved in doing Noir
pictures. Rififi(1955) is the number one film in an arsenal of thirty
plus films for director, Jules Dassin. A masterpiece in acting, cinematography,
directing, editing, and writing. Not a film to leave your seat for one minute
because there is always something memorable going on. As brilliant as anything by
Jean Pierre Melville who was a master of this type of film. Masterpieces such as
Rififi(1955) are relatively small compared to the probably billions of films made
in motion picture history. The one fascinating aspect of Rififi is the
precise planning and careful execution of a robbery that takes up a bulk of the 118
minute duration. The main characters plan and execute the jewel heist in the same
way a film director prepares for the pre-productions, production, and post-
production of a film. Shows how difficult a Jewel heist like in Rififi(1955) is in
committing and why very few would do something like it. The fact that the scene
hardly contains a mess up like in other heist films turns this scene into something
even greater. Close as one can get to having a perfect sequence in a motion
picture. Lack of unnatural sound in the landmark thrity minute heist
sequence puts it in a realm of absolute realism. Any dialogue or/and music would
ruin any suspense and tension the director is trying to create. The use of natural
sound makes the heist sequence a rewarding film viewing experience. Now Filmmakers
and producers would use dialogue and music in a scene like this because of a lack
of confidence of a mainstream filmgoer's patience. Sustains a level of consistency
that never once lets down. Maintaining a high level of suspense is what
makes the heist sequence tick to perfection. The director achieves suspense in the
heist sequence that's rarely equaled in most robbery scenes from heist films. Jean
Servais and the rest of the main actors contribute to the suspense with some low
key acting. Getting suspense put in a scene is a task few are capable of doing. The
robbery sequence of Rififi(1955) reaches a Hitchcockian level of suspense and
tension. Many filmmakers from the years following Du Rififi Chez Les
Hommes(1955) have been influenced if not inspired by it. One filmmaker influenced
was Jean Pierre Melville(original choice for director of Rififi)who used variations
of the heist sequence in Le Doulos(1961), and Le Cercle Rouge(1970). Another
filmmaker influenced was Stanley Kubrick who made a similarly themed film in The
Killing(1956). Also, Quentin Tarantino whose debut feature Reservoir Dogs(1992) was
inspired by this film. Other film directors influenced are John Woo, Michael Mann,
Paul Schrader, Ringo Lam, etc... Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) is
comparable to Bob le Flambeur(1955) in many ways. One, Jules Dassin and Jean Pierre
Melville directed groundbreaking films in Rififi(1955) and Bob le Flambeur(1955).
Two, each film involves an aging criminal who plans and carries out a daring heist.
Three, Bob le Flambeur and Rififi finishes in fatalistic fashion. Four, each film
shares many motifs and situations that classify the two as film greats. Part of Rififi's charm are the colorful characters that surround the story such
as Tony le Stephanois, Jo le Suedois, Mario Farrati, and Cesar le Milanais. Most of
the violence is implicit yet effectively brutal. The main characters led by Tony le
Stephanois abide by a strong outdated code of honor that is remindful of Sam
Peckinpah and John Woo. Jean Servais becomes the role of Tony le Stephanois with
his cynical outlook and tired looks. Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) became
a favorite of mine the moment I saw it on the big screen from beginning to end.
In this election year, where so much idealism is attached to one of the candidates,
it is poignant to watch a film that warns us not to make an idol out of anyone
running for public office. Luke Eberl is the writer and director of
"Choose Connor". There are significant parts of the film that reveal that he is a
'genius' when it comes to telling stories via the cinema. Go see this
movie before the election and then ponder why and for whom you will cast your
vote. Let you eyes be opened like those of the young protagonist. A mix of "Citizen Kane", "Advise and Consent" and "Paths of Glory" by a
young director as talented as those who made the films listed above.
The plot line is an expose of the under belly of American politics. While the theme
seems common, what "makes" the movie is the unconventional way the story is
told. The characters are played with conviction. You feel the innocence
of the lead, and his innocence lost. The politician is the prince of double-talk, a
real snake. The camera work is impressive. It affirms the nuances of the
acting and dialogue. Ditto for the music. The story uses a parable-style
with vingettes where the message is filled with double-entendres. A very canny
strategy by the writer/director. The tension in the storyline is carried through to
the last scenes. The movie was like a good mystery book. Something was
"afoot"; you knew it was bad; you didn't know exactly what it could be - you had
your suspicions; and when the evil was revealed you let out your breath you hadn't
noticed you were holding in. Saddened, shaking your head. A story well
written and well told. 3 cheers to a young writer/director.
I was amazed at the quality of this film, particularly after seeing pictures of the
barely adult director - all 140(?) lbs of him! Truly, a boy directing a movie about
a boy. I look forward to seeing more Luke Eberl films. I did think this
one was a bit too long. There was too much time spent showing Connor being
unsuccessful (and unwilling) to make a move on Owen. Caleb didn't try hard enough.
Owen, being so young, could have easily become closer to Caleb and later decided it
wasn't his preference. And Owen would still have learned the "valuable lesson"
about corruption and politics. Instead, he didn't give himself a fair chance to
learn about his sexuality. And what about poor Caleb? Owen could have been a good
influence. Though the film intends to show Owen as a hero who overcomes
perverted corruption, I felt sad for Owen. He was offered the opportunity to have
some boy-boy fun with Caleb, who was extraordinarily beautiful. Owen didn't have to
go along with the political perversion as offered. But he could have tried to have
some fun with Caleb, and still walked away when he wanted. It was clear that Owen
was in charge - no one forced him to do anything he didn't want to do. But he could
have had more fun, and with a very hot boyfriend, at that. I hope Luke
makes more movies where appealing young characters have more fun.
Over the many years, there are some films that just slip by & hardly anyone views.
 Choose Conner is one of those films. This small gem played
at some festivals & had a short 2 week run in a small theatre in West Hollywood
making all of about $ 5500. It is now on DVD I do hope many more will
now see this,. It is a strange drama of a shrewd youngish politician,
who influences a very bright 15 year old lad.This politico also has a handsome
nephew (about 17 years old) who befriends the 15 year old lad. The above
paragraph is slightly vague as to what occurs, SO is the film, & that is what I
appreciated, we do NOT get all the facts,Much is left to our own thinking. You will
hear dialog that makes this logical.. Steven Weber (Wings) is our
politician,his role is slightly vague,this is another point for the audience to
ponder Alex D.Linz is our 15 year old, He was about 17 when they made
this movie, but easily can pass for younger. He has been in films & TV since he was
a young child, He is a very good actor & is quite convincing. Escher
Holloway is the older teen, This role is his first major part & he too is
excellent. Now I am saving the best for last, the writer/director, Luke Eberl is not yet 23 years old. For a first effort a big thumbs up. I
do hope he as well as our 2 lads have a long career. Ratings: *** (out
of 4) 86 points(out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)
Everything about "Choose Connor" was top=drawer, especially the script and the very
proficient work done by the 21-year-old director, writer, producer Luke Eberl . . .
a talented young man from whom to expect great things. All the acting was credible,
the dialogue smart, the theme important. Loved it!!! Saw it at the 2007
Woodstock Film Festival, where it was screened twice and went over tremendously
with the audiences. It's more than just a coming of age movie -- this kid learns a
hard, heartbreaking lesson about trust, politics and "the system" -- how things
really work to suit the personal agendas of those in powerful positions. I would recommend this movie to anyone with a working brain.
If there are people that don't like this movie, I don't think they are human. This
film deploys all emotions and shows many sides of Judith Light's character. Made in
1997, this is one of the best movies I have seen and really the film that Judith
Light has starred in to make me a huge fan of hers. This movie, although sometimes
you want to rattle the son for trusting her so much, is incredibly moving. I cry at
the end every time and it takes much to do that to me! The plot doesn't have much
to it but the acting provided by Judith Light is incredible. She looks beautiful
the whole time and by the end, you don't want the fate imposed by the courts to
happen to her. Overall, a movie worth my highest praise! Thank you for making it
and redefining my view on the death penalty. I eagerly await this movie to come out
on DVD or some other form of media since Lifetime is starting to issue some movies
to customers. Although I don't have high hopes for this one because this took place
almost 9 years ago, which is still hard to believe, since this movie is STILL
ingrained into my head after all this time.
An incredible performance! This is one of the best films i have seen ever. I know
this is being said a lot, but i bet you will not regret watching this film. It's great from the very beginning to the last second. The acting (of
especially the mother - played by Judith Light) is so convincing, there are not
many other films i've seen that could compare to it, and it seems it's impossible
not to feel anything for the people in this drama. There are lots and
lots of movies made every year, but if you have to choose just to see a few in your
life - make this one of them.
When I first saw this movie back in the middle of January (2005) I didn't like it.
I thought it was too weird and thought that some parts that the main star, Judith
Light, acted were so unlike her. (Which of course is true) And then I watched bits
of it the next day when it re-aired and I felt pretty much the same. Then I watched
it again two Sundays ago (March 20th, 2005) and I began to really enjoy it and this
time I taped the entire thing. I even cried the first 2 times, but mainly because
the actress was actually crying and I am a big fan of hers. It is a very
well acted and done TV Movie. Judith Light is one of my favorite actresses and I
think she does a superb job in this film! I keep watching it over and over. It's a
sad movie, but very good. If you have not seen this movie, I definitely
recommend it! It's not usually my type of movie, but I did enjoy this one! A+++
The movie was certainly true to the real life story on which it was based. It was
hard for me to find newspaper articles about the actual facts, but when I located
them, I could see that truth, in this case, was stranger than fiction. Judith Light
was frighteningly evil in her role as the mother in this movie, so much so that it
was difficult to separate her from the role, the mark I think of an excellent
performance. Rick Schroder was appropriately clueless as her son who also defended
her in court, an example of how hard it can be in some circumstances for a child to
accept the actions of a parent, no matter how criminal they may be. One can find
fault with the movie, but not with its treatment of the reality on which it was
based.
This agreeably perverse and oddball early 80's teen body count flick may never
reach the astonishingly bent pinnacle of the deeply unsettling and criminally
underrated murderous moppets movie "Devil Times Five," but it's still an above
average killer kid opus nonetheless. The slim, but serviceable plot
centers on a trio of misfit tykes -- two bratty boys and one creepily twinkle-eyed,
albeit angelic-looking little girl -- who are all born during a solar eclipse on
June 9th, 1970. When the strange antisocial trio, who stick together in a tightly
self-contained and exclusive circle, reach ten years of age they suddenly go
homicidally bonkers and declare open season on the hapless, unsuspecting local
yokels of the heretofore sleepy and peaceful California suburb of Meadowvale.
Writer/director Ed Hunt, the usually incompetent unsung hack responsible for such
wonderfully wretched clunkers as the delightfully dopey "Starship Invasions," the
uproariously inane Jesus Christ vigilante parable (!) "Alien Warrior," and the
stunningly silly "The Brain," does a pretty solid and capable job here: the kill
scenes are abundant and reasonably brutal (the arrow-through-the-eye gag is
especially nasty), there's a sizable smattering of gratuitous nudity and soft-core
sex, a goodly amount of tension is neatly created and maintained, some nice dollops
of dark humor punctuate the arrestingly warped mayhem, and the surprise grim ending
manages to be truly jolting. Moreover, the top-drawer cast further
elevates the proceedings to the perfectly watchable and absorbing: Jose Ferror as a
small-town doctor, future "Jake and the Fatman" TV series star Joe Penny as an
amateur astrologer, "The Prey" 's Lori Lethin as the plucky babysitter heroine,
Susan Strasberg as a bitchy school teacher, "American Ninja" 's Michael Dudikoff as
a chowderhead jock, and Cyril O'Reilly (the lonely misanthrope vampire in the
hauntingly melancholy "Dance of the Damned") as a libidinous teen dude who gets
bagged while doing just what you think with some naked hot chick in back of a
parked van. Billy Jacoby (who went on to star in such late 80's direct-to-video
dross as "Dr. Alien" and "Demonwarp"), Andy Freeman, and especially the eerily
adorable Elizabeth Hoy are genuinely creepy and convincing as the terrible troika
of chillingly evil and amoral rugrats. And, yes, that's none other than Julie
Brown, the brassy comedienne who scored a surprise Top 40 hit with the hilarious
novelty tune "The Homecoming Queen's Gotta Gun," as the lovely, vacuous, full-
breasted redhead bimbo who does a great lengthy, totally extraneous, yet still
sizzling and much-appreciated nude striptease while dancing in her bedroom to a
cheesy blaring rock song! All in all, this baby sizes up as a sturdy and satisfying
slasher item.
A story of love between two people at the end of WWII. Beautifully filmed, very
romantic and yet rather fatalistic fable of budding love and war that would not
end. If you want happy endings don't watch Wajda movies, sweety.
there is one of the best movies directed by andrzej wajda,that story told about
young writer who is seekin' his place after a second war(he's survive german
camp).excellent true atmosphere(action goes in camp for displaced placed),main
hero(played by one of the best polish actor daniel olbrychski) finally fall in love
,but unfortunately his lady has been killed .there was beautiful scene,when he is
talking with american soldier and says (about death his girl)"nothing is
happen,simply you're shootin' to us now... he's condition of soul has been
destroyed. 10/10
Krajobraz po bitwie like many films of Wajda is, perhaps, not understandable for
the "rest of the world". Story based on the few short stories of Tadeusz Borowski,
who during WWII was the prisoner of Oswiecim, Dachau and Dautmergen camps. Borowski
in his books describes inhuman life in the Nazi camps from the point of view
vorarbeiter Tadek - porte parole of author who also was on the privileged position
among the prisoners. Borowski was merciless for the humanity and merciless for
himself. He describes the human history as the endless chain of exploitation and
humiliation. Ironically, after the returning to Poland he stopped writing artistic
prose and became communistic propagandist, producing stream of anti-imperialistic
and anti-american press publications. After few years he committed suicide. In the
movie Wajda changes point of view. Vorarbeiter Tadek - character created by the
Tadeusz Janczar - plays only supporting role. Story is focused on the poet,
destroyed, burned out by the war and imprisonement and his one-day love affair with
Nina, Jewish girl who escaped from communistic Poland although she actually hates
jewish life and mentality. As the background we can observe sad grotesque of so-
called "dipis" (displaced persons) life, who after the liberation are settled by
the Americans in SS barracks. Marches, patriotic kitsch mixed with hunting for the
extra dose of food and/or prostituting German girls. 
Aside from the fact that the women in the film are stunningly beautiful and all the
camp prisoners are too fat, this film rings true on the chaos of the post-
war. Beautiful photography, and a powerful national expression of the
Polish national character. It's very slow at points, but its entire
pacing is so different from American and Western European films that it's quite
refreshing. Both lead actors do a very good job. On the DVD version, you
can see interviews with the principal actors and crew, and the lead actress
Stanislawa Celinska has gained about 50 lbs and lost all of her beauty. But in
1970, she was a stunner.
In Landscape after the Battle, Andrzej Wajda in the second era of his filmmaking
career, depicts emotional and psychological confusion in a former Nazi-prison in
Poland, freed immediately after the WWII. A hand-held camera explores a
lot of extreme close-ups and vivid colors. The end credit as graffiti on flanks of
freight train cars symbolically concludes the film. The soundtrack is great, except
Vivaldi, which sounds tacky in pop-art fashion, in the opening sequence.
"Landscape after a battle" opens with escaping prisoners over a snowy field full of
fences - in rather funny movements accompanied by Vivaldis Four Seasons. A touching
opening. But we soon enough learn to know these prisoners as a mob, and when they
(also treated humouristic) burry a man alive, the protagonist stops for a moment,
but is soon more engaged in finding books from the turndowned camp than caring
about his neighbour. The rest of the film is set in an American camp
from where the prisoners are not released, in some kind of semi freedom, semi camp.
A perfect set for a study of war criminality, American camps, Polish nationalism,
Catholisism, grief and human misery in general. Film makes an important
turn. In comes women, and with them film changes light, colour and temper. At the
same time it turns out that these prisoners were slaves in Holocaust. I think a
main underlying political theme of the film must mankind's treatments of Jews under
and after the world war, and not only the Nazi exterminations, but mankind letting
it happen - and even forcing them out of Europe after the war. On an emotional
level the film is about grief and the problem with letting grief come, how
environment makes grief difficult, and how difficult it can be to share grief for
people with different experiences. But the film is a carpet of
underlying contradictions,humour, irony and sudden beauty. A couple of times during
the film a gypsy prisoner plays on an harp, an emotional tune brutally rejected
(filmatically speaking) by the protagonist. That example picks up an important
essence of the film's style and theme. When it comes to humour its very comic how
the protagonist constantly looses and finds back his glasses, in crowds, in hay
stacks etc. Its not hard to understand Spielberg's respect of Wajda when
you see this film. The great treatment of light can be compared with Spielberg on
his best. The Grunwald intermezzo speaks for itself. Narrativly it only brings the
film out of the camp, but filmatically it brings the film to dream and eternity
with profound beauty. Anyhow, there is also another scene I can't let go without
comment. Its the Christian Supper. Undoubtly ironical, but simultaneously deeply
religious we see the transsubstantiation moment, everybody falling on their knees,
while the protagonist is saved from isolation by the priest to serve as a comic
altar boy. His bells are mocking the scene, but also gives it emotion and love.
When Nina gets her bread, sun light falls upon her and bells ring spheric, its the
peak moment of the film. Main actors are excellent in their roles.
Olbrychski as the perfect Wajda protagonist - the doubting reflecting mind, unable
to put all the aspects of his mind and emotion into life. Beautiful Celinska is
with great body acting debuting in a character unable to express all her inner in
her proud movements. Those who try to describe everything, often are
unable to take nothing in consideration. This is what Wajda manages. His films are
either very moving, deep or beautifully shot, but pays attention to life's and
society's particularity. A moment of joy for one, is the moment of irony for a
second, the moment of grief for the third, a moment of nothing for the
fourth. There is at least two reasons to pay attention to Wajdas films
of this period. First is the remarkable free expression of deep political impact.
This country was the first to overthrow communism twenty years later. Second is the
development of a filmatic and narrative language that Kusturica has rose to
grandeur.
Of course I am going to think it was a great movie. I recognized several people I
didn't see during filming also. I was the one playing the guard about an hour into
the movie in the death row exercise yard asking for a light for a cigarette. I also
changed this one scene. They had originally had it set to go into the rec yard and
straighten out the inmate and turn him around and walk him out. The Director said
"It is taking to long, what would you do Gower." I said, "We need to go in and hook
the arms and drag him out backwards. That way your camera can stay on his face as
we take him off set." I also lived at this same prison as a young child as my
father was the Assistant Warden of Security. I am also a current employee with the
Tennessee Deaprtment of Corrections as a supervisor at the Riverbend Maximum
Security Institution. Even though a lot of the movie was a joke, the part I was in
was reality enough. Also in the bar scene the dancer kicking high in the air and
leaving the stage was an actual stripper I use to work with at a club called "The
Classic Cat".
Andy McDermott (Tom Everett Scott) is a shy American teenager spending vacation in
Paris with his friends Brad and Chris. Andy saves Serafine Pigot (the gorgeous
Julie Delpy) from committing suicide in Eiffel Tour and has a crush on her. He does
not know that she is a werewolf. They go to an underground party and are attacked
by werewolves. Andy is wounded and becomes a werewolf. He is advised that the only
way to become normal again is killing the werewolf that attacked him and eating its
heart. This movie is a violent black humor movie. The special effects and the
soundtrack are excellent, highlighting the song of the band Bush. I do not know why
some readers compares this movie with the masterpiece 'An American Werewolf in
London'. The stories have nothing in common (only an American teenager, werewolves
and a city in Europe). Highly indicated for fans of werewolf and black humor
movies. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Um Lobisomem Americano em
Paris" ("An American Werewolf in Paris")
Is it full moon tonight? OH! It doesn't matter they can change whenever they want
cuz of that drug! What was I thinking if its full moon tonight?! Geez I
really like this movie, there's romance, suspense, horror, and hot stuff ;) I like
the first half of the movie when the guy saves the girl from killing herself by
bungee jumping and catching her. That was really cool. The setting of this movie is
in the city of love which is Paris in France. The cemetery scenes are nice, it
gives you chills not knowing what will happen there or who's behind the walls. The
scenes that makes you jump out of your seat is really cool. Even they got me on
that scenes. His friend who died and the girl whom he killed in the cemetery but
still shows themselves to the lead character(sorry I forgot his name), was really
funny. The actors did a good job plus the make-up crews. The part when they're all
partying in an abandoned church, I can't believe people would that because even
though that's an abandoned church, that is still God's house. I bought this movie
long time ago, and I do not regret buying it. I'm a horror-movie-lover. I give this
movie 5 stars out of 6. For the people who are open and loves movies like this,
give it a try, you might like it.
this movie is not as bad as some say it is infact i think it`s more enjoyable than
the original . maybe that`s why some people hate it as much cos they dont want to
admit it`s a good (not great) movie. most if not all fx were done by
C.G.I which i didn`t mind at all cos it was an enjoyable movie. Phil Buckman -
(Chris) was in my opinion the best guy in the movie Julie Delpy was rather
attractive she brought the sexiness to the movie. there were a lot of
wisecracks in the movie which i thought were good. this movie is in my collection
but the original is not because i dont like it as much as this one. i was not bored
when i watched this movie it kept me watching unlike some horror movies i could
mention like oh say = driller killer & suspiria (dario argento`s movie) thats to
name but two. this is an ok werewolf film it should be in people`s
collection if they like werewolf movies maybe i`ll get the original at some point
maybe. i have only one complaint and that is Phil Buckman - (Chris) should have
been in it more than he was but apart from that the movie was fine. rating for this movie 8/10 an ok werewolf movie not the worst one out
there. 
This movie is great. 80's sleazy slasher movie about three kids born during an
eclipse, so they kill everyone they see. The reason they kill makes practically no
sense, but it just adds to the charm of this movie. And dang, these kids are crazy,
especially Curtis. If you've seen the movie, you know who I am talking about. That
kid's vicous! Although the movie doesn't have much gore, it is entertaining, and
for some reason you kind of care about the characters. It also has some nice
nudity. Has some decent acting as well, really a decent 80's slasher movie, it's
worth a look if you ever get the chance to see it. You'll have nightmares about
those darn kids though, I guarantee you!
I went to an advance screening of this movie thinking I was about to embark on 120
minutes of cheezy lines, mindless plot, and the kind of nauseous acting that made
"The Postman" one of the most malignant displays of cinematic blundering of our
time. But I was shocked. Shocked to find a film starring Costner that appealed to
the soul of the audience. Shocked that Ashton Kutcher could act in such a serious
role. Shocked that a film starring both actually engaged and captured my own
emotions. Not since 'Robin Hood' have I seen this Costner: full of depth and
complex emotion. Kutcher seems to have tweaked the serious acting he played with in
"Butterfly Effect". These two actors came into this film with a serious, focused
attitude that shone through in what I thought was one of the best films I've seen
this year. No, its not an Oscar worthy movie. It's not an epic, or a profound
social commentary film. Rather, its a story about a simple topic, illuminated in a
way that brings that audience to a higher level of empathy than thought possible.
That's what I think good film-making is and I for one am throughly impressed by
this work. Bravo!
I have never seen "American Werewolf in London" but this movie was very
entertaining. When renting it I thought it was a horror movie but it turned out to
be more of a comedy with some horror aspects. I thought the transformation
sequences were nicely done but effects wise, the best scenes were those where the
effects and the lighting built off each other, nice. The transformations reminded
me a lot of werewolf transformations in other movies, but the werewolves themselves
are very beastly and not very dog like. Gore: i do believe there is too much in
this movie, which really takes away from the horror, when every frame has blood in
it, taking the violence seriously is hard. J.Hurst (8th grade)
OK, most of us agree that this is a weak attempt at a remake, but at the same time
it's also a different movie in its own right. Don't get me wrong, 'American
Werewolf In London' is a superior film, but 'American Remake In Paris' is a decent
movie as well. First off, the only real similarities are the TITLE, 2
American BACKPACKERS, and WEREWOLVES. Other than those 3 things, 'American Remake
In Paris' stands apart fairly well on its own with its special blend of humor,
action/adventure, and horror. Most of the people who say this film is better than
the original are the youth of today's generation that think any movie made before
1990 is total crap. While those of us who grew up in the 80's can appreciate older
films and what they have added to the horror films of today. What a lot of people
fail to realize is that without the old classic films, including the B&W ones,
horror wouldn't be what it is today. Now I'm getting a little off the beaten
path... An American Werewolf In Paris is a good attempt at re-creating a
classic, but it will never surpass the original, ever. With that said, this is
still a very entertaining film to watch and I do recommend it. I'm giving it a 7
out of 10. Maybe that's being a little generous, but I've seen much worse attempts
at trying to re-create a classic.
I just finished a double feature night of An American Werewolf in London & Paris.
Let me start by saying "London" still holds up after all these years and the
transformation sequence is by any standard quite impressive, the film was funny,
and scary, also a bit of gore....Now lets get to "Paris" its enjoyable, a few
scars, lots of gore not as exciting or eerie as original but it does have a few
laughs in what has become quite the fashion these days in films so maybe in that
sense it was ahead of it's time, the transformations al'a CGI while good for the
technology of its time are nowhere near as impressive as the original. I gave this
movie a 7 because I have to admit it was enjoyable, I laughed a lot and found Tom
Everett Scott to be so silly that at first I wanted to dislike his performance only
to end up liking it...go figure...Julie Delpy was competent as was the direction
it's the script that lacked a bit of shine & finesse. I read here that John Landis
was supposed to direct to bad he didn't I am quite sure it would have been a
different movie altogether. I also noticed some discussion of a Sequel "What If"
well no one has noted the Obvious it should be in American and here is my title "An
American Werewolf Comes Home" or in DC that would be fun all those political dogs
need a good scare. You simply must see the original in it's new DVD transfer with
dolby 5.1 sound and see both of these on an HDTV with upconvert turned
on...nice!!!!
The title suggests that this movie is a sequel to "An American werewolf in London".
None of the characters from the previous movie return and aren't even mentioned in
this movie by name. So as a sequel, AAwiP fails, one would say. I dare
to say the opposite. An American werewolf in Paris is a charming,
effective horror movie. It's one of the better werewolf films I have seen in a long
time too. And I have seen quite my share, such as An American werewolf in London,
The Howling, Wolfen, The Wolfman and the Underworld trilogy. The story
tells of three Americans visiting Paris on a vacation. At the top of the Eifel
Tower one of them saves a woman trying to commit suicide. What starts out as a
romantic relationship slowly turns into a nightmare when the dark secrets that lurk
in the city are revealed... I really liked the acting in this film.
Especially the two stars of the movie: the woman who tried to commit suicide and
the guy who saves her. They have good chemistry together. But the other two
Americans also play their roles nicely. I didn't really find anything annoying
about the acting, so thumbs up for that! The effects on the werewolves
are nice. It doesn't look too cheap or fake to me. Of course, the opinions are
divided about this subject. But let's just say that I wasn't disappointed. There's also a good amount of humor in this movie. There are some really funny
scenes you will probably remember for a long time. So, to sum it up, An
American werewolf in Paris might not be a direct sequel to it's predecessor, but
it's still an enjoyable movie. Perfect for fans of werewolves! 7 out of 10 stars!
Three American lads are backpacking their way around Europe, challenging each other
to accumulate as many daredevil stunts and Hot babe lays as they can, But Andy
seeks true love. He finds this during their bungee-jump attempt on the Eiffel
Tower, when he comes across and breathtakingly saves a suicidal and heart-
burstingly beautiful Julie Delpy. His attempts to find this girl and the secret he
uncovers lead he and his friends into an fast paced adventure full of action,
romance, gore, and inspired humor, without ever taking itself to seriously, or
striving to be anything other than a wildly entertaining 90 minute ride. I have
seen this film a number of times and found it a much more rewarding experience than
the 'London' original, although both films are so different it is not fair to
compare the two or even to consider this a sequel.
I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its
forerunner, "An American Werewolf In London." That film had it's funny
moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version,
now set in Paris, does not have that "edge" at all and simply isn't in the same
class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not
have and overall it's still fun to watch. So, "werewolf purists" aside,
most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll
still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even
though I agree "London" is better and I prefer that version, too. The
first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a
hysterical scene with a "balloon" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead
female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She
doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in
America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got
points for having her in it, and she looks great. When the horror
starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of
profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain
- amazing! However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one
scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me.
The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me,
either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps
anyone. It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the
first film.
To paraphrase Thora Birch: "I kind of like this movie. It's the exact opposite of
everything I hate in a film". This obscure film was too low key and
intelligent to get a theatrical release, any chance for success would have needed a
costly promotional campaign. And a coming of age story where nothing spectacular
happens - where instead the focus is on character development, has a limited target
audience. Whoever heard of a mature teen movie? But if you have an
opportunity to see this or if you can part with a few bucks for the DVD, you could
do a lot worse. "My Teacher's Wife" is nothing revolutionary but it has a lot going
for it and holds up well to repeated viewings. Jason London (as high
school senior Todd Boomer) is the star and fits this character as well as his parts
in "The Man In the Moon" and "Dazed and Confused". He is helped out by exceptional
work from his supporting cast. Tia Carrere in the title role is a revelation (she
can act) as Todd's calculus tutor and love interest. Christopher McDonald as the
teacher in a nice self-parodying performance. Zak Orth and Alexondra Lee as Todd's
best friends, and Jeffrey Tabor as his father. As someone commented
earlier, this is a "mature" teen movie because the romantic relationships are
universally unsuccessful-at least by traditional happy ending standards. Even
Todd's parents are indifferent to each other, with his father panting after the
title character and his mother (Leslie Lyles) literally on the telephone during her
entire time on screen (a device that provides increasing comedy relief with each
successive appearance). The London-Carrere romance has unexpected charm and is far
more believable than any other older woman storyline you are likely to find. But the real strength of the film is the evolving relationship of the three
friends. There is no overwrought melodrama here, just three immature people who
alternate between testing and trusting each other, subject to all the dynamics that
three young people can bring to this kind of thing. They actually manage to pull
off a "believable" three-person relationship, perhaps the first one in cinema
history. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
Tia Carrere was the reason I decided to watch this film, as neither the title, nor
the cover would have been enough to make me spend my time and money on this film
which goes to show, me and everyone, that a DVD shouldn't be judged by it's
cover. ***SPOILERS*** The film felt like it was trundling along, not
really going anywhere for the moment the awkwardness of Paul Faber (Zak Orth)
around girls being almost too embarrassing to watch, and the fringe on the
otherwise attractive Kirsten Beck (as Alexondra Lee) being too school-girlish to
watch. Where those really fashionable in 1995? The relationship between
Vicky Mueller (Tia Carrere) and Todd Boomer (Jason London) was tantalising from the
start of though! That first meeting across the lake magical. What a beautiful
coincidence they should meet again just as he has behaved like a complete moron
("Boomer, with two O's as in moron") in front of Alexondra. A shame really that we
as the audience knew who Vicky Mueller really was. (Well the title did give that
away, wouldn't you think?) What really surprised me was the acting.
Especially in the scene where Vicky gives Todd a metal version of his alter ego
(the dog character), in the little white jewellery box. The actors really managed
to recreate that tingling sensation of a first kiss point of no return for Todd
and Vicky. A shame really that the film ends with focus on (after getting over
Todd's fathers Harvard drive) his re-uniting with his friends. I could envision a
whole new film following Vicky to New York there must be a good art University
there that Todd could attend?!? Nevertheless, a film that does just what
we want Hollywood to: entertain us for the duration of the film. Did anyone else
notice how none of the loves are happy ones in this film? Todd's mother is slightly
insane (on the phone 24/7), his Dad doesn't find her attractive (any more?) Todd's
teacher obviously is disenchanted by his wife and vice versa Todd himself enters
into a wonderfully erotic & daring relationship which, however nice it may be,
would realistically be very difficult to maintain (age difference, maturity
difference etc), and Alexondra & Zak do not get together because Alexondra is not
mature enough to handle a relationship (-> her reactions towards the condom, the
cheating, Zak's advances etc. are all very immature, and often involve running
away), and Zak himself, the poor guy is too much of a best friend/like a brother-
guy to pull even Alexondra. Mind you, good film though! I gave it an
8/10. Brilliant performance by the actors - who bring the script to life.
As talk-shows go, Larry King Live is not bad, and since he occasionally gets good
guests, it's a show to turn on once in awhile, but not compulsively. When Bill
Maher, Carl Bernstein, a former president, or other substantive guests sit across
from him, it's not too bad. Other times, he tends to host guests involved in the
latest celebrity scandal which contributes absolutely no intelligent information to
the country and feeds a largely uneducated public that wants to hear the latest
gossip about movie and TV stars. During the OJ Simpson trial, it seemed like every
other guest on his show was related to the case. But is this really journalism? Or
the National Enquirer on the tube? Sometimes, it comes off a little bit like trash
television--Jerry Springer in a sit down interview with phone calls instead of a
live audience. On the other side, King's show is definitely much better
than Bill O'Reilly whose show is nothing more than a rightest-political platform of
the Rush Limbaugh variety. That said, Larry King is not a bad interviewer, but
alas, he is not a great one. King does not always come off like he completely
comprehends when intellectual material is being presented, especially if it is by a
scholar or historian with a new book on subtle aspects of politics. Always seems
like the minute King can't quite deal with the issue at hand, that's when he turns
to the phone calls, maybe hoping someone out in the country will have a better
question than he has. He might interview someone like David Gergen, but may not
have read any of his books. Sort of like the movie producer that never bothers to
read the script. When it's an entertainment celebrity, no problem. He
can come off like he's thoroughly knowledgeable since the material is not that
substantive anyway. Talking to Elizabeth Taylor about her relationship with Richard
Burton is not exactly rocket science. And I notice he usually has seen the star's
latest movie. Watching a movie takes much less time and contemplation than reading
a book. However, if it's the likes of John Dean or Bob Woodward, King comes off a
little like he didn't quite finish his homework. So off to the phones. If you are looking for real in-depth interviewing, Terry Gross of NPR is probably
the best interviewer in the United States. She reads and/or researches everything
written by or about her guests beforehand and has a working knowledge of those
areas. I don't see King quite doing that. Granted, he probably has an audience 1000
times larger than Terry Gross, which may say more about the American audience than
King. In short, Larry is better than Bill but not as good as Terry.
I've been a fan of Larry King's show for awhile, I think he does a terrific job
overall and I don't think he ever 'wusses' out, as so many people seem to believe.
He's a subtle Scorpio, he gets his zings in when he needs to, just as he managed to
do last night with Paris Hilton, during her first post-jail TV interview. The thing about this entire case that has really amazed me is that Hilton
is still apparently clueless about why Judge Sauer gave her what she believes was a
too-harsh sentence (and what's more, actually MADE her serve it) . In all the time
she was in jail, supposedly alone 23 hours a day in her cell, she never once, in
her mind, rewound the events which led to her being given the sentence that Judge
Sauer saw fit to impose on her. She never once realized that it just might have set
off a major red flag when she (1) showed up late in court for the original hearing
and (2) proceeded to inform him, when he asked her did she not know that her
license had been suspended, did she not get the papers in the mail, that "I have
people who read that sort of thing for me." All the time she was in her
cell, she never came to the realization that this action (showing up late) and that
statement -- and more importantly, the attitude - the utter cavalier disregard for
the court system and the law in general and her driving privileges in particular
that she displayed -- just might have made Judge Sauer (pardon the pun) go sour on
her. Last night, on King's show, after giving lip service to how she
has been changed forever by her traumatic experience, how she has "learned" her
lesson, she answered his question, "Do you think you got a raw deal?" with a
resounding yes. And during the course of the conversation (if you can call it
that), she said more than once that she did not feel she deserved what had happened
to her. King asked, gently, more than once, if she does not feel she creates the
situations in her life that she "finds" herself in, to which she pretty much stared
at him blankly. She basically, therefore, holds the conscious belief that she's
been victimized in this situation; she does not understand how she herself caused
it, that day in court, by her cavalier attitude with the judge. I feel this is very
sad - tragic, even, considering what a huge "role model" Hilton is to some people,
and it renders anything she said last night about her so-called rehabilitated state
into the realms of complete and utter cluelessness, contradiction and hypocrisy.
 During the course of the interview, Hilton alluded to spending a lot of
time in her cell reading the Bible. At the end of the interview, King scored major
points by asking her what her favorite Bible passage was. She responded by groping
perplexedly at her pathetic notes (completely superficial non-insights, which she
had read on air as if she were Nelson Mandella or something) and finally grunting
out, "I don't have a favorite passage." Judge Sauer, in my book, is a
hero, and after last night, so is Larry King, for subtly exposing Hilton for what
she truly is.
Sorry about the "extremely clever" summary phrase. I don't know what I was
thinking, but I really couldn't help myself. I've been meaning to see
'Bloody Birthday' for a long time and I must say that it was a pleasant surprise to
find a copy of this film by accident and for such a low price. And believe me, I
live in a small South American village and these things are very unlikely to
happen. It's a real shame that some of these 'gems' from the 80s are now almost
completely forgotten. 'Bloody Birthday' is one of those movies that surprisingly
ages well enough to remain watchable nowadays. Not a masterpiece for sure, but
still entertaining and guess what?... it doesn't really have unintentionally funny
scenes. I know it's a shocker if we keep in mind that this is a low budget flick
from the early 80s about a group of evil children who kill people. But trust me,
the movie manages to remain respectable and watchable for the most part. In 'Blood Birthday', the story revolves around three children who are born
during a a total eclipse. According to astrology, during eclipses, the sun and the
moon block Saturn, which controls emotions. As a consequence, the three children
who are born that day, eventually become uncaring and evil. Since they don't
experience any feelings of remorse whatsoever, these 10-year-old kids gang up
against basically everyone who stands in their way, including their own parents and
siblings... and kill them! The body count increases day after day and the police
authorities believe that there's a psychopath lurking around the place. In the
meantime, Debbie, Curtis and Steven, don't hesitate to keep butchering people,
since nobody seems to suspect of those sweet angel faces (?) Like I was
saying before, 'Bloody Birthday' is surprisingly NOT funny. I know I said that
before, but I'm truly surprised by this. I was expecting some hilariously bad
scenes, but the movie proved me wrong. True, it's not exactly what most people
would consider a 'serious' horror movie, but if I have to be fair, I'd say that the
story is decently executed. One of the most important reasons why one would
normally expect laughable situations (like I did), it's because in these kind of
movies in which the main villains are children, the young actors tend to be plain
awful and they make the whole thing laughable. Let's face it: kids tend to be
horrible actors, which is understandable and we can't blame them for that. But to
my surprise, the three young actors who played the merciless killers in this film,
looked very disturbing and not at all funny. The rest of the actors are also good
and if you're a George Clooney fan, you can see his uncle playing a doctor in this
movie. Yeah, I know right?... who cares?. Also, Julie Brown, the great actress,
singer, comedienne and gay icon, gives a solid performance as the naughty older
sister and in case anyone is interested in nudity: she also strips in one of the
scenes and she looks great naked. Too bad she didn't have more time on the screen
though! Julie is 'absolutely fabulous':P So basically, this movie is
fine if you're in the mood for some modest horror from the 80s. My only objection
regarding 'Bloody Birthday' would be the way to justify the children's motives.
This is perhaps one of the lowest points of the film. Let's see: if children who
were born during an eclipse end up being heartless killers, then how come these
three were the only ones who actually murdered people? I'm sure there were other
children who had been born the same day... and during other days of total eclipse
too, oh well!. Overall, no big deal, it's just a simple observation, that's all.
I've seen worse, trust me. Take 'The Children' (1980) for example, in which the
precocious killer get their evilness after being turned into zombies by toxic
cloud. No, believe me, 'Bloody Birthday' is far more decent and if you enjoy simple
slashers, you're going to enjoy this one very much. So, now you know:
you're invited to the children's birthday party... and the hosts will be serving a
delicious poisoned cake for you and the rest of the guests. Come on, you can't miss
it ;)
"Saturday Afternoon" is one of Harry Langdon's best-known short subjects, and with
good reason. It is one of his funniest and best films. The plot -- such as it is --
is an old staple: a hen-pecked husband sneaks away for a night out with a his pal
and a couple of other girls. It's a solid and well-used comedy plot, but the
difference here is Harry Langdon himself. His slow, ineffectual, befuddled,
innocent character has somehow floundered his way into a marriage with a woman who
feels that he of all people must be ruled with an iron fist, and he is only thrust
into cheating on her because he can't say "no" to the exhortations of the chummy
Vernon Dent and the cute eyelash-fluttering of the girl. It's a very
adult problem to be thrust onto such a helpless, childlike character. Harry doesn't
want to cheat, but he can't do anything about it. In a wonderful bit of comic
business, he can't bring himself to blow the new girlfriend kiss goodbye: he slyly
pushes the kiss at her underhand and ashamedly wipes off his hand as if to chastise
it. The film is a three-reel comedy, ten minutes longer than the two-reelers Harry
Langdon had previously been starring in for Mack Sennett, with no more plot.
Perhaps it was even designed to be a two-reeler. This works beautifully, since it
gives him as much time as he needs to inject the slow reactions and bewildered
glimpses and half-actions where so much of his comedy lives. He's at
his best here, and the show is really Harry Langdon's curious magic and ability to
spin comedy out of almost nothing. His little half- smiles, his look while handling
the money he has hidden under the rug, childlike attempts to enter the fight at the
end. I think his comedy makes us recognize something fundamentally innocent and
confused in ourselves that makes us feel like the whole world is too much for us,
yet at the same time, by allowing us to understand what Harry does not (such as the
fact that the women he good-heartedly brings to his friend to cheer him after he
thinks the date has been blown are in fact whores) he forces his to realize with a
little bit of sadness that we are not that innocent anymore. His comedy is just as
capable of making us audibly say "Awwww" as it is making us laugh, often at once.
 Here Harry wants to refuse to cheat on his wife, he wants to tell his
wife whose boss and take some power back in his relationship, he wants to fight
back against the two violent men at the end of the film, but he just can't affect
his surroundings that much, and sometimes we all feel like that. The
film is perfectly directed by frequent Langdon director Harry Edwards; it moves at
a quick pace and never stalls while at the same time making time for and presenting
to best effect Harry Langdon's still, reactive comedy. Vernon Dent, a frequent foil
to Langdon, plays one of the roles here where he becomes almost a comedy partner in
his very effective pairing with Harry. The gags spaced out in a way that gives
maximum effect too, and Harry gets his own version of a Lloyd or Keaton style stunt
at the end. Here the comedy is not in Harry's big reactions to the danger of
sitting perched between two moving cars, but in his slowness to take it in. This is a hilarious film, and a perfect example of the comedy of one of the
most unique an talented humorists that I know ever to have existed.
If (as I just pointed out in THE GOAT) Keaton is following the tradition of the
comics finding themselves at odds with the law, this Langdon short (the last
released before he did TRAMP, TRAMP, TRAMP) was based on another comic ploy - being
married to a shrewish spouse, and trying to get away for some secret two-timing
dating. Laurel & Hardy did this in several films, as did Fields, and Chaplin.
 I have a problem with it - why do these characters always marry such
nasty women? And there is an interesting sociological side issue - why don't you
find female comics married to male counterparts to these shrews? I can't recall
any, except in a Carol Burnett skit, where the two nastier members of two couples
discover that they prefer having someone give it back as good as they get (a kind
of mutual sado-masochism, but also reassurance that their not married to a namby-
pamby type). As for the fact that the comics do marry shrews, I suppose one can
imagine they get what they deserve. Or do they? Ollie really deserves a wife who
throws pots and dishes at him? Yeah he went to that convention in SONS OF THE
DESERT that ruined her plans, but he wanted to get some private time - there is
nothing suggesting he and Stan cheated on their wives. Actually he is creamed by
Mae Busch because he lied to her while Stan collapsed and told the truth to his
wife. Here Harry's wife (Alice Ward) is shown at the start talking to
her mother about how she keeps him under strict control. We see Harry at his job
(it is Saturday morning, and the job ends at noon for the rest of the weekend -
this was before the idea of a five - day a week, 40 hour a week job in industry).
He works in a foundry where he hits red hot metal into shape (an early joke about
Langdon - he is a small, light man, not the muscular type to swing a sledge
hammer). He just misses his streetcar trying to give a man a light. He calls home
to explain things and gets an earful from the missus for being two minutes late.
 On the way home Harry meets his pal Steve (Vernon Dent) who has met two
nice, sweet girls who would just love to have a date. Harry is hesitant but agrees
to it after talking to the girl (he agrees to pay for the hot-dogs for the foursome
- he has a 1926 silver half dollar in his pocket). But his plans seem derailed when
his wife discovers his hidden "cache" of coins. He keeps it hidden under the living
room rug, and finds it by walking along the edge of the rug. But his wife spies on
him, and confiscates all of it. Later she overhears him talking to himself and
berating her. In contempt she gives him back a dime and says he can treat his date
to a soda. But Harry has a second cache of coins, and dresses up for the
date - and goes out. He and Dent are apparently late, and Dent blames Harry, but
Harry tries to make it up to him: he produces two prostitutes. They get into a
quarrel when Dent (wisely) says they are not the type of girls he'd term as "nice".
Eventually the girls do show up and the date begins. But soon Harry is hiding in
the rumble seat, as his wife drives past in her roadster, and the girls boy friends
turn up - angry at their two rivals. The short works well and is
amusing, and gives one a better idea of the persona that Harry Langdon developed in
his brief stardom as a comic master. He is constantly put upon by others. He misses
his streetcar because some stranger keeps asking for a smoke and a light, and in
the end the stranger gets his own. The nice girl who is Harry's date has a little
dog who chases him away. He rests between two cars that both start driving away and
he ends up wrapped around a pole. It certainly demonstrates that Langdon had his
screen persona down pat by the time that he made his features. If only he could
have kept the complex whole together beyond those three first features.
Harry Langdon's "Saturday Afternoon" is often ranked among the greatest silent
comedies, at least where short subjects are concerned, and therefore may come as a
bit of a letdown for some. Unlike some of the other recognized classics such as
Keaton's "Cops" or Chaplin's "The Immigrant" this film is in some respects a
familiar, conventional situation comedy and doesn't offer much in the way of belly
laughs; one may even wonder whether Langdon belongs in such rarefied company.
Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's a perfectly charming comedy in its minor-key way,
and Harry is fascinating to watch. For a modern viewer raised on TV
sitcoms the plot of "Saturday Afternoon" may suggest The Honeymooners or its many
spin-offs: two dim guys, one of whom is married and very much under his wife's
thumb, try to sneak out with a couple of good-time girls for a fun afternoon; but
everything goes wrong, and they wind up having to fight the girls' tough guy
boyfriends. Does this sound familiar? And perhaps a little dreary? Well, the
premise was already shopworn when this film was made, but beyond that nothing about
Langdon was typical. He was odd, starting with the fact that he looked like a
middle-aged baby who was half asleep. Any Freudians who catch "Saturday Afternoon"
will have a field day with the scenes between this timid, pudgy-faced baby-man and
his stern, gently domineering mommy-wife. When Harry tries to hide money under the
rug but she catches him in the act and forces him to hand it over, you'd swear
you're watching an interaction between a 6 year-old boy and his Mama . . . and
maybe that's why Harry Langdon gave some people the creeps, and still does. But he's a compelling screen figure, and it's not what he does so much as
the way he does it. In that scene with the coins under the rug, for instance, Harry
finds the coins by placing one foot before the other, carefully, like a tightrope
walker, counting off his paces until he finds the right spot, and his technique is
hypnotic. Langdon moved like no one else. Whether or not he makes you laugh, the
guy is mesmerizing, seemingly in a world of his own. Where the plot of his films is
concerned Harry is curiously passive, and almost never drives the story forward
himself. In the finale of "Saturday Afternoon," when the big fistfight is taking
place, Harry's co-star Vernon Dent is in the thick of the action, but Harry is in a
daze for much of the time, and winds up sort of punch-drunk between two cars
(sitting on the running board of one, but with his feet on the other) while they
race through the streets. It's a memorable image, and, as the critic Walter Kerr
wrote, it encapsulates Langdon's screen persona quite perfectly: he's a passive
figure who somehow finds himself in the middle of frantic action, blinking sleepily
while the world rushes past. It's also worth noting that Langdon and Dent, who
worked together frequently, have a rapport in this movie that suggests a blueprint
Laurel & Hardy would follow when they teamed up a year or so later. Langdon's style
was a likely influence on Stan Laurel, especially here. "Saturday
Afternnon" and its star may not be for everyone, but the film is well worth a look,
and you might find that Langdon makes an impression that's hard to shake.
I enjoyed some of the older Doctor Who many years ago, so when the new one came
out, I just had to check it out. I was SO pleased - with the characters, the story
lines, the updated look, I became hooked! From Season 1 (27 for the old fans)
through to season 2 (28), it just keeps on getting better. It ties in nicely with
the old shows too, although you don't have to know the old shows to enjoy this
newer version. Even though there has been a change of cast, I highly
recommend Doctor Who - with Chris Eccleston AND with David Tennant. I
like that they've given the characters so much depth. The Doctor seems more
vulnerable in this series, maybe because he is the last TimeLord. The range of
emotions which Chris and David show are truly remarkable, and I felt their pain,
anger, and sense of adventure right along with them. Billie Piper
(Rose) brings a very human element to each episode, although she is much braver
than I would be. With her talent, Billie will go far in the industry.
For those with access to the BBC or the CBC, this has proved to be spectacular.
Like Battlestar Gallactica, this is a show rebuilt from the ground up. But in the
case of Dr Who, they saved the best parts. I can't believe I am saying this but..
this is by far the best Dr Who. This has none of the cheap production values and
sometimes slow plodding of the old show. The acting is quite good and there is a
real sense of continuity and history. The new Doctor is easily the equal of the
great Tom Baker, and the writer (former QAF lead) seems to have made even the minor
characters come alive. I know...I'm gushing..but this should be on
everyone sci-fi geeks list. I just don't know why it hasn't made its way here..
Whatever you do...if you ever loved Dr Who or sci-fi..see this!!!
One of the most successful shows in television history is back. Now I admit I never
got into the original show.... Okay, so I never watched it at all. But the new show
is impressive. Sci-Fi has premiered the first two episodes, "Rose" and
"The End of the World," this weekend. We meet Rose, a twenty-something clerk who is
chased by remote controlled mannequins. She is rescued by a mysterious stranger who
calls himself the Doctor. Using the Internet, she finds a conspiracy buff who warns
her that wherever the Doctor goes, death follows. When her geeky boyfriend Mickey
is replaced by an impostor, the Doctor informs her of a plot to use Earth as a
breeding ground for more of these plastic monsters, whom the Doctor has been
fighting across space and time, traveling in a Tardis disguised a 50s-style police
call box. She helps him save the world--there wouldn't be a show
otherwise--and decides to join him. But when he puts her life in danger, he is
distraught, and questions whether her company was worth the risk. Although the special effects are kinda lame, and the some of the scenes are a bit
choppy, "Doctor Who" is (after two episodes aired in the US) a smart, well-written
work. Apparently, the second season has already aired in the UK, so I predict the
same success here.
Russell T Davies has been tasked with re-creating a slice of my childhood: hiding
behind the sofa, watching scary monsters battle with Dr Who. He, and his crew, are
clearly all true devotees of the original series. In much the same way
as the Star Trek movies used their budget to make the Gene Rodenberry's original
concept far more believable, Russell T Davies has both money and the advantages of
excellent CGI to create the best monsters ever. I am sure that this series was made
with a budget that anticipated both export and DVD sales and it really feels as if
no expense was spared. The accompanying series Dr Who Confidential shows
the work that goes into each episode which is a really useful behind the scenes
insight. Interviews with the cast and writers help retell the story from each
characters perspective and are far more useful than simply watching the whole
programme over again. How does David Tenant rank in the pantheon of his
illustrious predecessors? Time will tell but tonight, seeing Billie Piper play
alongside Elisabeth Sladen, who was the Doctor's companion in the 1970's confirm
that she has both the acting ability, screen presence and script to be the No. 1.
If you're a long-time fan of the Doctor and you cringed when you heard they were
making another series, rest easy -- it more than meets the high expectations of the
original. The pacing is much quicker than the original shows, fitting more often
into 50 minutes episodes rather than the average 90 minutes. The writing is
excellent, the acting superb. The hardest - and best - thing to get used to is the
production values of the new series. Compared to the original, it's got some now.
(Although I will always have fond memories of bubble-wrap and hand-puppet
monsters.) If you're not a fan, or if you tried the original and couldn't get a
handle on it, jump in with both feet now! Everything you really need to know about
the Doctor, they'll tell you as they go along. This series was written with minimal
references to the Doctor's enormous back story specifically to encourage new
viewers. Admittedly, I'm only seeing the first new series now as it's being shown
on the Sci-Fi channel (in other words, probably cut to ribbons for time
constraints), but I'm looking forward to future episodes either on broadcast TV or
on DVD. (July 4th can't come soon enough!)
As a fan of the old Doctor Who, and after the mediocre Fox movie, I was dubious of
this new series of Doctor Who. I gave it a chance though, and am so glad I
did. Yes, some episodes aren't as brilliant as others, but they are all
enjoyable, and yes, Eccleston's Doctor is far from any we've had before but...
Eccleston's Doctor is just about the best there is. His performance is at times
comical, at others dramatic, sometimes completely crazy but always fantastic. This, and Bille Piper as Rose make this series a cut above the rest
(Camille Coduri is also fantastic as Rose's mum), and there is a depth to this
series not present previously. This series is incredibly powerful, especially
considering its Sci-Fi. I mean who'd have thought you could ever have felt sorry or
even cried for a Dalek prior to this, how many times in this series' history have
we had moments like those with Rose's dad, the Emergency Doctor and the 'You were
fantastic...so was I' final speech? I advise anyone, whether a fan of Doctor Who or
even TV drama to buy this set on DVD, it truly is "Fantastic!". Now only
4 episodes through the latest series (and looking forward to the new Cybermen) I
have to say that David Tennant's Doctor is just not as good, of course you may
disagree, but I don't think his Doctor is capable of those emotional moments seen
in the previous series. I also have to say that in my opinion so far this series
has not been as good as the last, however the return of Sarah Jane & K9 was a
fantastic episode, a true gem. Not to say this series is not good, just not quite
AS good. So whether you like it or not, and whether you prefer Tennant
or Eccleston, The Doctor is back, and he's here to stay. "Fantastic!" - Almost as
many "Fantastic!"'s as The Doctor! -
I have some of the older videos and dvds of Dr. Who. I've played them over and
over. I adore each of the "Doctors" for different reasons. But due to a man in the
BBC hierarchy, Dr. Who was canceled, even though it was still one of the mainstays
of the BBC line-up. With the departure of Sylvester McCoy, the Doctor stayed alive
through the fans. BBC graciously allowed fans to write books, and cartoons. The
momentum of Dr. Who has been steady even after 1989. Then they took a chance with
Paul McGann. The movie was flawed, but it gave the BBC an idea of what we wanted.
In 1999, the "man" was gone and the newbies at the BBC felt it was time to bring
the Doctor back. It was a complete success. Here in America, the Sci-fi Channel
took a chance and it has become a complete success as well, although the writers
were having to start over and explain the Dr. Who mythology for new viewers. It is
incredible to me that they have done it. In Season 1, staring Christopher Eccleston
with Russell T. Davis as lead writer, and Phil Collinson as producer, the Doctor
has come back to us and in each episode we learn more about who the Doctor is. The
Doctor Who universe has always been about "Choice", "Love" and "Sacrifice". This is
what they provided. It makes me want more and it saddens me that Mr. Eccleston has
chosen to leave the show. My first Doctor was Doctor no. 3, Jon Pertwee's Doctor.
Mr. Eccleston needn't worry about his position in the Dr. Who universe. It is as
solid as the rest. He is the 9th Doctor. I didn't know of Mr. Eccleston prior to
his performance in Dr. Who, but I do now. I wish there was some way, he could know,
there is push out in the Dr. Who fan community to find his other work and enjoy it.
We have already seen that he is a great actor.
Three ten-year-old children born at the same time during a solar eclipse begin to
slyly murder anybody that offends them. While killer kid movies weren't
exactly new at the time of this twisted 80's slasher the theme of children as
murderers works nicely for this film. Bloody Birthday does deliver some good chills
and suspense, while managing to be a competent killer thriller with some strange
qualities. It straddles a fine line between cheesy and creepy, but it does remain
entertaining throughout with an interesting plot. There's some strong murder
scenes, as well as a good bit of nudity to establish this as a solid slasher guilty
pleasure. The cast does a fairly good job. Young stars Elizabeth Hoy and
K.C. Martel deliver some menacing performances, while rising star Julie Brown does
a striptease before a memorable murder scene. Veteran star Susan Strasberg does
well as the teacher and Jose Ferrer has a cameo appearance. All around
this off-beat slasher entry isn't bad, though it's admittedly not flawless, but it
is well worth watching for genre fans. *** out of ****
I love pop culture, but I was a little apprehensive when I first heard about this.
Then, I seen an episode, and I LOVE IT! I was a little upset when I found out that
Christopher Eccelson would no longer be playing Doctor Who. He was probably the
best one they've had. He fits the character so well. It's sad to see him go. I
really don't think that the new guy is going to pull off the doctor as well as
Eccelson. I think everyone can overlook the cheesy effects in some spots
and the creatures, such as the darleks. The story lines and characters can more
than make up for that. I'm currently waiting for season two and I will review that
as well, in case, for any reason, quality goes down. Anyways, I think
everyone should try to see one episode. I did, and I have been loving it ever
since. Well written, well casted, and well produced, this show is worth the hour of
viewing. Doctor Who gets a 10/10
First off, I have been a fan of the show back when my PBS station started showing
it back in 1981. I learned many things about the show and the people who were in or
contributed to the show. This latest installment of Doctor Who made a
great impression on me. The original series, aka classic series, was made fun of by
the bad special effects and/or wobbly sets. Well, this is NO MORE TRUE. The special
effects are awesome, but what is even better is the writing. You get a chance to
learn more about our beloved Doctor and maybe a bit of a reason why he loves the
planet earth so much. Without giving too much away, it is a very worthwhile series
to watch. Christopher Eccelston brought a side of the Doctor that we never get to
see, a bitter and angry one but yet lovable at the same time. A MUST
SEE!
I LOVE Dr WHo SO much! I believe that David Tennant is the best Dr the show has
ever had and Billie Piper the Best companion! I liked the way the Dr and Rose had
such a connection and a great relationship and the Dr came close a few times to
expressing his love for rose! It sadly came to an end after only 2 seasons. I will
miss watching rose heaps and think that the show will not be the same without Rose!
But David is still there to make me laugh and make me happy to watch him play this
fantastic role! I rate this show 110% it is FANTASTIC! The graphics and monsters in
this show are wonderful and every storyline is different but somewhat connected and
i have actually learned somethings about love, the world and relationships from
this show. Therefore it must be one of the most fantastic shows of all time!
i was like watching it right and i was all like oh this is so totally awesome-full
and then i was all like ya quite good indeed so i really enjoyed all the amazing
dangers and all the British people and i think that the doctor is very a good
doctor in his way of doing such wonderful doctor-y things and he was a very strange
man and i was like maybe i won't like this guy because hes a new doctor and i like
the old doctor thats not this guy but then i watched him and i was like oh this is
awesome and i liked it so then i watched and enjoyed the great evil enemies and the
great conquering of the evil guys and the happy doctor who is quite scary and happy
looking
I write this after just seeing the latest episode broadcast in the UK, and to me it
must be a tough job to keep up the standard. The last episode shown called "Blink"
has elements of Gothic horror all to do with statues that aren't quite what they
seem. The Doctor and Martha don't appear much, but that doesn't detract from a well
crafted episode. The general standard has built to a high level and the last three
episodes, the two parter with "The Family" and the latest have to me been the best
that the current team have ever done. It's not just David Tennant
holding it together, the whole supporting cast week in, week out are helping as
well. For those awaiting series 3 abroad, the wait is is well worth it.
I'm a next generation person...i've never saw the original doctor who but i have
heard about the series that sparked a great fan base in the past and still making
its mark in the 21'st century; the new "Doctor who" started in 2005 but for those
that live here in the states like myself we pretty much see it as new episodes on
sci-fi channel or BBC America; from season one we are introduce to a new player
Rose Tyler (Billie piper) and a pretty cool new doctor played by Christopher
Eccelson (misspelled last name sorry). these two go on some many amazing and very
extremely dangerous missions to save the world...every now and then they have
companions from rose's ex-boyfriend mickey to the now ever present Jack harkness
(who can now be seen on the spin off "Torchwood"). From season one to season two
the pace is just about right...the stories can be from the outlandishly weird to
the most action packed paced driven but either way its one rollercoster ride from
the start of the theme song which is very catchy. in season two he
becomes different and changes and now the new doctor (David Tennant) continues the
fight to save the world with rose and from this point there can be some that say
some of the season wasn't as good but i have to disagree and it was sad to see rose
and the doctor part ways but it leaves the opening "companion" role to Martha
(played by the very sexy Freema Agyeman) who helps continue the fight to save
mankind...season three now is more on the action/adventure level and sometimes on
the emotional but not as much as the first two seasons; here the relationship
between the doctor and Martha is fitting but the attractiveness CAN be rushed into
at times and the obviousness comes into play that she's NOT rose Tyler being that
you experienced her company in the first two seasons and not in the third season it
can be a bit awkward it was for me cause you get use to rose and her ways and now
to see someone who at times don't really question the doctor on an emotional level
but all the same makes the pace very exciting for viewers which keeps you at the
edge of your seat. all in all this is one thrill ride of a television
show i would give it more but there are some flaws to this show as well that i
can't mention cause its sometimes hard to pick up but just one does which is the
doctor and Martha's relationship is rushed and not leveled on the get to know you
base; I've seen good shows on British TV but this is by far one of the coolest sci-
fi adventures for the old and new generation to experience but you don't have to
take my world for it...step into the tardis and join the adventure.
Unlike most people who've commented, I was born after the last Sylvester Mccoy
Episode and so couldn't have compared the two centuries of doctor who at first. I
thoroughly enjoyed it when Christopher Eccleston took control of the TARDIS and the
continuation of the series. I have, since then, seen old episodes of Doctor Who and
some where great, but, like the doctor, the series needed to regenerate to
continue. The 21st century doctor who's are great, I thought Martha was great,
almost a match for the doctor and if Jack's appearance is anything to go by, she's
going to be brilliant when she cameos in series 4 or 5. Speaking of
Jack, the spin of, Torchwood is also brilliant and you should watch both of these
programmes (though this is definitely more suitable for kids). However, if you
insist that this isn't the same and just isn't Doctor Who, please, just stay in
your basement. 10/10
As soon as the credits rolled on Saturday night you could feel it in the air that
the doctor was most definitely back! Watching those iconic moments where
Christopher Eccelston met Billie Piper was the beginning of a huge long
adventure. With this new series it brings with it substences in which
the previous version of the show lacked. For instence, the emotion between the
Doctor and his companion which they seemed to dismiss in the old series, as well as
the doctor actually falling in love with a companion and receiving her love in
return. Yet as we know, the doctor shall forever remain lonely as the end of Season
2 proved, he could not stay with a companion forever. Watching those moments, your
eyes filling with tears as the doctor says his final farewell to the only companion
he has ever loved, were moments beautifully written and acted. This show
however proved it can live on as the doctor meets many other companions along his
lonely yet exciting journey through his never ending life. Openeing new
doors and secrets every episode it's a sure show for the family to enjoy... As Christopher Eccelston once described the show... "The journey of a
lifetime."
Honestly, I don't really understand why there has been so much controversy about
this show. It embraces the elements of the original, while expanding on them. The
storytelling has been updated and, while some of the episodes seem to be a bit
"Fast", that is a good thing. Christopher Eccleston is perfect in the
role. Easily as good as Tom Baker. Rose is one of the best companions,
on par with Sarah Jane Smith or Leela. I like the concept that the
timelords have been destroyed - No more politicking with the Doctor acting as
president emeritus. And it adds something to the character to be the only one
left. The SFX are outstanding - especially in comparison to the
original. Take it from me (And I was a huge Dr Who geek - I actually
took notes while watching the show all the way from Dr Number 1 to Dr Number 8. I
tossed the horrible movie out of cannon, personally) this is the best sci fi show
on TV right now, possibly ever. Watch it and buy the DVD.
Okay, I grew up on Who, but haven't loved a Doctor since Tom Baker. Christopher
Eccleston made me love Who again and I'll be furious with him forever for leaving.
 The writing is grand, the acting superb, the directing (which was
dreadful in the old days) is just fantastic. I was very skeptical about this
programme, and watched it merely out of being forced, but am now a huge fan and
love it (I have a ringtone of a Dalek screaming "Exterminate" then). A
few of the things I love about the new programme -- 1) people actually notice when
Rose (Billie Piper) disappears off the planet. Some of the old shows an assistant
would drop off for a while, and then come home like nothing has happened, no one
noticed. 2) Chris Eccleston's doc loves Rose -- romantic or not will be debated,
but there is no doubt that 9 loves and cares about his companion. He'd destroy the
world if he had to to save her, which the old show was lacking -- often a doctor
wouldn't care if he never saw his assistants again. 3) They talk and think like
real people -- when Rose is shown something outlandish or new (such as aliens) she
acts like a real person would -- gobsmacked. I never liked it when an assistant
from the old show, who never saw anything alien, would just fit right in and adapt
instantly. I want to see the surprise on Rose's face when she sees a plastic dummy
come to life. She gives that to me. The few things I don't like about
this series: 1)nearly everything happens on earth (London or Cardiff) and I was
sort of hoping for a more off-world sort of show. 2) That Eccleston left so
quickly, he really made the show brilliant. But I can let those few
things go -- I far more enjoy the series than I ever expected to, so I don't mind
if they have stuff set on earth. Just don't take this show seriously --
it's fun, it's smart, it's entertaining, but it's not a super-serious heavy duty
show. It's pure fun, and pure British, and I can't get enough. Watch it with an
open mind, and just put your brain into neutral and enjoy! ps -- don't
watch series 2 or later. series 1 was brilliant, the first few episodes of series 2
were good, but don't watch it once it gets to Love and Monsters. Utter rubbish,
completely destroys the show.
This movie is not the scariest of all time, but it is a great example of a campy
eighties horror flick -- low budget, no stars, lots of inventive death scenes, and
enough nudity to keep the teenagers in their seats. The premise is interesting and
fun and the three evil kids play their parts well. A nice starting point for "Just
Say" Julie Brown exposing her talents early in her career. This film won't be seen
by many, but for fans of 80's horror it's a must.
i watched all of the doctor who episodes that my local PBS station played while
growing up.(got introduced to the doctor by way of John Pertwee)as well as "camera
copies" of doctor who sent to America by UK fans to their US counterparts. i had a
great time w/ the show, but it never seemed to take itself seriously - i mean as
seriously as a sci-fi show about a time traveler could be. i went to the CONs, did
the costume bit (doctor#5,6 and Tegan were my costume characters), loved it. then
it all came to a sudden halt. program politics and lack of interest and funding
turned doctor who into a 25year old antique that drifted into the ethos. when i heard that the sci-fi channel had picked up the new doctor, my first
thought was, "cool, now my 11 year old son can see what i've been babbling on about
all these years, and know what the heck a TARDIS is" (i have several phone boxes
and TARDISes of various sizes around the house)i didn't expect the excellent
quality of story, character development and f/x. i was to say the least - pleased.
for the first time, i found a doctor that wasn't a curmudgeon, a clown, a fop, a
trip-head, a pussy, or a jerk. Christopher Eccleston is by far the most believable
doctor to date.now, now, calm down tom baker fans! don't get me wrong, i loved
almost every doctor and his quirks, but Christopher gave something to the doctor
that he'd never had before - real word believability. i'm just sad that he decided
against another season. i'll try out David Tennant as i would any other doctor, but
now the bar has risen... bad wolf rules!!!!! 2008 update - i
love David tennant! his "mod" persona is something that my generation remembers, my
son's generation can deal with, and fashion gestapo can relax! he's a little more
human than christopher, but not as humas as other former doctors. i miss rose, i
dig martha, and what were they thinking with donna noble!?!? it's still the best
ride on TV
Doctor Who is amazing. It is everyones 'cup of tea'. It must be. The boys will like
the monsters and the action and adventure and the girls will like the emotion and
feelings that go around. Billie Piper was extraordinary as Rose Tyler.
She was so emotional and made Rose so real. David Tennant is also so
witty and funny and it is so enjoyable to watch. But now Billie has left
and Rose is stuck on a parallel universe with her on-off boyfriend Mickey and her
mother and father (he died when Rose was a baby but this Pete Tyler is from the
Parallel universe). It will be very strange with Martha being the new companion, as
I have only ever seen it with Rose (Apart from the Runaway Bride with Catherine
Tate). Freema better be good!!! But nobody can beat Rose!!!
I have just watched the season 2 finale of Doctor Who, and apart from a couple of
dull episodes this show is fantastic. Its a sad loss that we say goodbye
to a main character once again in the season final but the show moves on. The BBC does need to increase the budget on the show, there are only so
many things that can happen in London and the surrounding areas. Also some of the
special effects all though on the main very good, on the odd occasion do need to be
a little more polished. It was a huge gamble for the BBC to bring back a
show that lost its way a long time ago and they must be congratulated for doing
so. Roll on to the Christmas 2006 special, the 2005 Christmas special
was by far the best thing on television.
As a child I was never in a situation where I could be introduced to Dr Who and
though I had heard of the series in passing, I never really realized exactly what
it was. It was, then, with some hesitation that i sat down to watch the ninth
Doctor and his antics having be told that he was something like Arthur Dent (from
the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) but cooler. I can't believe what I've been
missing out on, seriously, why had no one told me about this before? My entire
childhood was deprived of Doctor Who adventures; me being a tremendous fan of most
sci-fi and fantasy adventures. Honestly, i thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward
to any future episodes. I have to admit that at first I was not so sure
that Billie Piper would be the best actress but I'm happy to say that she did very
well, i thought, and added a very realistic touch to the series. I think, actually,
that was one of my favourite aspects of the series; the contrast between great
alien conflict scenes contrasted with the infuriating normality of the South London
Council Estate life. I'm always interested in instances where people's ideas about
the world are drastically challenged and how people can take any situation and edit
it in their minds so that it may fit in with their mundane lives. I also loved
Christopher Eccleston. I haven't seen many of his films and I've never seen another
actor as Dr Who, but I thought his portrayal of the Doctor was brilliant, immensely
likable and yet dark enough to make you wonder. I find that many other characters
with his sort of character history tend to be a bit two-dimensional; they have all
the right emotions and actions, but they always seems slightly shallow. This
Doctor, on the other hand, earned my loyalty with his stratified personality. I
agree with some of the other comments that a higher budget for the special effects,
aliens and whatnot, might have been a bit more effective. but then again, this
isn't about special effects (though they help) from what I've read and heard from
long-time Dr Who fans; it's the spirit of the whole things that really counts. And
I don't think they did a bad job with what they had. I quite liked all the aliens
but my favourite had to be the Daleks; if I ever knew anything about Dr Who before
watching the series, it was that there were things in it that looked like upturned
dustbins on wheels. Previous to watching, i was quite sceptical about these pepper-
pots threatening the existence of humanity but some of them were quite scary! Which
I loved,of course. Overall, a good show. I look forward to future
episodes with delight. The Doctor has a new fan.
I get a kick out of the new Who fans who call it, excellent,Their entitled to that
opinion but the new series isn't quite there yet, it's getting there. It's
definitely good. First the good things. The special effects are
obviously better nearly 20 yrs later since the last episode of Doctor Who
"Battlefield" was aired. One thing the BBC has always liked is Doctor
Who (except when they tried to cancel in the 70's and 80's). However, the
anticipation and the pressure was great but I think the New series has passed the
test it's good, it's still not excellent because it does have it's flaws. Some of
the stories "Dalek" were very poor. I assume it was written in a couple of minutes
by some idiot who never bothered to remake the Dalek character or never bothered to
watch the old series. "Aliens in London" was by far probably the best
episode so far, it started a new storyline about Aliens which has lasted across
several episodes including "Boomtown". Now the other bad things, the
companion, Rose, Billie Piper, isn't great. She's actually quite annoying but as is
Dr. Who a young teeny bopper had to be eventually chosen and she got the
part. Christopher Eccleston is pretty respectable, he's started to catch
his niche. He tried to play the character, straight then funny always missing the
right punchline but he's taken it much more serious and it shows. Continuity wise there still some issues that didn't get resolved well, Paul
Mcgann was still the doctor before this but he didn't get put back. Aside from that though the series overall is pretty good, I haven't missed an
episode and it never gets boring, so I recommend any Doctor Who fan to check it out
and see the new Doctor Who series.
2005 will go down in 'Dr.Who' history as its most incredible year. Everything
seemed to click; a first-rate new Doctor and companion, big audiences ( 10 million
for the first episode and Christmas special ), major awards, critical acclaim and
those idiots who spent years giggling at the Daleks' seeming inability to negotiate
stairs were well and truly silenced. But then Christopher Eccleston dropped a
bombshell, quitting after just one series. It looked like the honeymoon was over.
Luckily, the public appears to have embraced his successor, the excellent David
Tennant. On top of this the show boasts fine S.F.X., like the spaceship crashing
into 'Big Ben' in 'Aliens Of London' and superb story lines such as 'Tooth & Claw',
'Army Of Ghosts/Doomsday'. The new 'Dr.Who' is basically the same as the old, only
updated for the 21st century. Some fans have accused Russell T.Davies of 'ruining'
the show. They need to remember that there was no show for sixteen years until he
came along.
I seriously enjoy Dr Who. Seriously, don't just dismiss me as a "sci-fi
person", because I'm not normally. I caught on because a friend got me hooked when
they started watching it. It is actually really funny, and more often than not,
it's fast-paced. All of my family watch it pretty much and that's a miracle. Christopher Ecclestion is pretty good, but David Tennant is brilliant. I
think it's because he made the Doctor so manic and it's just nice to have that
little bit of eccentricity in a TV character again. I don't know what it
is about it, but everything manages to work like clockwork. All I'm
going to say is just try it. One episode (probably best if you don't pick the
second half of a two-parter, though).
It was September 2003 that I heard the BBC were going to resurrect DOCTOR WHO and
make it " Bigger and better " but I'd heard these rumours in the press before and
thought that's all they were - Rumours . But it was then mentioned that Russell T
Davies was going to executively produce and write the show and then one Saturday
afternoon in March 2004 Channel 4 news interviewed the actor cast in the title role
- Christopher Eccleston . Yes that Christopher Eccleston an actor I've always been
impressed by since watching his film debut in LET HIM HAVE IT and if he was getting
interviewed on television it must have been true . As the months passed more and
more information was leaked , Billie Piper was being cast , the Daleks would be
returning and The Mill , the Hollywood effects company who had done the FX for
GLADIATOR were contracted to do the special effects for the show . For several
weeks before the first broadcast trailers galore heralded the return of the new
series , massive billboards in London informed the public about the return of the
show , tabloid newspapers carried massive photo spreads of the aliens appearing and
Christopher Eccleston appeared on programmes as diverse as BLUE PETER , MASTERMIND
( Which had a special DOCTOR WHO night edition ) , THIS MORNING and Friday NIGHT
WITH JOHNATHAN ROSS . In fact this new series of DOCTOR WHO must have been the most
hyped programme in the history of British television , it had better be bloody good
 So was it bloody good ? Undoubtedly it has been a major success with
nearly every episode making the top ten shows in the TV charts . To give you clue
of its rating success only one episode ( The Ark In Space episode two - Febuary
1975 ) from the old series had made it into the top five TV chart . The opening
series episode made number three with two more episodes either beating or equalling
the previous record and this is in an era where there's far more competition in
terms of TV stations and choice . Let's laugh and cheer at the fact DOCTOR WHO
stuffed HIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME , CELEBRITY WRESTLING and mauled ANT AND DEC'S
Saturday NIGHT TAKEAWAY . Of course much of the success is down to the breath
taking visuals and the casting of a well known prestigious actor in the role . For
the most part everything you see on screen here equals anything you'll see in a
Spielberg / Hollywood movie . There's a Dalek invasion force numbering tens of
thousands , exotic aliens , a 19th Century Cardiff that looks like a 19th Century
Cardiff and night filming that is actually night filming and not done by sticking a
dark filter over the screen . I promise you'll be hearing a lot more from the
directors who worked on this series , Joe Ahearne especially will one day be in the
Hollywood A list There are some flaws to the new series of DOCTOR WHO
and all of them should be laid at the door of Russell T Davies . It may be
contentious whether the soap opera and post modernist elements are successful or
not ( In my opinion they're not ) but what's not in dispute is that the weakest
scripts are all written by RTD . As I mentioned in my review of CASANOVA he cheats
the audience and he does the same thing here: when faced by armed soldiers pointing
their guns at him The Doctor bellows " attack plan delta " which makes no sense to
anyone in the audience but allows him to escape from a tight spot , a naked Captain
Jack suddenly pulls out a laser he's been hiding and RTD scripts are full of these
type of cheats and deus ex machina type endings . In fact the final episode is
spoiled greatly by the ridiculous concept of what the " Bad Wolf " is which seems
to have got RTD out of a tight spot more than The Doctor . And of the endings I'm
trying to remember if any of them were actually down to The Doctor ? More often
than it's a supporting character or the Doctor's companion who saves the day . The
show is called DOCTOR WHO not ROSE TYLER so can we see the title character save the
day please just like he did in the classic series ? One final point about the
portrayal of the Doctor is the way he's written as a grinning loon . Eccleston is
best known for his serious and gloomy roles and he's absolutely breath taking at
scenes when he's showing grief , like the tear running down his face in the End Of
The World but more often than not he's written as a " Tom Baker on speed "
character . It's obvious why Eccleston hasn't done much comedy in his career - He's
not very good at it Am I starting to sound like I hate this show ?
Sorry I didn't mean to but it's just that while some anticipations have been met or
surpassed some others haven't and they're nearly all down to Russell T Davies who
thankfully is contributing less in the way of scripts in the next series of DOCTOR
WHO . Let's see more traditional stories of a human outpost being under threat from
monsters like we saw in the 1960s and 70s , imagine a story like The Sea Devils
with a massive budget directed by Joe Ahearne ! Oh and one last request - Can we
see these " NEXT TIME " trailers scrapped ? They reveal all the best bits of next
week's episode
I never saw Doctor Who before (at least not in any focused way), so I was new to
the concept. I have to say that the new show works very well. It's funny (it really
also ought to say "Comedy" in the genre description; many plot turns are only
acceptable because of their comedic value), it's well-written and it's making a
meager budget go a long way. The human dimension is very strong and engaging, which
is very rare in current TV shows. I've seen the first eight episodes,
and #6-8 were my favorites so far. Even types of stories that are all too easy to
screw up (with time-travel, saving one's dead parents and that sort of stuff) works
out amazingly well here. Christopher Eccleston is a joy to watch as the
witty and light-hearted though occasionally morose Doctor - if they can find a good
replacement for him, I'll be quite surprised. But I'm willing to give the new guy a
chance. There's little doubt, however, that the Eccleston episodes are going to go
down in history as classics. The relationship between the Doctor and
Rose is particularly refreshing. The Doc is much more of a father figure to her
than a romantic interest, and yet there are hints of romantic innuendo between
them, which however is much more emotional and human than sexual. A good
show. The biggest drawback is the low budget - a show like this ought to have
better special effects. And why they don't simply use some cheaper effects, I don't
know. In this day and age, SFX don't have to cost a bundle - just look at the Star
Wars: Revelations fan film. 8 out of 10.
I remember being so excited on Saturday nights when I was a kid, waiting for Dr.
Who. I thought it was the best show ever made. Then, I grew up, Dr. Who went off
the air, and no one I knew had ever heard of it. Then I found out there was going
to be a new series. I was a little nervous about it. Was it going to live up to the
expectations I had carried around since I was little? Would they screw it up? Would
the Dr. suck? Would his assistant suck? Would they create a more intimate
relationship with the Dr. and his assistant? YES, NO, NO, NO, NO!!! This show is
wonderful!! I love the new Dr. I love his assistant. I love the show. And I find
myself excited on Friday nights now, waiting for the "new" episode. I'm just now
seeing 2005 episodes, as I live in the States, so I'm a little behind the rest of
you. I hope the next Dr. is as great as this one!
An absolute classic of 80's scare flix. This one isn't like any other as it pits
pint-size, wild-eyed, psychotic youngsters with an urge to kill against all the
grown-ups in town. Bud from JUST ONE OF THE GUYS (80's gold again) plays one of the
killer-kids and he's paired up with one of the little girls Jake Blues tries to
purchase in the BLUES BROTHERS. There is a third blond boy, but he keeps
disappearing from the movie for whatever reason. The violence is hilarious at times
and also surprisingly gruesome in spots. The demonic gang of smiling kids, though
somehow possessed by extra-planetary means, bear little resemblance to the droid-
ish Children of the Damned, who never thought to use pistols, crossbows and shovels
to kill those pesky adults. Julie Brown (not Downtown Julie Brown-the other one)
shows her rack, like three times, as she dances around in her bedroom. This movie
is a rarity that I cannot believe I missed growing up in the 80's. This would have
been my absolute favorite movie as a kid if I had seen it. Where is the sequel the
ending begs for? This movie is just incredible. Seek it out at all costs.
First off, I never got into Dr. Who until recently. Honestly, I never got the
opportunity to watch any of the previous incarnations (pun intended) since it was
never "big" here in the US as it is everywhere else. That said, I must
say (obviously) that after finishing the 2nd season, that this is one of the best
sci-fi shows I've ever seen. Now, I watch a lot of Sci-Fi shows from all
over and this show stands out. The first season was tops to begin with,
with Christopher Eccleston in the title role and I thought he was terrific. Of
course, so was the lovely Billie Piper who just adds such humanity and warmth to
the character of Rose that no one could've done it better. Let's not forget Camile
Coduri as Jackie and Noel Clarke as Mickey/Ricky who are just a blast to watch.
Then there's David Tenannt. At first, I thought he was too gawky-looking to play
the character (his ears!!), but after watching the 2nd season, he fits in just
fine. His sharp acting and physical comedy is almost flawless. He's great with
snappy dialog and can turn serious without batting an eye. Aside from
the great acting from the cast is the acting from most of the guest actors that
have appeared. A lot of them are veteran actors but some are new to me and are damn
fine. The production and direction of the show is top notch.
Occasionally, there'll be some cheesy effects here and there, but that's always
been a factor in the original series and, like those episodes, is negligible. My favorite thing of all about the series: The stories. Writing folks, is
always the key to great entertainment. Russell T. Davies has written many of the
episodes along with a few other writers and they have done an excellent job.
They've managed to bring excitement, ingenuity, intelligence and fun with clever
concepts and great dialog. I also appreciate the fact that they can breach the
older Doctors' past story lines and enemies well (my friend explains much of this
to me while we watch the show) and respectfully. I won't mention
anything about the 2nd season and how it ends since the Sci-Fi channel just started
airing the 2nd season. I wouldn't want to spoil it. It's so much fun and
excitement. You'll never want to take your eyes away nor miss a word of
dialog. It really is that good. PS: Thanks to the producers
for Nicholas Briggs back! **EXTERMINATE!**
I loved this show. Such talent; and I am so disappointed that it is canceled, after
only just beginning. I looked forward to this show all week long. And so sorry for
the people who were hoping to be The One. I would have loved to see who would have
won. It just began, and in my opinion,it should not have been canceled. I hope
these young artist have been viewed by talent scouts, and have the opportunity to
reach their goals. I voted, and sat waiting for it to come on; never knowing that
it was canceled. And I could not believe that it was. I am amazed that it had low
ratings; because it was in my opinion one of the best reality shows on TV.
I was really beginning to enjoy this show. It just started out slow and it wasn't
given the chance it deserved. It is summertime so many people are not at home
watching television. I know there are a few talent and singing competitions but I
enjoy them as do many other. believe it or not when American idol is done for the
year I miss it. Even though this was not American idol I thought it had potential.
I feel bad for the singers on the show who wee really starting to grow on me. I
wish they would reconsider and put the show back on. I think it was a hasty move to
cancel. My only complaint about the show is I did not care to much for the judges.
I was very disappointed when this show was canceled. Although i can not vote. I
live on the island of Aruba. I sat down to see the show on tuesday. And was very
surprised that it didn't aired. The next day i read on the internet that it was
canceled. It's true not every one was as much talented as the other. But
there were very talented people singing. I find it very sad for them. That they worked so hard and there dreams came tumbling down. Its a pity Ariette Croes
This is a very modest, very lovely movie with a great score by Hoagy Carmichael and
Frank Loesser with a standout number, We're The Couple In The Castle, that is
totally evocative of the period and harks back to Penthouse Serenade just as the
opening premise (Hoppity's coming) may well have inspired Fred Saidy and Yip
Harburg's opening (Woody's Coming) in Finian's Rainbow six years later. I totally
agree with those posters who have noted that were the name Disney appended to this
it would by now have achieved 'classic' status rather than have fallen into
neglect. It's wonderfully inventive, never more so than when objects barely noticed
in the 'real' world assume a much greater significance - both pro and con - in the
insect world. Actually it IS a classic, albeit a minor one.
While Disney have been THE animation studio for the past 70 years, there have
always been rivals to their supremacy. When this review was written in 2009, for
example, companies like Dreamworks and (to a lesser extent) Warner Brothers and
Ardman, were bringing out animated movies that could be said to challenge the
Disney dominance. Back in the beginning, in that late '30s and early '40s heyday
when Disney was serving cinematic banquets like Snow White, Dumbo and Fantasia, the
competition was provided by brothers Dave and Max Fleischer. Despite releasing two
very commendable films, they never quite cornered the market many attribute their
downfall to the commercial failure of Mr Bug Goes To Town, released the same week
as the attack on Pearl Harbour (which gave the American public something more
significant to think about than going to the cinema to watch a cartoon!) That this
film has faded into relative obscurity is a travesty. In a patch of
overgrown garden in the city a bunch of bugs are in dire danger. Humans use the
land as a shortcut, discarding litter and cigars, and other hazards, right on top
of the bugs' homes as they go. Honey-shop owner Mr Bumble (voiced by Jack Mercer)
fears that the future is bleak, and wonders how he will ever be able to raise his
daughter Honey (voiced by Pauline Loth) in more secure surroundings. A highly
unscrupulous creature, Bagley C. Beetle (voiced by Tedd Pierce), offers to provide
her a safer place to live if she will accept his hand in marriage, but Honey is
much more interested in her childhood sweetheart, the perennially cheerful and
optimistic Hoppity (voiced by Stan Freed). Hoppity believes that everything is
about to be resolved for the better, but is left looking foolish when Bagley Beetle
and his pair of comical sidekicks manipulate the crisis to their own devious end.
Only at the very end, as their patch becomes the foundation for a huge new
skyscraper, do the bugs switch loyalty back to Hoppity as they look to him to lead
them a new, safe home away from the destructive influence of humans. What really works in this film is the delightful characterisation all the bugs
are cleverly developed and designed for maximum audience appeal. The bumbling
villains Swat the fly and Smack the mosquito (hilarious names, if you stop to think
about it) are particularly memorable. Equally admirable is the storytelling drive
even the youngest of children can enjoy this story, while at the same time it
skillfully conveys a message for older audiences about the way human carelessness
can impact upon the survival of wildlife. Time has inevitably dated some aspects of
the film, and when viewing it the audience needs to accept (and forgive) these
occasional signs of general age and wear. But on the whole Mr Bug Goes To Town is
an accomplished, funny and very slickly presented animation with a worthy message
to boot.
Wow. I saw this movie and "Up" on the same day within an hour of each other at
different theaters. I saw "Mr Bug" first, and was then totally disappointed in
"Up"'s follow-up. What a beautiful and touching film! Movies of the 1930s and 40s
to us nowadays can be irking with their melodramatic acting and dialog, but as
animation the same melodrama and groaning humor can be wonderful. And the soft
"organic" lines of 30s drawing AND the music just puts you in a nice comfortable
mood and you can enjoy the show with all its little characters: ladybugs,
grasshoppers, bees, snails, stinkbugs, flies, mosquitoes, beetles, crickets, and
more each with all their own cute little (but not overbearing) idiosyncrasies. The
interaction with the human world, from nemesis (cigar smokers, high-heel wearers,
innocent kick-the-can playing kids) to the kind-hearted, and to the unknown
destroyers, is realistic and fascinating. You care for the bugs, AND Dick and Mary.
The protagonist Hoppity is not some perfect superman who comes to "set things
right" but a starry-eyed optimist who leads everyone down the garden path
(literally!), and every time you think it's going to end happily in 1930s style,
along comes another roadblock...! I was on the edge of my seat much more than with
"Up." I walked out of the movie theater grinning and chuckling: something that
hasn't happened in a long long long long time!
There was a time when not all animation was Disney or Pixar. Its so nice to see
this wonderful film again and I actually got hold of a good, reasonable copy on
DVD. Be careful as its out of the public domain and there are some really bad
copies around.I got a very good copy by a company called Flashbacks and its quite
good. In the old days I watched it on black and white on TV and its magic to see it
in colour. Very much better than some would have you believe. The songs are
delightful and the colour is great. Interestingly the characters are really well
developed which is odd in animated movies. I loved Hoppity and the villain Mr
Beatle is a real cad. Its incredibly imaginative. The way inanimate objects like
cotton reels, old tins become part of the environment and have new functions is
great. The anthropomorhic use of insects is amazing considering the much malinged
creatures most people sadly think are repugnant. Hopefully we may never step on an
insect again! THe insects enemy is man. In reality of course its the insects that
will survive. No matter how hard we try to rid ourselves of ants here in Australia
they keep coming back. The battle has been lost and we have to live with them.
There are several scenes that stand out such as when Hoppity and Mr Bumble are
caught in a watering can, the great flood and the journey to the top of the
building are all wonderful. Its also rather anthropomorphic but in a way thats
charming. The human characters look very like the ones in Gulliver and its
incredibly effective. The wedding scene looks beautiful. Its a crime this movie has
not been hailed as a classic. The only jarring note for me is the occasions in the
film when the characters slip into verse. Speaking verse spoils the narration and
it was no needed, The verse is awful and spoils an other wise good script. Its
great and kids will love it. Its a joy to look at. There's a very clever ending
too.
Normally I am a typical "creepy-crawly-hatin'" girl, but after watching this film
(on YouTube of course), I'm having different perspectives. And also I did not know
that my favorite animation studio - Fleischer's made another film that's about
community of insects whose city garden home is threatened by humans (lighted cigars
and cigarette butts,footsteps,etc.), and how a plucky young grasshopper named
Hoppity saves the day and wins the heart of Honey the bee; I love the lovely Ms.
Honey. You know, after watching the film, the bugs reminded me of the some of the
"jitter-bugs" from Don Bulth's Thumbelina. And out of the songs in the film, I love
"We're a Couple in The Castle;" when I sing that song, it almost made me cry. This wonderful film was the second (and final) feature to come out of the
Fleischer studio. The film was originally going to be released on November of 1941,
but since the Fleischer's rival, Disney, released Dumbo weeks earlier, Paramount
changed the date to December of the same year, but Mr. Bug unfortunately went into
a, then unrealized, trap of terrible timing. Having the misfortune of opening two
days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Bug was a financial disaster and led to
the ousting of Max and Dave Fleischer, from the studio they had established in
1919, and reorganized the company as Famous Studios. Another huge factor in their
departure was the fact that Max and Dave Fleischer were no longer speaking to one
another due to disputes (how sad it was). Overall I love both films from the
Fleischer bros. - Gulliver and Mr. Bug.
People who know me say I have a weakness for animated films. To be fair,
those people are HALF right My actual weakness is for exceptionally well-done
animated films, such as this vintage family flick from Max and David
Fleischer. You may be thinking to yourself, "well if it's so great, why
haven't I heard of it?" Fair question. This movie was released the same week as the
attacks on Pearl Harbor. The unavoidably bad timing caused the film to sink into
relative obscurity. Things are looking up, though, because it has finally been
released on DVD under the title "BUGVILLE". It's funny that the film
went through all this, because it kind of mirrors the actual plot. Although some
people claim that the movie is trying to send an environmental message (ugh), I
personally think that the movie's main idea is perseverance through adversity and
hard times (after all, the country had barely pulled out of the Depression at the
time). Our grasshopper hero, Hoppity, desperately wants to help his
endangered community. Problem: each time he tries, whether through the ill-will of
others or through simple bad luck, he fails miserably...and slowly begins to earn
the disdain of the very people he's trying to save. Although he does his best to
maintain a positive outlook, he occasionally breaks down and it's only through the
encouragement and support of his friends that he gets back on his feet and fights
the good fight. Just a healthy reminder that, when all is said and done, no one is
really self-sufficient. "Okay", you're saying. "It has a good message
(two actually). Does that really make it EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-DONE?" My
answer: Partially. It's not just the message that makes this movie
special. It's the characterization. This is one of those films where you can just
see the personality of each cast member in their animation. You almost don't even
need the spoken lines. A good way to sum it all up is "energetic" or "lively". A
lot of movies have used the selling point, "lovable cast of characters". Whenever I
hear that line, it always makes me think of this movie. Case in point,
the bad guys: Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito. Many movies have "lovable"
villains, but I don't think you'll find any as entertaining or endearing as these
fellows. Forget that 3 Stooges Cartoon from the 60s. Swat and Smack are the closest
thing to an animated version of Moe and Curly (but sadly not Larry) that you'll
ever find. Virtually all of the funniest moments somehow involve this gruesome
twosome. Yeah, they're rotten no-goodniks, but you still care about them. That's
the kind of power you only see from a really talented writer, director, and
crew. The movie has two brief jokes revolving around racial stereotypes
(Native Americans and Chinese). I don't think they were intended to be malicious;
but they're there, regardless. They didn't bother me, but it'd be pretty unfair of
me not to warn someone who potentially would be bothered by them. So, if
you share my weakness (and I think you do), give this one a go.
I can't believe I rarely ever see this title mentioned by all you eighties horror
freaks and I definitely won't be joining all my fellow reviewers here in saying
that 'Bloody Birthday' is awful viewing. On the contrary, I enjoyed it very much
and I was pleasantly surprised by the ingeniousness and surprise twists it offers.
Don't just refer to this film as being 'another 80's slasher' because the victims
here are rather unlikely and so are the killers. We're introduced to three
cherubic-looking youngsters who were all born during a solar eclipse. At the moment
they were delivered, planet Saturn was blocked by both the sun and the moon and,
due to this, the kids are emotionless and seemly without conscience. This really
starts to show around their tenth birthday as they go on a merciless killing
spree. Granted, this stuff is incredibility far-fetched and even
slightly offensive but, seriously, who cares? Unlike many other horror films from
this period, it at least attempts to bring something original and imaginative. For
once, the kids' acting is good and the entire film has a creepy atmosphere and
grizzly music. The murders sequences are grim and tense, and it's always eerie to
see them getting committed by angel-faced kids. I don't know who hired the 3 kids
but they did a good job. Especially the girl and the kid with glasses are highly
memorable. The bleak images of the heartless trio remind you of classic highlights,
such as 'Village of the Damned', 'The Bad Seed' and 'Children of the Damned'. This
film is nowhere near as memorable as these milestones but great fun and not one
horror lover will regret watching this. Bloody Birthday was written and
directed by Ed Hunt. Not particularly the greatest genius in cinema, but a
pleasantly deranged fella who also brought us immensely entertaining cheesefests
like 'The Brain' and 'Starship Invasions'. If all this isn't enough to convince you
yet, Bloody Birthday has a lot of nudity. And not just any nudity, but a topless
dance-act by MTV-VJ Julie Brown. Oh, and keep your eyes open for a completely
redundant cameo by Joe Penny, later the star of TV-series 'Jake and the Fatman'.
Check it out!!
When HOPPITY GOES TO TOWN he discovers nothing but bad news for his little insect
neighbors in the Lowlands. Can this honest, good-natured grasshopper save his
sweetheart, Miss Honey Bee, from the machinations of the evil C. Bagley Beetle -
and also lead his friends to a safe new home - before it's too late? While not one of the great animated features (a very new art at the time this
film was created) HOPPITY is an enjoyable film which should bring pleasure to
uncritical viewers. Technically it is well made, with animation of a generally high
quality. The movie's main drawback is that none of the characters really have any
`heart' - they don't come àlive' on the screen in the way Jiminy Cricket did a
year earlier in PINOCCHIO. However, it is ultimately unfair to compare
the Fleischer Studio output with that of Disney. Max & Dave Fleischer had their own
star to follow; their contribution - and it would be a considerable one - would be
in the realm of the one-reel cartoon. With their POPEYE and BETTY BOOP series they
created alternate realities as viable as any produced by other cartoon studios.
HOPPITY was their second experiment with feature length animation (after GULLIVER'S
TRAVELS in 1939), and henceforth they would expend their energies again on the
cartoon short subject. In fact, the first in the highly acclaimed SUPERMAN series
was already in release. HOPPITY'S story owes a great deal to Frank
Capra, with it's energetic, go get em hero up against powerful societal forces.
Indeed, the film's original title was MR. BUG GOES TO TOWN, which immediately puts
one in mind of Gary Cooper or Jimmy Stewart and their Capraesque adventures. Jack Mercer, famous as the voice of Popeye, here speaks for two very
different characters, old Mr. Bumble & Swat the Fly. Movie mavens should be able to
catch veteran voice actors Pinto Colvig & Mae Questel, both in uncredited roles. The film has some pleasant songs supplied by Hoagy Carmichael & Frank
Loesser, of which `Be My Little Baby Bumble Bee' is the most familiar. `We're The
Couple In The Castle' is a fine romantic tune which deserves to be rediscovered. It is unfortunate that the film's initial animation, with its sweep out of
the heavens and past the in-depth New York skyline, is obscured behind the opening
credits.
well, i may be bias as i grew up watching a VHS copy of this film that is now ready
to snap and have just spent the last couple of hours tracking down a DVD copy as a
birthday pressie for my Dad. The film is so harmless and inoffensive it suits all
ages.... much better than anything Disney ever made in my opinion (and i used to
work in the Disney Store!!!). The characters are enjoyable and the award for best
scene is a tie between the disrupted wedding (especially the musical talents of
Swat, the fly. and Smack the mosquito), and the amazing night club scene. The
musical numbers still have me humming 20 years after i first watched it. there is
no other film that i can better recommend whilst baby-sitting, and in fact every
child i know (thanks to my Hoppity loving parents) have seen this film, many times.
It will always get top marks for its fabulous love story, a brilliant baddy and
over all originality.
"Mr. Bug Goes To Town" was the last major achievement the Fleischer studios
produced. The quality of the Superman series produced at the same time is evident
in this extraordinary film. The music and lyrics by Frank Loesser and
Hoagy Carmichael (with assistance by Flieshcer veteran Sammy Timberg are quite
good, but not as much as the scoring of the picture by Leigh Harline who also
scored Snow White for Disney. Harline's "atmospheric music" is superb, and a treat
for the ears. The layout and staging of the picture was years ahead of
it's time, and once again the Fleischer's background artists outdid themselves. The
techincolored beauty of the film cannot be denied, and while Hoppity the
grasshopper is the star, the characters of Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito
steal the picture. Swat's voicing by Jack Mercer (of Popeye fame) is priceless.
Kenny Gardner (brother-in-law) of Guy Lombardo...and a featured vocalist in his
band...does his usual pleasant job in the role of Dick Dickinsen. The
movie has been criticized for all the wrong reasons. The Fleischer Studios were
animation experts par excellence and this shows very clearly in the finished
product. The movie is tuneful, the story great for all ages, and the final scenes
of the bugs scrambling for their lives upon a rising skyscraper is some of the best
staging and animation of any animated film past and present. Do not miss
this wonderfully hand drawn film. Also don't fail to appreciate the title sequence
with the most elaborate example of Max Fleischer's remarkable 3-D sterioptical
process which took four months to construct and employed 16,000 tiny panes of glass
in the "electrified" buildings of Manhattan. Do not miss Mr. Bug Goes To
Town...aka Hoppity Goes To Town. I'll wager you'll be bug eyed at the results!
Hoppity is a charming if slightly phycadelic animated movie that considering it was
made in the 1941 has stood the test of time incredibly well. Now I have to admit I
have a soft spot for 'HoppityGoes To Town' (as it is called in the United Kingdom)
having watched a VHS version taped of the TV by our parents many times with my
siblings.Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning just in time to catch it
on Channel Four (at 0615 never the less!) The film was just as delightful as I
remembered it with the animation standing the test of time and a lovely moral tale
which should appeal to parents and children alike. Maybe one day I to shall share
this forgotten classic with children of my own. With a nice running time for kids
(88 Min's)and a simple yet involving storyline there really is something for
everyone in this tale of the little guy coming good. I really could see this being
successfully remade in CGI. Take note Pixar.
What I liked best about this feature-length animated film from 1941 is the great
feel it gives for the early 1940s. It's the songs, the clothing, automobiles,
buildings lingo of the day, etc. You feel like you've stepped back into time. From reading some of the reviews here, I see this was a hard-luck film,
being released a couple of days before the Pearl Harbor attack. Wow, no one would
be interested in going to the movies for a feature-length cartoon during those
eventful and shocking days, I'm sure. Too bad, because the folks missed some nice
animation would have really impressed back then, almost 70 years ago. The colors
are nice, drawings are good and story involving as we root for the bugs led by
"Hoppity" and and his beautiful girl "Honey" to make it happily-ever-after and out
of harm's way. It's also about all of them finding a grassy spot they can live and
not worry about humans trampling them. There is a nasty villain, though
- "C. Bagley Beetle" - and two of his henchmen. Those helpers ("Swat, The Fly" and
"Smack, the Mosquito") are comedians, complete with their Brooklyn-ese accents! The
story is a familiar one where a nasty old man wants to marry the sweet young thing
and uses unscrupulous means to force her hand. The good guy, meanwhile, has the
decked stacked against him but in the very end, of course, prevails. My
favorite part - this will sound worse than what it was - was when good-guy
"Hoppity" got temporarily electrocuted and he danced in black-and-white. That was
fantastic animation! You know, it's a good thing I didn't see this as a
very little kid; I would have been afraid to play outside and squash all those nice
bug-people! You never know what (or who) is in that grass beneath your feet!
I have viewed this cartoon as a child, a father, and now a grand-father. It is my
favorite cartoon. I love the characters, the great little tunes, and the very good
drawings. I totally love the main song which comes up throughout the cartoon. I
think it is a beautiful little cartoon. Everyone I have shown it to simply loves
it. It is too bad it opened on such a bad day (Pearl Harbor bombing). If it wasn't
for the bad timing it would have been a great success. I hope I can find a DVD of
it because all the VHS tapes don't do it justice. I think if anyone
shows it to their child they will come up with the same result. They will just love
it. 
Hello again, I have been thinking about this movie all my life. I saw it when I was
5 years old in Los Angeles, California in 1942. What a wonderful story of being
good to one another, kindness, and charity. You forget it is the bugs relating to
one another. It was just as if they were people. I love this movie and so do my
adult children. Such beautiful color in this movie.I need to see this movie again.
There is a story about an envelope in the movie, that I just can't remember the
"why" of it. Thanks for listening.
I have for years remembered a song "JUST A COUPLE IN A CASTLE" ("No. twenty
moonbeam square, just a couple in castle in the air"). I couldn't find the song,
but I remembered that it it had to do with cartoon bugs. I located a reference to
the movie on the web. I had seen the movie when I was only 9 year old at the
Ligonier PA theatre. I was pleased to find that it had Kenny Gardner the singer
with Guy Lombaro (I am a Lombardo fan). And then to see that it was produced by the
Fleisher Bros. who did another very good full lengh cartoon feature of "Gullivar's
Travels" (also remembered fondly). Also the songs were associated with Hoagy
Carmichael and Frank Loesser who are among the very best. No wonder I remembered
the film, the song, and the colorful animation. As a full lengh musical this is a
movie which should be remembered as a one of the best of the early full lengh
musicals. Now that I remember it, the plot may not have been earth shaking, but was
very well presented and makes for a easy to watch abd delightful movie.
Mr. Bug Goes to Town was one of those films that I grew up hearing about, however a
copy could never be obtained until now. I just watched this film on DVD and thought
it was a delightful and charming film, with wonderful animation, a good plot and
great songs. If this film was made by Disney then the film would be considered a
classic, however because it was made by a little known film studio that is long
gone, the film has slipped through the cracks. The film was made by the
Max Fleischer studios at their Miami, FL studios and was released through Paramount
Pictures. The film was to have had its premiere on Dec. 7th, 1941, the date of the
bombing of Pearl Harbor. Though this probably did hurt the release of the film, the
film did play at some movie theaters for up to a year as evidenced by doing some
research. The film was called a family favorite by most of the major American
newspapers. The film continued to be re-released about every year or so, usually
around holidays like Easter, at least in major cities. In the mid 1950s,
this film was re-released under a new name "Hoppity Goes to Town," named after the
lead character in the film. The film is a true period piece, capturing a
slice of Americana as it was back in the late 30s and 1940's. The animation is
great, and many of the characters are very cute. The animation of the humans in the
film is via the rotoscope process, meaning that actors were filmed and then that
footage was traced over by animators, giving the movement a very real look. The Fleishcher studios were one of several animation studios making
animated cartoons back in the 30s and 40s. While some of the Fleischer characters
like Betty Boop, Popeye and the Superman cartoons are better known, the work of the
studio is more or less forgotten. Almost as a whole the body of work of
the Fleischer studios are in the public domain. All of the Superman cartoons are
public domain, all but one of the "Color Classics" series are public domain, and
the film "Gulliver's Travels" is also in the public domain. This film never appears
to have been released in the US on VHS or DVD but was released in Europe. However
some looking around on the internet can very quickly produce you with a copy. I
recommend the search.
I first watched this in black and white, circa Christmas in the early Sixties, when
it was shown on British television. I was absolutely hooked, and watched it over
again whenever it was repeated on TV (possibly two or three times only, as it
happens - if only we'd had video recorders then!). As outlined by other
contributors, the plot describes the return of Hoppity the Grasshopper, after a
period spent away, to a Forties American city. He finds that all is not as he left
it, and his good insect friends (who live in the 'lowlands' just outside the garden
which belongs to a songwriter and his wife) are now under threat from the 'human
ones', who are trampling through the broken down fence which prefaces the property,
using it as a shortcut. Insect houses are being flattened by their feet,
and are also often burned by cast away cigar butts and matches. Old Mr Bumble and
his beautiful daughter Honey (Hoppity's childhood sweetheart) are in grave danger
of losing their Honey Shop to this threat. To compound their problems,
devious insect 'property magnate' C. Bagley Beetle has romantic designs on Honey
Bee himself, and hopes, with the help of his henchmen Swat the Fly and Smack the
Mosquito, to force Bumble to give him her hand in marriage. Will the
heroic and fearless Hoppity win the day, and manage to save the community of bugs
from their dastardly fate, and especially his precious Honey from hers? Enjoy the
classic songs ("Katy Did, Katy Didn't" is a superb, swinging, upbeat example), and
the colourful visuals, as the tale unfolds. Time has not blunted my
fascination for this masterpiece of animation and story-telling, and I was much
pleased to find that it had been released to video, although I later found out that
it was in NTSC PAL format. Never mind, I sent off for the video immediately, and
only then bought a portable TV/video combination (complete with NTSC
playback). I have enjoyed many nostalgic viewings since then, and have
even discovered that the TV rights have switched from BBC (who informed me they
were unlikely to ever show the film on any of their stations) to FilmFour, who have
(at last!) been showing it on their digital stations in early 2007. My
granddaughter (aged three) was absolutely entranced while we watched it together -
and this is a child who has been influenced by the digital age and the resulting
computer-generated productions! I would thoroughly recommend this film
for any age, and especially the youngest of viewers. Give Max Fleischer
a posthumous Oscar!
Interesting cartoon, included on the DVD of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra". I
especially like the way the color was used in the background art--very artistic for
Columbia, whose cartoon department generally had a very low budget (and the results
looked like it!) I do wonder, however, how a certain... um, finger
gesture... ever got past the censors. Granted, the gesture in question was seen a
lot less frequently in 1937 than it is today. You'd think someone besides the
animators would have noticed, though--especially since it's seen three times in the
scene in question! And based on the context, I suspect that its inclusion was
intentional, something the animators slipped in just to see if the censors WOULD
notice!
Leslie Carbaga's excellent book on the Fleishers tells the whole story of the
Fleischer's big move of their entire animation unit to Florida, and their
subsequent ejection by Paramount. Mr. Bug Goes to Town didn't destroy
the animation pioneers' credit with Paramount, although it's often told that way,
and this was Paramount's favorite version of the story. According to Carbaga, the
big studio, more than anything, wanted to get their mitts on the animation studio
and ease the famously bickering brothers out of the picture altogether. Mr. Bug
provided them the pretext to do just that. --The sad closing of a great quirky,
innovative chapter in American animation. I wanted to comment, also,
that the film actually debuted December 4, 1941, not December 7. That may have been
close enough to do the trick, anyway, in terms of national mood damaging the film's
success. But another part of the legend of this troubled little film is that it was
killed by having the bad luck to be in the theaters at the same time Dumbo
(released October 23, 1941) was still doing very brisk holiday business. I haven't
done the research into box office numbers, but I'd say that Dumbo's concurrent
presence in theaters likely had an impact on Mr. Bug. Movie-going was at an all
time high at this period, and successful films could go strong in theaters for
months. -- Something unimaginable in these typically short-run, quick to-DVD days.
"Hoppity Goes to Town" was the second and last full length animated feature made by
Max and Dave Fleischer, who created a parallel universe to Disney. While Disney's
films are well remembered today, both of the Fleischer films "Gulliver's Travels"
and this one are forgotten. "Hoppity" is a spellbinding original, not an
adaptation like the first picture. That is a major plus, one would think. No, the
critics, rarely on the Fleischers' sides to begin with, tore into them for this.
Yes, the story is not as tight as "Gulliver", but how can you hate a film that
flaunts itself so joyfully? It is filled with great musical numbers and
a very involving story, which would be a crime to reveal. The characters are
lovable and charming and there is heart in this film. The Fleischers'
really outdid themselves here and never quite did so again. Most of their time
would be devoted to one-reelers after this tanked at the box office. It's a shame
they didn't continue making features. Who knows? Their next attempt may have become
the masterpiece they were aiming for. **** out of 4 stars
A pity, nobody seems to know this little thriller-masterpiece. Where bigger
budgeted movies fail, "Terminal Choice" delivers lots of thrills, shocks and bloody
violence. A little seen gem, that deserves being searched for in your local video
shop. That anonymous guy beneath is quite right, when he says, you'll never trust
hospitals again... it IS that effective ! Good ending,too, not really a twist, but
it doesn't end the way one thought it would. Yep, that's Ellen Barkin in an early
role...
Could this be one of the earliest colour films? It's actually the second. This is a
very beautiful piece of film produced by Thomas Edison. This was one of many of his
other films. I think this is the most beautiful of any Thomas Edison
films. It shows a girl dancing and moving her dress all around, which turns red
with the film. It's just beautiful. You are watching history when you
watch this. You are watching what began to make movies of the day great! This may
not have a plot, or anything very interesting, but this is the second colour film
ever. I recommend this to everyone, especially if you're teaching
students about filming or something of the sort, you have to show them what began
color films!
Like all of the very earliest films, this "movie" is very, very short--lasting
about one minute! So, because of its brevity, it's not really possible to compare
it to more modern films. But, for its time, it's actually a very remarkable film.
Much of this is because the prints were hand painted--making Annabelle appear red
and other colors as she does her amazing dance. I've actually seen two different
versions--one where she is red and another where she changes color throughout. I
think the red one depicted on the DVD "The Great Train Robbery and Other Primary
Works" is the best of them. The dance itself is very hypnotic and much like a piece
of amazing performance art. And, unlike other one minute (or less) films of the
day, this one is one I could see repeatedly--it's just that visually compelling and
odd. If you want to see it online, there is a 36 second version on
Google Video (type in "serpentine dance").
In this approximately 34-second Thomas Edison-produced short, we see Annabelle
Moore performing the Loie Fuller-choreographed "Serpentine Dance" in two different
fantastical, flowing robes. Moore was one of the bigger stars of the
late Victorian era. She was featured in a number of Edison Company shorts,
including this one, which was among the first Kinetoscope films shown in London in
1894. Loie Fuller had actually patented the Serpentine Dance, which
Moore performs here in robes (as well as entire frames) that are frequently hand
tinted in the film, presaging one of the more common symbolic devices of the silent
era. Supposedly, the Moore films were popular enough to have to be frequently
redone (including refilming). The version available to us now may be a later
version/remake. Moore became even more popular when it was rumored that she would
appear naked at a private party at a restaurant in New York City. She later went on
to star as the "Gibson Bathing Girl" in the Ziegfeld Follies in 1907. She appeared
there until 1912. The short is notable for its framing of motion, which,
especially during the "second half", becomes almost abstract. It somewhat resembles
a Morris Louis painting, even though this is almost 60 years before Louis' relevant
work. You should be able to find this short on DVD on a number of
different anthologies of early films.
I was surprised, "Once More, My Darling", had not generated enough votes (at this
writing) for a "user rating". It's a "screwy" comedy I have enjoyed many times over
the years. Robert Montgomery's mission places him in some very improbable
situations, and he's just the man for the job. He maintains his trademark
"befuddled" look throughout the film and hysterically, too. Ann Blyth plays his
precocious/eccentric pursuer, who assumes a relationship that does not exist. Her
character is kooky enough to warrant the unearned nickname "Killer", but remains
cute and cuddly. Among the glut of "B" movies from the late 1940's and
1950's, "Once More, My Darling" is a standout. This one is worth looking for....
This is the sort of unknown and forgotten film one dreams about discovering in
watching old videos. It is a superb comic gem with brilliantly funny writing,
embedded in the marvellous array of characters, a wonderfully inventive and funny
musical score, and witty, light direction from Montgomery himself. This is one to
watch over and over. Montgomery is a bit part actor who finds himself assigned by
his military reserve division to infiltrate a young debutante's home to discover
the identity of her former beau, a suspected jewel thief. While the premise is
rather preposterous, the results are hilarious. Montgomery is the befuddled plant,
Ann Blyth is a marvel as the romantically obsessed, terribly earnest debutante and
the parade of comic characterizations from veteran stage actress, Jane Cowl's
lawyer mother to Lillian Randolph's take-charge maid - are all fabulous. Oddly enough this only earned an Oscar nom for Sound, when it deserved top
nods for Direction, Screenplay and Musical Score. DO NOT MISS IT - it's
one of Hollywood's best.
I like the good things in life as much as anybody, I suppose, but until about five
years ago, opera didn't figure into my entertainment choices. Oh, I made a few
attempts to learn what all the fuss was about; I'd watched several television
productions -- notably parts of Wagner's Ring Cycle on public television -- hoping
to understand other people's fascination with the art form. And I knew I could like
parts of various operas (I remember being surprised as a kid that I actually LIKED
the snippets of "Madame Butterfly" in "My Geisha, and I enjoyed the opera scenes in
"Moonstruck" and "Pretty Woman"), but unlike the characters in those films, I just
didn't "get it." Then in 1995 I saw a live performance of "Rigoletto"
presented by the New York City Opera Company, and that night I "got it." What a
wonderful, glorious pageant of color and music and raw Emotion! And I do mean
Emotion with a capital E! The key, I think, is that the operatic music allows the
performers to over-act freely and believably in a way that would seem silly if
their words were just spoken. Everything hinges on the music, of course, and when
the music is magical, as it is in "Rigoletto," an opera can be a magnificent
entertainment. A sympathetic family member gave me a laserdisc copy of
the 1982 TV production of the opera, and I've found that since I can't see live
performances of "Rigoletto" live on a regular basis, this video version is a fine
substitute. Luciano Pavarotti is perfect in the part of the Duke; Ingvar Wixell is
excellent as his mean-spirited court jester Rigoletto; and Rigoletto's beloved
daughter Gilda is played by the somewhat plain-featured Edita Gruberova. The sets
and costumes are lavish, and the location shots on the river late in the film bring
a heightened sense of drama to the story that could never be matched on a stage. If you've never seen "Rigoletto," or if you think you don't like or
understand opera, I urge you to find this one on videotape and buy it or rent it.
If you don't like this, if this production of "Rigoletto" doesn't make you
appreciate the power of the art form of opera, well, just give it up and move on to
something else. But I suspect, if you're new to opera as I was, that you'll be
pleasantly surprised. Bill Anderson
Pavarotti and the entire cast are superb in this beautifully filmed opera by
Giuseppe Verdi, the world's finest composer of operas. The coloratura soprano is
particularly spectacular with her perfect pitch. The title role is well-enacted and
well-sung. The entire production is as perfect as one could expect. A
masterpiece of cinematography! 
Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as
linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in
Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks.
The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively
here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a
wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or
when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as
the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton
Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with
the earlier Silly Symphony.
The cast for this production of Rigoletto is excellent. Edita Gruberova sings Gilda
magnificently and passionately. Luciano Pavarotti also sings splendidly. Vergara is
a fine Maddalena; Fedora Barbieri is a famous older singer who sings the maid,
Giovanna. Weikl sings Marullo; Wixell sings both Rigoletto and Monterone. As
Rigoletto, Wixell is probably the most convincing acting singer in this hard-to-
beat ensemble of great singers. Kathleen Kuhlmann in the Contessa. All principals
are well-known and world-renowned. This is an exciting Rigoletto
visually as well as musically. I have it on both laser disc and DVD. You
should have it too!
I saw this movie when I was very young living in Houston, Texas. I really enjoyed
this movie, and I wrote to Jean Peters in Hollywood, and I told her how much I
enjoyed seeing her in this movie. She sent me an autographed photo. This movie was
directed by Jacques Tourneur, and besides Jean Peters in the starring role. It also
stars Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, and Herbert Marshall. It was released in 1951 in
color and is 81 minutes long. Jean Peters was married to Howard Hughes. She also
starred in "Viva Zapata" with Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn, who won an Oscar for
playing the role Zapata's brother (Marlon Brando starred as Zapata) (1952). And she
also starred in "Captain from Castile" (1947) with Tyron Power. Since then I've
been trying to find a place where it is available, but so far I have not been
successful. Does anybody have any suggestions about where I can find and purchase
this movie? It this comment contains spoilers, I am unaware of it.
Sometimes it's hard to be a pirate...............but by golly Miss Jean Peters has
a lot of fun trying - and it shows,particularly during her first spot of friendly
swordplay with Blackbeard (Mr Thomas Gomez - eminently hissable)when the sheer joy
of performing is plain on her face. With fifty years of hindsight Feminists seem
intent on grabbing this movie as some sort of an anthem for the empowerment of
women in a male - dominated society but I have serious doubts that either
M.Tourneur or Miss Peters had any such concept in their heads at the time. It was
an exciting,entertaining family film with absolutely no pretensions,hidden meanings
or alternative agenda.It was fun. M.Louis Jourdan is both winsome and treacherous
as her love interest. Mr Herbert Chapman is wise and philosophical as the wise and
philosophical doctor.Mr James Robertson Justice is just a tad unbelievable as the
bosun. But it is Miss Peters who stays in the memory.Wilfully
adolescent,illiterate,tough but vulnerable,wonderfully agile,and
ultimately,courageous,she is everybody's idea of a lady pirate. There was a
definite window of opportunity for her in feisty costume roles - that she did not
choose to seize it is a matter of some regret.
This is one of several period sea-faring yarns of its era, which has the added
distinction (although not in itself unique) of a female buccaneer at its center. At
first, both leads – Jean Peters and Louis Jourdan – might seem miscast but they
grow nicely into their roles eventually, thanks no doubt to the talented players
(Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez and James Robertson Justice) who support them.
Velvety-voiced Marshall is uncharacteristically cast as the ship’s obligatory
philosophical lush of a doctor, and Gomez is suitably larger-than-life as
Blackbeard The Pirate. The cast is completed by Debra Paget as Jourdan’s
wife, who incurs the jealous rage of the tomboyish titular character in whom
Jourdan instills the first pangs of love (which, however, does not spare him the
occasional flogging or sword-wound); incidentally, the film was the second exotic
teaming of Jourdan and Paget in one year, following Delmer Daves’ BIRD OF PARADISE.
The direct result of this unexpected softening of Anne’s character is her falling
out with Blackbeard’s crew, and her unlikely climactic sacrifice in order to save
the lives of the stranded Jourdan, Paget and Marshall. While the film is
not a particularly outstanding example of its type, Jacques Tourneur’s energetic
direction and Franz Waxman’s grandiose score ensure an above-average effort that
moves along at a brisk pace; incidentally, Tourneur had already done service in the
genre with the superior Burt Lancaster vehicle, THE FLAME AND THE ARROW (1950). As
usual with vintage Technicolor productions, the cinematography gives the film a
sumptuousness that is invigorating. By the way, differing running-times are given
for this film (81 or 87 minutes) and, for the record, the version I watched was the
shorter one.
This movie was much better than I expected. ++++ Jean Peters actually does a
passable job as a pirate and does decent work in her sword fights. (To the extent
she may have a double doing the action, it's hard to tell...but Peters herself
obviously is doing a good deal of it, and doing it well.) ++++ With a good and
serious script, this could have been an excellent film. But it's basically cheesy.
Still entertaining however. ++++ Not up to a regular Jacques Tournier film, but
definitely above a regular Jean Peters film. Color is typical of this '50s time
period, ie. too garish and not realistic. The actors for Blackbeard and her first
mate and the drunken doctor were good. Louis Jordan was a bit weak. I don't think
Debra Paget was right either. But certainly Jean Peters and Debra Paget were
probably the two best looking female stars in the '50s.
I like the film, it´s the best pirate-movie I watched hitherto (forget silly Errol-
Flynn-stuff and Pirates of the Caribbean). This movie is wonderful melancholic. I
compare it with "Johnny Guitar" at the sea-side (but 3 years earlier), two women
fighting for a man, where mad love might lead one. The character of the
female (anti-) heroine, Anne Providence, is superb, acting without compromise like
a child, lost alone on her search for a own female identity in a real man´s world.
She´s a quite strange movie-hero, not a funny pirate, as most of her companions in
this genre, not making jokes all the time, fighting for the poor and good and only
killing the stupid spanish or british soldiers or - better - sly governors, but she
´s murdering all the poor prisoners of war, after she captured a ship (look careful
at this at the start of the movie), she´s primitive (she can´t even read), she is
desperated and she get´s an alcoholic, she looses all her friends as consequence of
her obstinacy and she´s wearing rags most of the film. This film shows a pirate
"hero" a little (!) bit as he (or in this case "she", but there has been a female
"Anne" buccaneer, Anne Boney) might have been in brutal reality. The
film is quite short and the story is told in a breathtaking manner. Certainly, a
film from the 1950s has no exciting special effects for present time viewers (the
ships swim very obvious in a bath tube), but this real drama about love (that
kills), trust, betrayal, revenge, hatred and sacrifice drives one crazy. Maybe,
Anne is even supposed to be Judas Iskarioth and Jesus from Nazareth in one person,
being betrayed by her friend (the french LaRochelle) as Jesus; after being
disappointed by the friend, delivering him to a death penalty (as Judas); than
getting remorse about this (like Judas, who commits suicide according to the gospel
of Matthew); and in the end sacrificing herself for the rescue of the beloved enemy
(as Jesus). But, even if you are not interested in this philosophical questions of
guilt and atonement, the film brings a lot of (cheap) action as sword fights and
burning (plastic) ships for a very short one and a half hour.
Directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People, Out of the Past, Night of the Demon) and
written by Phillip Dunne (How Green was My Valley) Anne of the Indies is a quite
interesting adventure pirate movie. Its main character of captain Anne Providence
is based on a real woman-pirate Anne Boney who actually lived and sailed through
18th century's Atlantic. The film begins with the sea battle where
Anne's (Jean Peters) pirate ship attacks a trade ship that was on its way to Europe
from the South America. As a result a treasure of great value is captured along
with a handsome French officer Pierre La Rochelle (Louis Jourdan), who is taken
prisoner. Anne ends up falling in love with him and apparently her feelings are
reciprocated but it's only till she sets him free when she discovers that he has a
beautiful young wife Molly (Debra Paget) with whom he pretty much in love with.
Anne begins planning revenge on both of them but in an unexpected twist of fate
ends up making a great sacrifice in order to save them instead. The pirate movie
cliché figure of `Black Beard' also makes his appearance here, this time played by
Thomas Gomez. Though Anne of the Indies probably appears to be no more
nor less than a revisiting of pirate movie clichés, it still has its classical
moments in beautiful visuals and sea battle sequences filmed in Technicolor as well
as in some aspects of the story and most of all in personal touches in directing of
all of it by Jacques Tourneur. 7/10
It would be great if a discussion on this medium length film is initiated with a
brief tale about hypocrisy of Hollywood people.It was in 1988 that Chuck Norris saw
this film at Cannes International Film Festival.He made a silly remark by uttering
that the senseless killing depicted in Dekalog 5 is far more effective than
killings which have been filmed in his Hollywood films with him as a potent action
star.He was speaking about an innocent taxi driver whose face is brutally
disfigured in Kieslowski's film by a reckless psychopath who hits him cruelly with
a big stone.There should be absolutely no justification for violence and its
perpetrators in a dignified human society.This is the reason why Chuck Norris'
statement appears as a cruel joke which defends violent means in a society which is
increasing becoming restless.An honest reviewer would not be making a mistake if
he/she states that Kieslowski's film "Dekalog: Dekalog,Piec (#1.5)" has universal
connotations.This is because the events depicted in Dekalog 5 can happen in any
part of world.The best lesson which Kielowski gives to us concerns levels of
violence which are acceptable in a just society.This is the reason why the brutal
slaying of an innocent cab driver is capable of causing a feeling of repugnance in
us.We would not feel the same hatred for homicide when it appears in films
featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger,Chuck Norris and Jean Claude Van Damme as they
appear much too artificial.One can easily grasp that special effects and modern
studio techniques can charm only toddlers but make no sense to serious film
enthusiasts.Kieslowski also champions helplessness of human beings in rescuing
fellow humans beings from the clutches of death and misery.This is particularly
interesting as time and again it has been proved that strict laws and capital
punishments have not been able to prevent homicide.
A brutally straightforward tale of murder and capital punishment by the state. So
painfully slow and accurate in the description of capital punishment (from the
preparation of the gallow to the victim p***ing in his own pants before dying) it
has the power to change your mind about death penalty. The whole Dekalog originated
from this story: the Dekalog screenwriter was the powerless lawyer unsuccessfully
trying to defend and then console the accused.
'Identity . . . . I am part of my surroundings and I became separate from them and
it's being able to make those differentiations clearly that lets us have an
identity and what's inside our identity is everything that's ever happened to us'
(Ntozake Shange qtd in "Fires in the Mirror"). Pieces like Decalogue V
used to intimidate me. I felt that if I accepted them, than I would be compromising
something. What I thought before really isn't worth getting into. I understand what
Naturalism is trying to say. I experienced a tangible katharsis, and one that fell
into existence piecemeal, and one that's still alive, that I still have to reckon
with. It's still working inside me. The film wasn't sympathetic, per
se. It doesn't need to say that the death penalty is a wicked thing. There are
certainly wicked people; whether or not they should die is for another film. What
Decalogue shows is that good, beautiful people exists who kill other people when
their society and primal urges jack them up. The 'science' of
naturalism is what has helped me to appreciate Decalogue V. It's not worth the
writing space to go into why I would not let myself before, but I see now the worth
in making art like this to 'make' people, or perhaps to make people do something.
 There's a method to Lazar's compromise of his . . . light. Much of that
meaning makes sense only in retrospect. This should not be too strange of an idea:
after all, how much of respectable science does not gain meaning in retrospect. I
wince when I say it, but Naturalism seems so much more productive and so much less
nihilistic when I have the power to say to myself, 'this ruin, this process, this
natural process, makes me want to buck the system.' I do not think
Naturalism is painting a doomsday portrait of humanity, telling us to give up our
powdered wigs and head to the woods. Instead, I think that it is cataloging proofs
and experiments, that we are, of course, free to ignore. We can ignore it all we
want, if we want to give the Naturalists more corpses to bury. For
surely, despite their aesthetic specifically designed without sympathy towards
their characters' likely and catastrophic fate, they are impassioned by readerly
inaction and writerly snobisme. I do see the delightful risk in the hope that the
audience will understand what's to be done with what they see. As has been
mentioned, there's danger in the hopeless seeing their fate immortalized in stone.
There's danger in the hopeful disparaging the Natural because it doesn't correspond
to their world view. And I don't think that the 'hopeful' need be either
wealthy or fortunate. I have not seen it, but it seems that the film American
Beauty proves the inadequacy of circumstance as a provider of vision or comfort.
There are ascetics as well as gluttons as well as beggars who wonder where within
themselves their humanity is, who grieve because they can't find anything that
separates them from their landscape. Landscapes can be powerfully and
beautifully portrayed, but in reality, landscapes do not enact. They change, sure,
and dramatically, but only by a large set of Natural law which no one truly have
power over. But it cannot be changed itself.
In 1929, director Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks changed the face of animation
with the release of the very first installment of their "Silly Symphonies" series,
"The Skeleton Dance". Iwerks and Disney had been collaborating together since the
early 20s, in Disney's "Laugh-O-Gram" cartoon series; however, their friendship
suffered a tremendous blow when Iwerks accepted an offer by a competitor to leave
Disney and start his own animation studio. That was the birth of Celebrity
Productions, where Iwerks continued developing his style and technique (and where
he created the character of Flip the Frog). While his work kept the same high
quality, it wasn't really popular and by 1936 the studio was closed. Later that
year, Iwerks was hired by Columbia Pictures, and Iwerks decided to return to his
old skeletons for another dance, this time in color. 1937's "Skeleton
Frolics" is essentially, a remake of the 1929 classic "The Skeleton Dance", the
movie that borough him fame and fortune. Like that short film, it is set on an
abandoned graveyard, where at midnight the creatures of the night come alive and
begin to play. The dead rise from their coffins, ready for the show that's about to
begin, as a group of skeletons has formed an orchestra, and begin to play a happy
tune. Now, it's not easy to be a musician made of just bones, as some of the
orchestra members have problems with their body parts, however, the band manages to
put a good show and another group of skeletons begin to dance. A lovely couple of
them faces the same problems that troubled the orchestra: it's hard to dance with
loose body parts. Everything ends at dawn, and just when the sun is about to rise
again, the skeletons run towards their graves. Directed and animated by
Ub Iwerks himself, "Skeleton Frolics" follows faithfully the pattern set by "The
Skeleton Dance" years before, although with a crucial difference: Iwerks did the
whole film in Technicolor. The bright tonalities allowed Iwerks to create a more
visually appealing film, and also to use the many new techniques he had been
practicing since leaving Disney, creating even better effects of depth and dynamism
than those he conceived before. It is certainly a more experimental film than "The
Skeleton Dance", although sadly, this doesn't mean it's necessarily a better film.
For starters, the film is practically identical to the one he did with Disney, with
the only differences being the music (more on that later) and the color effects. It
looks beautiful, no doubt about it, but it definitely feels kind of unoriginal
after all. However, it is not the unoriginality of the concept what
truly hurts the film (after all, Iwerks executes it in a wonderful way), but the
fact that the musical melody created by Joe DeNat for the film is pretty
uninteresting and lacks the charming elegance and whimsical fun of the one done by
Carl W. Stalling for "The Skeleton Dance". In other words, while DeNat's tune is
effective and appropriate for the theme, it's easy to forget about it rapidly while
Stalling's song has a unique personality that makes it unforgettable. Being a
musical film, this is of high importance, and so the mediocrity of the music brings
down Iwerk's flawless work of animation. Personally, I think that with a better
musical accompaniment, "Skeleton Frolics" would be remembered as fondly as "The
Skeleton Dance despite not being as groundbreaking, as it's still a fun film to
watch. It's kind of sad that most of the work Iwerks did after leaving
Disney is now forgotten due to his poor success, however, it must be said that if
Iwerks lacked the popularity of Disney or Fleischer (Disney's main rival), he did
not lack the quality of those companies' films. It was probably just a case of bad
luck what made the man who gave life to Disney's mouse for the first time to face
failure out of Disney. Despite its shortcomings, "Skeleton Frolics" is a very funny
and visually breathtaking film, that while not exactly the most original and fresh
film (one just can't help but thinking of "The Skeleton Dance" while watching it),
it definitely reminds us that Iwerk's skeletons are still here to haunt us, and
inspire us. 8/10
The Dekalog 5 may be considered a violent accusation against the death sentence,
according to the fifth commandment "Thou shalt not kill": not by chance it puts the
concept of a State fully complied with the provisions of an unjust law on the same
plane as the figure of a Murderer. "But the law might not imitate the nature, it
might correct it," states Piotr, the counsel for the defense, a real catalyst
character, "the punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil
without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge?
Really in the name of the innocent ones?". The horrifying and detailed sequences of
the last half hour of a man sentenced to death give value to the uselessness of the
deterrent function applied to the death penalty with the purpose of intimidating
all potential criminals. "Desperate plights don't demand desperate remedies",
Kieslowski says in his message, teaching us how unrighteous can be the act of
disobedience to a commandment of God that judges punishment the same way as crime
is judged. There are three different moral attitudes here: the innate sense of
rebellion of the MURDERER aiming at rousing the hostile torpor of the surrounding
environment; the strong sense of chronic indifference of the VICTIM inclined to
laugh at other people's requirements; the deserving behavior of the COUNSEL FOR THE
DEFENSE always ready to fight against adversity, in favor of human life. The
struggle for life is ruthlessly vivisected all of the time; the characters are
plunged into scenes of affliction and distress, in an urban landscape accented with
greenish tones and seen in its own reflections through the windshield of a taxi.
Everything in "Dekalog 5" conveys a dreadful sense of estrangement and isolation:
descriptions of a waste undergrowth of violence and folly, scenes of precarious
conditions of work, sinister appearances of buildings immersed in an anonymous aura
of desolation, aimless wanderings through disenchanting environments. Jazek, the
main character, is compelled to struggle with an opponent stronger than himself: a
town completely wrapped in profound indifference, apparently hostile, deaf to all
his mute calls for help, while a faded photo of a little girl in a first communion
dress goes on gnawing his soul. He's irremediably directing his steps towards a
disconnected route to damnation seen through the deformations of the 18 mm. wide
angle camera lens aiming at distorting every details, altering the reality, making
it fade out in remote and alien echoes. Kieslowski doesn't bring extenuating
circumstances seasoned with honey-tongued tones of melodrama in favor of the
defendant, differently from some Hollywood stereotypes like "I want to live" (by
Robert Wise). He doesn't slip on the banana peel of useless pathetic scenes to
extenuate Jazek's guilt and to mitigate the brutality of the crime, not interested
at all in proximate psychological motivations to justify any display of extreme or
violent behaviors and refusing to include any useless judicial proceedings. In
other words, in Kieslowsky's opinion "a crime is always a crime": according to the
principle of "par condicio" he puts the prosecutor on the same plane as the
condemned man, using many signs or symbols to represent a society seen in the most
sinister light. And we can't remain indifferent: even if we don't agree with him,
Jazek's screams of anguish touch our hearts with pity in the same manner that Terri
Schiavo's entreating eyes do.
Dekalog Five was an interesting viewing experience for me, because of the question
Kieslowski seems to subtly ask the audience. Three men are the focus of this
chapter, and Kieslowski present the two involved in murder with traits both good
and bad (In one's case, almost overwhelmingly bad). With such vile characters, I
found myself almost glad that they would receive some sort of punishment. However,
when the time comes for the murder (And it's subsequent effect on the murderer),
Kieslowski takes an interesting angle and seems to ask those of us who shared my
view, "Are you not as guilty as this man?" This sort of indirect address of the
audience makes the finale of Dekalog Five that much more profound as Kieslowski (As
usual) doesn't stay within the literal confines of his theme. Just as the other
parts of the Dekalog don't take their Commandment's theme in it's literal sense,
neither does Dekalog Five. It asks us what is murder, who is more guilty of murder,
and what should be the appropriate punishment, if any? It's a fantastic film and,
typical of Kieslowski, absolutely stunning.
This is the episode that probably most closely relates to it's partner law, "Thou
Shalt Not Kill," in that it directly brings up the ever controversial issue, "Why
do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?" This issue is
presented in two parts within the episode: before the killing, when the film shows
the dichotomy between the idealistic up-and-coming lawyer and the street thug so
caught up in his ways that his life is merely a representation of what he's
supposed to do, followed by the period after the trial and before the execution,
when both are made to suffer for the deaths they feel responsible for and thus
share. One of the great things about the way these episodes work are in
the both small and big ways the story is fully developed, so that we understand
both the motivations and histories of characters we're only able to spend slightly
less than an hour with. For all his criminal intentions and mockery, the killer is
still very sympathetic, revolving the most important part of his actions around a
history of accidental death. His way of killing is more a desire to control death
than it is any desire to actually destroy. Similarly, the lawyer's idealistic
naivety shows one unwilling to allow death to happen in a world where he can't
control it. Their meeting is, indeed, important; they both have to give in to it
while not propagating it. As an aside, it's interesting how much this
episode affects viewing of Rouge, Kieslowski's later completion of the Trois
Colours trilogy. One of Kieslowski's biggest influences seems to be the idea of
justice, and considering that the Decalogue is a meditation on something that
represents Divine Justice, this one seems almost the most self-conscious. --PolarisDiB
Having seen the full length film Kieslowski made out of this episode of "The
Decalogue" years ago, came back to this viewer as we watched the complete ten
vignettes. As with the other films, this one is loosely based on the fifth
commandment, or, "Thou shalt not kill". Kryzsztof Kieslowski, writing
with Kryzsztof Piesewicz, took a look at the mind of a young man who commits a
heinous crime in murdering an innocent person to vent his own frustrations. This
installment has a Dostoyevskian character that kept reminding us about "Crime and
Punishment", or at least some of the qualities of the novel are passed to the
aimless youth who apparently has no redeeming qualities. The story shows
the young man as he roams the streets of the city without a clear idea of what to
do, or where to go. The only tender moment he displays is when he visits the
photographer's place to ask to have an old picture of his sister restored.
Kieslowski leaves it up to fate to have the murderer board a taxi with the
intention of robbing the driver, but it's his anger and frustration that get the
best of this youth to kill a man that didn't deserve to die. The last moments of
this criminal is one of the most gripping sequences in any film, past, or
present. The other element in the story is the relationship between the
public defendant and the criminal. Nothing can prevent the court to condemn to
death the young man. The lawyer feels at the end he has failed his client and goes
to the judge to see where he went wrong. All he is asked by the young man is to
retrieve the picture and send it to his mother. Kieslowski's account of
how he interprets the fifth commandment makes for a surprising film that will stay
in the viewer's mind long after this episode is forgotten.
Three distinct and distant individuals' lives intersect with the brutal killing of
one by another. The one-hour film only reveals the event that brings the three
individuals together only after half the film is over. I have seen other segments
of the "Dekalog" but this one struck me as the most sparse one in dialogue and yet
most fascinating in structure. The film opens with a law student
practicing a mock plea of defense for a man charged with murder. Obviously the same
arguments must have been repeated by the man as a full-fledged lawyer but this is
never shown on screen (at least in the short 1-hr version of Dekalog 5). We are
made to imagine that this must have been the case. A cab driver who is a
misanthrope, has two facets to his character: the good side feeds a mangy dog,
cleans his cab meticulously, picks up dirty rags thrown by people who lack civic
sense, and remembers his wife while dying; the bad side frightens small poodles,
refuses to give a ride to a drunk--probably worried that he will puke in the cab--
and ogles at pretty girls. The repulsive protagonist who murders without mercy,
drops stones from bridges on fast moving traffic, and pushes strangers into urinals
without any provocation, is also a person who can make innocent young girls laugh.
Kieslowski's film and the script thus present the good and the bad side of two of
the three main characters. Yet the film is not about capital punishment
but more a treatise on killing. The Fifth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is
explored theologically--("Even God spared Cain...'), sociologically the tenderness
of brutes to children and poor forlorn dogs, and psychologically (after effects of
drunken night with a male friend that led to the accidental death of his sister,
whose photograph he carries with him). What makes ordinary persons turn into
killers--this is never fully explained but suggestions are legion. In
Kieslowski's world there is a pattern where events and people are interlinked in a
cosmic sense (note the resemblance of clown to the killer, as it hangs from the
mirror in the cab). Kieslowski and the young idealist lawyer seem to ask us to look
at the Commandment literally and figuratively--why do we kill? Are the people
legally killed truly bad? Is there a force beyond society (the drunken night that
led to life of a girl) that makes us into abhorrent murderers? It would
be missing the forest for the trees to discuss the two detailed killings in the
film--both without mercy. The film invites the viewer to contemplate why we are
asked by God not to kill. I understand a longer full-length version of
the film was made by Kieslowski. But even this short 1-hr version is superb with
its bleak and sparse script, intelligent editing, interesting cinematography and
top-notch direction that provides much more than the sum of its parts. This segment anticipates the more wholesome Dekalogs 6,7 and 8.
Well, I fear that my review of this special won't heed much different observation
than the others before me, but I literally just watched it- during a PBS membership
drive- and frankly I'm too excited NOT to say anything. To really appreciate the
enigma that is Barbra Streisand, you have to look back before the movies. Before
the Broadway phenomenon of the mid-60's. When television was still a young medium,
there was a form of entertainment very prominent on the air that is but a memory
today: musical variety. Some musical shows were weekly series, but others were
single, one-time specials, usually showcasing the special talent of the individual
performer. This is where we get the raw, uninhibited first looks at Streisand. She
had already been a guest performer on other variety shows including Garry Moore, Ed
Sullivan, and scored a major coup in a one-time only tandem appearance with the
woman who would pass her the baton of belter extraordinary: Judy Garland. In 1966,
COLOR ME BARBRA introduced Barbra Streisand in color (hence the title), but copied
the format of her first special a year earlier almost to the letter. In 3 distinct
acts, we get an abstract Streisand (in an after-hours art museum looking at and
sometimes becoming the works of art), a comic Streisand working an already adoring
audience in a studio circus (populated with many fuzzy and furry animals), and best
of all, a singing Streisand in mini-concert format just-- well, frankly, just doing
it. It amazes me that she still had the film debut of FUNNY GIRL yet to
come, as well as turns as songwriter, director, and political activist. Here, she
is barely 24 years old, doing extraordinary things because, as she puts it in her
own on-camera introduction, 'we didn't know we couldn't, so we did.' The art museum
sequence is shot in Philadelphia over one weekend immediately after the museum
closed to the public on Saturday evening, and apparently done with only ONE color
camera. Yet there are cuts, dissolves, and tracking shots galore, resulting in one
rather spectacular peak moment-- the modern, slightly beatnik-flavored, "Gotta
Move." After getting lost amongst the modern abstracts, jazz-club bongos begin,
with Streisand emerging in a psychedelic gown and glittering eye makeup, doing the
catchy staccato tune with almost androgynous sex appeal. It is not until Act 3,
believe it or not, that the moment is matched or bettered by another feat: in the
concert sequence, in a white gown and pearl earrings, Streisand recites the torchy
"Any Place I Hang My Hat is Home," tearing into the final notes and revealing one
of those climactic belts that makes you scream like a little girl even if you're 44
years old...and a guy. Just plain old great television. Check it out.
A year after her triumphant first special, "My Name Is Barbra", Barbra Streisand
regrouped with her production team to produce this follow-up CBS-TV special in
then-revolutionary color. First broadcast in March 1966, "Color Me Barbra" follows
a similar format to its predecessor - three segments, the first two with unique
concepts. The first takes place in the after-hours halls of the Philadelphia Museum
of Art where dressed as a period maid, she roams the galleries and becomes part of
the artwork through song. In various guises, Streisand expresses a variety of moods
from the comedy schtick of the "Minute Waltz" to the melodrama of "Non C'est Rien"
in a Modigliani painting to the beatnik-style frenzy of "Gotta Move" set to
abstract art. My favorite moment in the special is when she transforms into a dead
ringer of Queen Nefertiti while singing a haunting rendition of Rogers and Hart's
"Where or When". Opening with another comic monologue full of silly non-
sequiturs, this time in French, the second segment is back in the studio for a
brightly-colored circus medley where she interacts with animals, including her
beloved poodle Sadie. She finds an appropriate context for "Sam, You Made the Pants
Too Long" with a bevy of penguins and comically compares her profile to an
anteater's with "We Have So Much in Common". As with the first special, the program
ends with a riveting solo concert in which she sings some chestnuts, "Any Place I
Hang My Hat Is Home", "Where Am I Going?" and "Starting Here, Starting Now" among
them. Also included is the brief introduction she filmed in 1986, ironically
dressed in all-white, when the special was first released on VHS. The juxtaposition
of locale and song is even more effective than in her first special, and a 23-year
old Streisand is in peak form.
Follow-up to 1965's "My Name Is Barbra", and shot in brilliant color, "Color Me
Barbra" has La Streisand alternating nostalgia, clowning comedy, feminine romantic
angst, and beguiling seriousness for a crazy-quilt hour of show-biz razzle dazzle.
She's a cut-up and a femme fatale, a sprite and an enigma. With her Egyptian eye
make-up and ever-changing hairstyles, she's also a chameleon. Her voice is rich and
moving, even if a few of her songs are not ("One Kiss", "Yesterdays"). The circus
sequence isn't as intriguing as the museum trip (with the conceit of Barbra
becoming the images in the paintings, an idea which works better than you may
think). The circus-medley (built around songs featuring the word "face"!) is
girlishly cute without ever really becoming enchanting. Still, this is a lively,
jazzy special--not quite as emotionally tantalizing as "My Name Is Barbra", but
certainly a sterling sophomore effort.
After the across-the-board success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, CBS television permitted
Barbra to create an even more elaborate follow-up as her second special. Streisand
wisely knew, in order to follow in the ground-breaking success of MY NAME IS
BARBRA, that her second special would indeed need to raise the bar even further in
inventiveness and spectacle. Not surprisingly, she succeeded once again. Even more
impressively, Streisand managed to mount this large production without sacrificing
the intimacy and vision of MY NAME IS BARBRA. Once again, the special is
divided into three distinct Acts. Filming on location at Bergdorf Goodman's
department store was so successful in the first special, that Streisand and company
decided to film on location once again for the first Act of this second special.
The decided-upon location this time was the Philadelphia Art Museum, which would
allow endless chances for Barbra to "enter" different art works that would
correspond with the songs being performed. In addition to the numerous artistic
possibilities that this location made possible, the museum would offer the perfect
opportunity to take advantage of filming in color. After the recording
of "Draw Me a Circle" that is set against the opening credits, Barbra then dashes
around the museum in a maid costume to the strains of Kern and Harbach's
"Yesterdays." She stops to admire various paintings and statues, often becoming the
character that is depicted and singing a thematically appropriate song. Streisand
performs a bittersweet rendition of Hammerstein and Romberg's "One Kiss" as Thomas
Eakin's CONCERT SINGER, delivers a hilariously campy performance of Chopin's
"Minute Waltz" as Marie Antoinette, embraces abstract art with the frenetic rhythm
of Peter Matz's "Gotta Move," and performs a wrenching rendition of "Non C'est
Rien" as a distraught Modigliani girl. The high point of Act I, however, is when
Streisand compares profiles with the bust sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti,
while singing a tour de force rendition of Rogers and Hart's "Where or When." The
Act II circus medley allows Streisand to interact with various farm and circus
animals, while singing various songs with farm/circus/animal themes. Some
highlights include Barbra singing "Were Thine That Special Face" to a baby
elephant, performing "I've Grown Accustomed to that Face" as a serenade to a
piglet, the campy "Sam, You Made the Pants to Long" sung to a group of baby
penguins, and Barbra comparing profiles with an anteater while crooning "We Have So
Much in Common." Streisand also swings on a trapeze and leaps from a trampoline to
the chorus of "Spring Again," and then slows things down by performing a haunting
version of "I Stayed Too Long at the Fair" while seated alone on stage. Barbra also
gets the chance to show off her pet poodle Sadie in this segment, and even speak a
little French. The Act III concert is once again the high point of the
hour. Dressed in a slenderizing white wool dress, the concert segment is performed
on a uniquely-designed stage with a partial staircase that leads nowhere. Streisand
opens the Act with a sultry rendition of Harold Arlen's "Anyplace I Hang My Hat Is
Home," before launching into heartfelt versions of the familiar standard "It Had to
Be You" and the rarely-heard "C'est Si Bon (It's So Good)." Streisand then really
amazes the audience with a breathtakingly powerful, octave-soaring performance of
the Sweet Charity ballad "Where Am I Going," of which Streisand delivers the
definitive rendition of. Streisand also introduces the then-newly written Richard
Maltby, Jr.-David Shire ballad "Starting Here, Starting Now," which contains an
impassioned vocal from Streisand that ranks among the very best vocal performances
of her long career. More than anything else, Color Me Barbra was a
showcase for Streisand's ever-increasing, mega-watt star power. Despite the
presence of even more visual razzle-dazzle, Streisand herself is always the main
attraction. Her voice sounds as beautiful as ever, and this special was the first
to showcase how strikingly she photographs in color. As with MY NAME IS BARBRA,
COLOR ME BARBRA was another rating-smash and spawned yet another Top-Five, Gold-
selling soundtrack album. Simply put, COLOR ME BARBRA defies tradition and emerges
as a sequel that is nearly on par with a classic original.
What kind I say about this movie. well for starters, I thought that this film was
okay, not the greatest not worst. I said this cause I thought that the script was
great and original, really different and refreshing. Now I wouldn't say that it's
the greatest film that I've seeing cause of the acting. The actors that played each
role, seems that they played them without emotions, as if they took the life out of
them. When the wife laughed or cried, this didn't look real to me for some reason,
that's just an example, but sincerely all the characters didn't act real at all. I
wish I could say more positive things about this film so you guys can see it at
least once but how can I do that since I know that I'm not going to see this movie
again. I rented this film from the library of my school, without hearing anything
about the film itself or the director. I took a chance because the story that was
describe on the back sounded really interesting and it really was.
First time I saw this great movie and Alyssa, my star*, playing Frances Ella Fitz,
was so great in this movie! It was just so real and her little dog so cute! I saw
it the first time when I was like 11 years old and it was the best movie i had ever
seen, and you know what? I still think so! 10/10 ********** = greatest ever!
I'd be hard pressed to say what is it that makes this film so important to me.
While a very good movie, this is definitely not the most outstanding Fassbinder's
film. Still along with the American Soldier it keeps making it into my personal
list of favorites whenever I get to thinking about it.
Like Margot in "Fear of Fear" falls victim of her ambitious husband, like Fox in
"Fox and his friends" is driven into suicide by his boyfriend who took all his
money away, like Xaverl Bolwieser in "The Stationsmaster's Wife" who goes to prison
in order to give his cheating wife a chance to get rid of him, like Hermann Hermann
who seeks refuge in insanity in order to flee his stupid wife and bankrupt company,
so also Hans Epp is a victim of the German "Wirtschaftswunder"-Society after World
War II in R.W. Fassbinder's "The Merchant of the Four Seasons". Simply from the
fact that Fassbinder played through social abuse between men and women as well as
between hetero- and homosexual couples, it should be clear that he does not
favorize any sex. In Hans Epp's case there are the women who drive him
into despair, illness and finally death. When he comes back from the Foreign Legion
where he flew because he could not stand anymore the pressure of his mother, she
complains that he is still alive while the good boy from her neighbor had been
killed. Then Hans gets a job as a policeman, but is surprised by his foreman while
he is seduced by a prostitute. After having lost his job, he works as a fruit-
merchant with little income, going from backyard to backyard "crying out" his
produce. His mother, one of his sisters and her husband are ashamed to have such a
"street-worker" in their family. "The love of his life" (she has no name in the
movie) refuses to marry him because his job does not fit together with her social
status and origin. So he marries Irmgard whom he does not love and who does not
love him. From her constant pressure on him he flees into drinking. One evening,
after his wife was stalking him, he explodes and hits her. She flees to her family
for which this event was just what they have been waiting for. When Irmgard is
calling a lawyer for divorce, Hans suffers a heart attack. Imrgard decides to stay
with him, but from now on, he is not allowed anymore to do heavy work and to drink
alcohol. So he starts to feel more and more superfluous, gets quieter and quieter
and more and more depressive. When he finds out that Irmgard cheats him, he chooses
to end his life, but not like Hermann Hermann by having a trip into the light of
madness, but he drinks himself to death in front of Imrgard, their little daughter
and his boozing buddies. Fassbinder said in an interview that Hans knew what he was
doing. The question, however is: Did Hans just kill himself because he could not
stand anymore his miserable environment, or did he make self-justice?
The Merchant of Four Seasons isn't what I would call a happy movie, at all, or even
one that impressed me to the point of praising it to the sky (there are other
Fassbinder flicks for that, like Veronika Voss and the underrated Satan's Brew).
But it's certainly no less than a fascinating experiment in taking a look at those
in a society that you and me and others we know might possibly know, or not really
want to know. I imagine in the early 70s in Germany a generation, coming out of
WW2, had a stigma to live with but tried their best just to get by. This is a
stigma that floats all over this film, and in many instances in Fassbinder's work
in general, but especially because with Four Seasons he takes his eye on the middle
class, and a particular married couple- the distanced, depressed, angry Hans the
fruit seller and his long-suffered wife- that is nothing short than trying for
realism in the guise of melodrama. If Cassavetes were a crazy German he might make
this film, maybe even as just a lark. The story sounds simple enough,
where Hans' drinking gets out of control, he beats his wife (this scene is one of
the toughest to take, maybe in just any movie, the way Fassbinder's camera lingers
without a cut as his wife is left helpless and their daughter trying to stop him in
his frenzy) and then she's ready to leave him. As he stands in the room, her family
holding him back, she makes the call for divorce and he gets a heart attack right
there. He recovers, his business suddenly starts booming again with some help from
some good (or not so good) employees - and yet this only continues his longing, for
another woman, and his despair in general. And yet it's in this
simplicity that Fassbinder tries, and succeeds for the most part, in attaining a
mood of dread, of a tense vibe in a kitchen or in the bedroom or out on the street
that you can cut with a knife and bleed out. The weakest part of this all may be
the acting... at least that was my initial impression. Hans, played by
Hirschmuller, can be a stilted presence, with only the slightest movements in his
face and eyes, and for a while it doesn't look like he's much of a good actor. The
actress playing his wife, Irm Hermann, and her sister (Fassbinder Hanna Schygulla)
fare better, but only cause they're given more to do conventionally, like cry or
look concerned. It takes some time to adjust to what is, essentially, a void in his
guy Hans, of something from his own psychological self-torment or self-pity that
pervades himself and those around him who just want to get on with some sense of
normalcy, especially once Hans gets successful. Not everything clicks
together in The Merchant of Four Seasons, but enough did to make me recommend it to
those looking for a different slice-of-life than you might be used to with more
modern American movies. Fassbinder's world here is a combat between the melodrama
he loves in cinema and the harsh, crushing sense of humanism that he feels
personally and puts into characters that, for better or worse, we somehow identify
with. Are the Epps a family you know of? Or could you even be them? Who's to say.
It's a methodical study of tragic emptiness in the human spirit, and its goals are
all attained.
THE MERCHANT OF FOUR SEASONS was Rainer Werner Fassbinder's first shot at
mainstream acceptance. In a turbulent career of just fifteen years, he managed to
create an astounding body of work in film and theater, both as a performer and a
creative producer, actor, and director. Although this movie might not appeal to
many viewers, the film has much to offer. The storyline is fairly straightforward.
A man is ostracized from his upper middle class family due to emotional and
economic problems, and proves unable to control his downward spiral. THE MERCHANT
OF FOUR SEASONS is shot with a slavish devotion to elegant detail, and each set is
very carefully designed and constructed. Every object on set seems painstakingly
arranged so as to provoke layers of emotional texture. Many religious paintings and
icons decorate the walls of the various rooms and seem to speak to Hans's desperate
quest for spiritual meaning or direction in his life. Much thought was given to how
lighting and color were employed to contrast and enhance the drama. Several times
during the film, I froze the frame to marvel at the beauty of the shot's
composition. I streamed this film, and the print was nearly flawless and second to
none. Fassbinder employs his actors in an almost vehement "Anti-Natural' style. He
does everything possible to prevent the actors from reacting in a normal or
colloquial manner, and this creates a rather stilted effect. However, by doing so,
he injects an almost 'hyper-reality' to the narrative. Rather than the presentation
of a mundane melodrama, the actors almost militant lack of affectation forces the
viewer to confront the film in a different manner. Fassbinder's film intentionally
prevents the viewer from easily connecting with the characters' trials and
tribulations. You are constantly on the outside, looking in. This will be a
disconcerting experience for many, but I found it to be a unique and satisfying
artistic adventure.
In Fassbinder's earlier films, his ideas sometimes surpased his ability to execute
them. He was always a great writer, but it took him some time to get his style of
camera work and storytelling down pat. The Merchant of Four Seasons is
one of Fassbinder's first movie to make great use of color, from the bright green
pears in the merchant's cart to the bright red roses at the funeral (a funeral in a
Fassbinder movie? who'd have thought). His camera work was getting there
too, but it was still fairly minimalist. The occasional zooms seem a bit
uncomfortable at times and unnatural, but then again, Fassbinder was still coming
out of his purely avant garde phase. This might be because Michael Ballhaus isn't
behind the camera, but instead the slightly inferior Dietrich Lohmann. Still, this is Fassbinder, and you get your fix here. Broken dreams shown so
vividly and unflinchingly as to alienate audience and drive them into a depressed
stupor. Just what the doctor ordered. An early classic that shows remarkable
progression when compared to his first films released only 2 years prior.
Ostensibly, Hans ' isolation and despair are caused by a stereotypically frigid
bourgeois mother, a nagging wife, and a lover's rejection. And despite the complex
portrayal--Hans himself doesn't precisely make these claims--the above must be a
substantial part of Fassbinder's thinking as well (his use of Freud and Marx). But
the viewer may look no further than Hans' gender and sexism to locate the truer
cause of his crushed spirit. First, it's highly unlikely that his
mother's lack of love pushed him into signing up with the Foreign Legion. It was
far more likely, and is in part indicated, that it was a quest for adventure, male
camaraderie (escape from the female world of mother and sister) and male identity
itself-- which both the Legion and war offered. Second, Hans loses his
successful job as a policeman because of his own sexism. By falling for a
prostitute's wiles at work, he not only rubber stamps prostitution as an oppressive
institution, but shows that he cannot even control his sexuality in a professional
arena--and is even willing to jeopardize a desirable career. Third, he
commits serious verbal abuse against his wife in front of his sheep-like male
buddies, making no distinction at all between her absence or--when she shows up
looking for him--presence. In fact, he is more brutal in her presence. A
few hours later, in a violent and drunken state, he beats his wife in front of
their daughter, who intervenes on her mother's behalf. The terror he instills in
her and his daughter are palpable. But both he--and the audience--move on with nary
a whimper of conscience or protest. Why? Because his wife is cruelly characterized
as both nagging and sexually promiscuous (yes, this this may be Fassbinder's view
of what capitalism does to women--owned, insecure, and a commodity--but this hardly
absolves Hans' brutality nor Fassbinder's exploitation of her in the battery
scene). And then there is this male role pressure, which Hans could
choose to reject and protest, but instead accepts. He's too short for a male and
too un-heroic to achieve the worldly success the male role recommends. But how can
these be causes of despair when he not only gains his lost love as a mistress but
marries a tall woman who is considerably more attractive than himself., Finally,
Hans allows Harry, his war comrade, to remain, over his wife's convincing plea to
the contrary, on in their house. By this decision, he not only makes it clear that
he is more tied to Harry than to his wife, but that male bonding supersedes his
love of women. And supersedes, in the end, his own life, because it is Harry's
superior competence and spirit around the house that causes Hans' star to fall.
Hans, the merchant, may be to a degree, the victim of capitalism, but more to the
point, he is the victim of his own allegiance to his own male identity. His
inability to let it go, is the ultimate cause for his isolation and despair. This is something that is lost, I think, not only on Fassbinder, but also
on Han's sister, Anna--although, only to a degree lost. For Anna's (and
Fassbinder's) support of her brother--over her mother, only goes so far. She is
quite insistent that only he can save himself--that her support and love cannot it
itself end his self-loathing. Unfortunately, she does not offer any of this same
support and love for his wife who must be much more embittered than Hans but, who
in the end, is able to pick up the pieces, and save herself and daughter, and
present a marked contrast to Han's fall.
The Merchant of Four Seasons is a film about a lack of love. The film starts off
with the main character; Hans Epp, returning from a spell in the foreign legion. He
returns to his mother, not to be told how much she loves him, or how much she's
missed him; but to be told that he is worthless and, even worse, that she would
have preferred the man he went with to have come back instead. It is the
character's relation to women that makes this film so hateful; the fact that his
wife is taller than him is symbolic of his relation to the other gender; he is
consistently humiliated by them, and it is through his relations with them that his
life isn't as great as it could have been. This is also shown clearly by the way he
treats his wife after a drink. He lost his job as a policeman through lust for a
woman, and even his wife; a woman that is supposed to love him, never really shows
any affection for him. Even at the end, his wife is more bothered about what her
and her daughter will do than the state of her husband. The Merchant of
Four Seasons is a thoroughly unpleasant film. There isn't a scene in the movie
where someone is happy, and not only that; but the movie seems deliriously blissful
to wallow in the misery of it's central characters. The movie is certainly not
recommended to anyone who is currently having a hard time, that's for sure. Despite
all the misery, the film never steps out the bounds of reality; every event in this
movie can - and most probably has - happened, and that only serves in making the
movie more shocking. The film is, of course, helmed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder;
the cult German director that committed suicide in 1982. This is only my second
taste of the man's work, but through just two films, it is easy to get an idea of
the type of art that he creates. Both films are downtrodden and gritty - yet
realistic pieces of art. His characterization in this movie is subtle; we only ever
get to know the characters through their plight's and not through their character.
This is a very clever way of showing the audience that it is their surroundings
that define the people in the film, not the people themselves - and as nearly
everyone that sees the film knows what living in an urban society is like, it wont
difficult for the majority of people to relate to. The Merchant of Four
Seasons is not a film that is easily forgettable; the movie is high on substance
and low on style, and that makes for a very memorable picture, and one that
everyone who considers themselves to be a fan of cinema should experience. It is
with that in my mind that I give this film my highest recommendations; it's not
sweet and it's not pleasant, but you will not see a more realistic portrayal of
depression, and this is most certainly a movie that will stay with you.
I remember seeing this movie back when it was released and I still remember the
'buzz' I felt when I left the cinema. Everything about this movie is magnificent!
The music is top notch and I still play the soundtrack after all these years. I have seen this movie so many times and yet I still get yearnings to watch
it again and again. Nicholas Cage was great and whenever I see Cameron Dye in
anything nowadays, I always associate him with this movie. It is too bad the rest
of the cast didn't go on to greater things but maybe that is part of this film's
charm. I won't do a film school critique as I am sure all the analysts
out there can find fault if they wanted to, but what I will say is that this movie
defined my teenage years and still continues to influence my life over 20 years
later. The movie 'feels' great and stirs up emotions when you watch it (well...it
did for me) and I cannot recommend it highly enough for anybody who has not yet
seen it. You either 'get' the movie or you don't! Those of you who 'get
it' will be rewarded with a unique movie experience.
Happy 25th Birthday to Valley Girl! Great soundtrack, plausible story, wonderful
performances...captures the spirit of the 80's; the slang of the mainstreams and
the outcasts. A wonderful rendition of high school life and "gritty downtown" from
a suburban perspective. The soundtrack contains songs by Modern English,
Felony, Josie Cotton, Sparks, Payola$, Josie Cotton, The Plimsouls, The Psychedelic
Furs, Men At Work, The Flirts and Bananarama. This movie truly is Romeo
and Juliet (minus the double suicide) set in 1980's Los Angeles. Julie's dad,
played by Frederic Forrest (Sonny Bono, anyone?) is hysterical as a hippie
idealistic dad who wonders how he sprung such a materialistic offspring. Yet, he
doesn't judge, ya dig??
"Valley Girl" launched Nicolas Cage's career and was an 80's version of "Romeo and
Juliet." It is a definite example of an 80's teen classic. Nicolas Cage, Deborah
Foreman and Elizabeth Daily all have brilliant portrayals in this movie, but it
will never top "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" as the ultimate 80's teen flick
because if it weren't for "Fast Times," then the 80's generation of teen flicks
would just be a big blow to the head. That's for sure.
Goldrush: A Real Life Alaskan Adventure is a great tv film for all ages. The movie
focuses around "Fizzy" (Alyssa Milano) who wants to go on travel for gold in
Alaska. The only person who hires her is Pierce Thomas Madison (Bruce Campbell).
What comes next for her is an adventure she will never forget. This tv film was
just great. The acting is #1 (especially by Bruce Campbell and Alyssa Milano) and I
also learned some information about the Goldrush. I recommend this TV film to all
without hesitation. It is also based on a true story. 10/10
Brilliant and moving performances by Tom Courtenay and Peter Finch.
This is good movie that is flawed in many ways with low production. Martha Coolidge
herself said she only had 350,000 dollars to work with. This is a movie that I
loved growing up in the midwest. I remember friends and I having the nostalgia trip
on this movie 10 years ago. Great things about this movie....Great cast with hungry
actors and a hungry director. Bad points of this movie....To small of a budget
calling for way too much improvisation. If Martha Coolidge had been given more
money and time on this movie then the results would of been even better. They
should have taken the story from an early 20's prospective and not from a 15-17
year old high school stand point. Most of the actors/actresses were in their early
to mid 20's trying to play 15-17 year olds....(come on) The music is extremely
memorable and the two soundtracks get played all the time in my car. The best
scenes in this film take place in seedy Hollywood clubs by Nicolas Cage's
character. I gave this film a high rating of 9/10 for five reasons.. Nicholas
Cage's improvisational on the spot acting; The camera work and angles are excellent
given the budget they had and only being able to have one take of each scene; The
sytles, music and lingo are captured perfectly and forever; Again the music is
incredible and carries the story along from scene to scene; And finally...Martha
Coolidge could turn a weak script, unknown actors and a very very low budget and 20
days of shooting the entire movie into such a good and memorable movie is
astounding!
This is a romantic, albeit cheesy movie that is one of my all time favorites. It is
one of the many CLASSICS of the 80's genre like "Pretty in Pink" or "Some kind of
Wonderful". Nic plays the traditional punk guy in love with the
traditional valley, preppy girl Julie. It is a heartwarming love story that makes
you root for him to win the girl in the end. True, most of the acting
sucks but ... I have been in love with Nic since seeing this in the
theaters and have seen nearly every movie he's been in since. He's really grown as
an actor but it is obvious in this early movie of his that he had a LOT of
potential. If you love 80's movies, you will LOVE this classic. Go rent it!!!!!
I'm glad Cage changed his name from Coppolla and got this part on his own. Light-
hearted, no deep thought needed, but a cute piece about opposites attracting-
though her parents are still hippies.... Captures the voice of the early 80's- the
whine of the valley and the funk of the other side. One can see the beginning of
Cage's talent.
I have to say this is my favorite movie of all time. I have seen it well over 100
times (actually had to buy a new copy as a result of overwatching) It is what the
eighties was like and what a romantic story with a few morals thrown in. I highly
recommend to anyone wanting to relive the high schools days again. Buy a copy now
it is a classic!!!!
Valley Girl is an exceptionally well made film with an all-around great cast. Even
though the dialogue is a bit dated now, when the movie was released it was very
hip. To this day, I know many people (teenagers included) that cannot form a
sentence without using the word "like". That is without a doubt the legacy this
movie will leave. A rating of 8 was given for this, like, most excellent movie.
I've seen this movie quite a few times and each time I watch it, the quirkier and
funnier it becomes. Perhaps its the lack of research that went into Nicolas Cage's
character's 'punk' persona or just the cheesiness factor because it was such a
typical eighties film...nonetheless it's a cute love story with extremely funny,
unique characters. I think it's right up there with "Fast Times" and "Weird
Science" (quintessential eighties flicks!)
Sweet, rich valley girl develops crush on a punk from the alley and when her snobby
friends disapprove of him, she's forced to choose between her heart and her
popularity. Very funny romantic comedy blends in elements of black comedy and '80's
cheese that make this all the more fun to watch. The movie not only follows the
life of the valley girl and her punk; but her friends too as they shop, party, hang
out, and go to the mall. If the dialogue doesn't have you laughing non-stop for a
week, the music will. Songs like "Johnny, Are You Queer?" are found throughout.
Also, Elizabeth Daily is a funny, existential character and the Prom King & Queen
speech at the end is hilarious!
There were a lot of dumb teenage getting sex movies of the 80s and a lot of slasher
flicks but there were only a handful that were made with thought, made you laugh
and captured the time period right; this was one of them. Cage is Hillarious, so is
Forman who from her bio unfortuatley has dissapeared from the Hollywood limelight.
I'd love to see this released on DVD with in a special version with commentaries by
Cage and Forman. Wishful thinking, I know. Ever want to plan a true 80s movie
weekend, rent this, Sure Thing and 16 candles and Breakfast Club. It will take you
back to a "Totally Rad" time which it seemed at the time, was a lot more simple.
Memo to studios: Time to release the DVD!
Valley Girl is the definitive 1980's movie with catch phrases filtered throughout
this wonderfully acted movie. The characters are so convincing that you forget it
is a movie and not a video of an actual "day-in-the-life" of any high school, USA.
This flick is to the 1980's what the Brady Bunch TV series is to the 1970's. If you
don't like it, well then "Gag me with a spoon."
This typical teenagers movie is one of the best, beside the story is good, the
music is well accompany the movie all along. Although i do not enjoy
classic movie unless it is classic and better written script, this one is
exceptional. Maybe the hair style and language should be change a bit, in the 80's
i believe offensive language is still rarely heard. 
Here is a movie of adventure, determination, heroism, & bravery. Plus, it's set
back in the late 1800s which makes it even more interesting. It's a wonderful,
adventurous storyline, and Alyssa Milano is wonderful at playing the wholesome,
confident, no-nonsense Fizzy...a great role-model. This is one of my favorite
movies. It is a movie to be watched again and again and will inspire you and enrich
your life without a doubt. Not only is the storyline excellent, but the movie also
has fabulous scenery and music and is wonderfully directed. This movie is as good
as gold!
What can I say?? This movie has it all...Romance, break-ups, rich kids, punks and
preps. This is my all time favorite movie that I can recite line for line....I
remember when it first came out, I was 14 and couldn't get in....so finally got to
see it on cable... I was hooked! Wanted to move to California and be a Valley
Girl.. (Hey, I even remember the song by Moon Zappa, do you?) Tried in vain for
years to get the never produced soundtrack...now you can find it on rhino
records....
Nicolas Cage and Deborah Foreman provide stunning performances in this 80's tour de
force! A great 80's movie akin to Fast Times at Ridgemont High! I highly recommend
this movie to any child of the 80's who hasn't seen it. It's a cult classic.
For the most part, romance films were never my cup of tea. But Valley Girl is one
of the few romance films I not only could sit through, but actually enjoy. Nicholas
Cage is great in his first role and Deborah Foreman is cute beyond belief. There
are some side stories that tend to become muddled, but not enough to diminish this
film.
One of the better teen comedies to be filmed during the 80's, Valley Girl has a
young Nicolas Cage in a starring role. Deborah Foreman is fun as the object of
Cage's desire (and whatever happened to her?). Look for veteran actors Colleen Camp
and Frederic Forrest as Julie's hippie parents - they're quite funny!
We still really love the movie and soundtrack "Valley Girl". I have owned it on
video for eons and wore out the original soundtrack. I have several friends with
whom I get together and we have "80's Raves" - parties where we get together and
play 80's music and run "Valley Girl" on the big screen - and we're all in our 30's
now. We have an AWESOME time. It's all in good fun, like, ya know?
I just love this film it totally rocks! Nicolas Cage looks hot and Tommy does not!
I definitely feel that Fred and Randy should have had a little more time together
on screen cause they're totally cool. My favorite part is when he says "Peter Piper
Picked A Pepper I guess I Did!"
putting aside the "i'm so sure"s and "totally gnarly"s this is one of the sweetest
and lifelike romances portrayed on film. deborah foreman (where is she now?) as
julie and nicolas cage as randy are as classic as romeo and juliet, tony and maria,
jake and samantha... you can't help but fall in love with them. plus the soundtrack
- the plimsouls, sparks, the furs, the flirts, and of course, modern english - is
also outstanding. for fans of films about young love, i'd equally recommend the
recent film all the real girls by david gordon green.
I remember seeing this film when I was 13 years old and I fell in love with it and
I was a big fan of the film and the characters I adored. My favorite character was
Stacey (Heidi Holicker), because she made me laugh when she showed no interest in
Fred (Cameron Dye) who really liked her and I was hoping that in the end that they
would get together then her boring boyfriend, Ralphie (Christopher Murray)because
he ignored her and hung out with his friends. I love the cast and the story. I
always love the part when Fred try to get together with Stacey, and I always
remember when he chased her around the car. But it was so good. I'll always
remember cherish that in my teen years. Now that I am 33 years old and I picked up
my copy on DVD and will look forward seeing it.
20 Years later and this movie still has echoes of its greatness floating around.
Never has a movie surpassed Valley Girl's incredible soundtrack. The movie
completely encapsulated the 80's to such a perfect degree that it could only be
realized this many years later. Nicolas Cage at his best. A movie that just has so
much character to it, that it makes you realize how sad hollywood has become (as
far as quality goes). The special edition DVD is loaded with tons of extras and
well worth it to purchase it as you'll have plenty of material to sift through. For
sure.
This gem captures early 80's life brilliantly. As a grad '83 boy myself,
I must say that Valley Girl (along with Fast Times at Ridgemont High )
stands out as the class of the teen sex film genre. The characters are
accurate representatives of the era; the vapid mall chicks, pseudo punk
rebels, preppy jocks are all represented here. I have seen
this over ten times now. The music in the film was top notch.
Unfortunately, these tunes could were never as popular in their era as
those by arena cockrockers like Journey, Styx or Loverboy. Before the
soundtrack existed, I searched out records and tapes (it was the 80's
after all !) of Josie Cotton, Sparks, Plimsouls and Modern
English. This movie deserves respect. It isn't just a good 80's teen
flick. It is a great film. Period.
While Boris(Aleksey Batalov)is off to fight in war against the Germans for his
Mother Russia, his beloved Veronika(Tatyana Samojlova)marries his conniving cousin
Mark(Aleksandr Shvorin)in a moment of weakness shortly after her parents were
killed in an air raid over Moscow. Through various trials and betrayals, Veronika
will await word or letter from Boris no matter how long it takes, holding hope that
he will return to her. Powerful piece of film-making boasts simply
incredible photographic work by cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky. Some of the many
magnificently framed, moving shots include the scene where the camera follows
Veronika through a crowd of loved ones saying goodbye to each other as she rushes
through the mob of bodies to say goodbye to Boris..and doesn't quite reach him even
as we watch Boris looking impatiently into the swarm without luck. The sequence
after the air raid where Veronika walks up the standing stairs circulating up the
destroyed building she once called home and the scene where Mark makes his lustful
move on Veronika as another air raid continues just outside the building as wind
rustles the curtains and flashes of light emanate inside are just two of MANY
examples where Sergei Urusevsky shows his genius at framing images that will last
forever on film. But, without the power and tragedy of the story regarding how war
can forever shape the destiny of a couple who dearly, deeply love each other, this
film couldn't hold up with the beauty of the visual alone. Together, however, we're
left with an amazing film..simply a haunting masterpiece from the Soviet Union
after Stalin breathed his last breath. I feel honored just have beheld such a great
film.
This is the essence of the early eighties! The malls, the credit card machines, the
food, the punk hair color, the soundtrack... I am in love with this movie. This
sweet, intelligent Romeo & Juliet teen flick is instantly addictive. Martha Coolidge is one of my favorite directors. She really employs her actors,
like John Hughes and Steven Soderberg, so check out -Joy of Sex- and -Real Genius-.
The soundtracks for -Valley Girl- are great. If you can find a copy of the film,
buy it! It's out of print and very hard to come by.
I really liked this movie, it totally reminds me of my high school days. The
soundtrack is awesome. I am a huge nic cage fan and this is my favorite movie that
he is in. I love the storyline, it is a total love story, against the odds kind of
thing. I think anyone who graduated in the early eighties (1980-1984) should see
the movie. It totally brought back memories of high school for me.
This movie is one of my all time favorite movies and is what made me a lifelong
Nicolas Cage fan. Back in the mid-80's I taped this movie (when VCR's were
impossible to do this with!!) and would watch it over and over. Nicolas Cage is
just brilliant here. And, he looks wonderful and has no affecting "acting-isms"
(see "Peggy Sue Got Married" to know what I mean about that!!). I measure all his
performances against this one. He was so perfectly cast as the cool punk guy with
the edgy friends. The music was GREAT. The Plimsouls! The Psychodelic Furs! Modern
English! Men At Work! Whenever I hear "Melt With You" I am taken back to the finale
of this movie. What ever happened to his cute costar, Deborah Foreman?
And his hysterical friend, Cameron Dye? Certainly took a different turn than
Nicolas! Interestingly, the slutty friend (Elizabeth Daily) ended up being the
voice of Tommy from the Rugrats (she is billed as E.G. Daily for that horrid show)!
Bizarre! IF you want to take a great trip back to the 80's, watch this
movie. It is definitely a classic. Like Totally!
But perhaps you have to have grown up in the 80's to truly appreciate this movie.
If you love the early 80's this is definitely a must see. Also, one of the best
soundtracks ever!
It was 1983 and I was 13. I watched Valley Girl on HBO one night when my parents
were working. After it ended I wanted to talk with someone about it immediately.
Turns out my best friend watched it too and it became our favorite movie. Every
weekend after that we watched it until we could recite it. We woke her parents up
late at night laughing hysterically. We began to worship the main character, Julie,
played by the beautiful Deborah Foreman. I am not saying this is a great classic.
Although it is for me personally. And I understand that the whole Valley Girl talk
becomes annoying but that was the 80's. But deep down at the heart of the movie-it
is a love story, and a familiar but good one. Girl meets boy and there are sparks
from both sides, an instant connection. Julie's friends don't like him-he doesn't
fit in, doesn't go to their school, doesn't have money. They like her better with
her ex-boyfriend the football player even though he is a jerk. She makes the
ultimate sacrifice-her own happiness for her friends' happiness. And she has these
really cool supportive hippie parents. It is one of Nicholas Cage's first movies
and his first starring role. One minute he is absolutely hilarious and the next
incredibly touching and romantic. His friend Fred is pretty funny too. If you were
a teenager in the 80's you will love this movie or at the very least it will bring
back memories. It is no longer my favorite movie but it is still one of my
favorites, probably in my top 10. I am eagerly awaiting it's release on DVD if they
ever release it. You can go to Deborah Foreman's website to sign a petition to get
it released on DVD and there are 2 soundtracks from the movie that are must haves
if you like 80's music.
Valley Girl will always hold a special place in my heart: I would say this is
certainly the best of the 80's teen-sex-comedies, but that is a back-handed
compliment. This is a good movie, period. It is very specific in time and place--
nearly twenty years later this is a marvelous snapshot--yet its story remains
timeless. (This is just Romeo and Juliet, minus the death, after all!) Nicolas Cage
is wonderful, showing all the early promise that, it turns out, he has squandered
on overblown action crapola. Deborah Foreman is the revelation of this movie, and I
can't believe she didn't go on to have a bigger career; someone rediscover her
QUICK. This is sweeter and gentler than most films of the genre--the requisite
nudity seems thrown in by contractual obligation--and, while not groundbreaking, it
certainly is nice to see this kind of movie that respects its characters and
doesn't crucify its shallow young girls for having fun--even Foreman's crew of best
friends, misguided by peer pressure, are never presented as villains. (Indeed, her
friend Stacy, forced to doubledate w/ Cage's friend Fred, has a good time despite
her protests, and makes out w/ Fred in the backseat.) This will take you back to
the early 80's if you were there, but it holds up quite well today. Warning to
those unfamiliar with the movie: do NOT watch one of VH1's seemingly continual
showings of it--go rent it in its unedited glory. Otherwise, you are missing some
of the movies' most potent, time-specific dialogue. And one can't write about
Valley Girl and not mention the fabu soundtrack of great 80's tunes--most of them
by one-hit wonders, which are not only integral to the sense of time and place in
this movie, but thematically well-chosen. See it--awesome little flick! Fer shur!!
This film is the most romantic in years. David Duchovny is superb. He´ll make you
cry, smile and dream. Minnie driver and James Belushi are very good too. But, David
is astonish. Don´t miss the opportunity to see this little film and fall in love
with Bob and Grace. Run, don´t walk!
I don't normally go out of my way to watch romantic comedy, and maybe I will in the
future after seeing Return to Me. The plot was simple and no secret after the
publicity. You don't have to be Einstein to guess what will happen after the first
15 minutes. What you can do is relax and let the cast take you into a world where
the "chemistry" abounds and the good guys win and you can just laugh and have a
good time. I LOVE this movie....and have the DVD on order!
Bonny Hunt scores a coup with her directorial debut. Minnie Driver and David
Duchovny have that indescribable something called chemistry. Sure the plot is
unlikely, but that doesn't stop one from enjoying this film. Carroll O'Conner does
a great job as Grace's grandfather. Other great character actors play his card
buddies. Jim Belushi is hilarious as the down-to-earth husband of Megan, part of
the extended family. Faith, family, and marriage are respected. A few
sexual references and salty words are used but in context and with gentle humor. And in the background that wonderful Dean Martin tune--"Return to
Me." Recommended.
This movie is very well done although the ending is given away too early in the
film. The four elderly men in the restaurant are what makes this film fun to watch.
Minnie Driver is a very talented actress and comes across wonderfully on screen.
In my review just submitted I referred to the young actress lead as Katerina when
it should have been Veronika. I was so involved with character and the action I
guess that I wasn't that concerned with names. Anyway, she and the film are
brilliant. As I said, the cinematography and the director's use of montage are
worthy of Eisenstein and his cameraman, Tisse'. The production design is top notch.
The placement of actors in the foreground, middle ground and background within any
given mise en scene is worthy of study. Stunning, memorable camera movement, and an
ending that has an emotional punch that leaves Hollywood films far behind. Gee!
Heroic self sacrifice instead of walking into the rainbow. Thanks again, John Hart
This movie is sweet - not cloying, just warm-spirited and kind. I found it only
mildly funny, and the premise *is* wildly improbable, but the characters are so
charming (especially Minnie Driver's) that they had my full attention right from
the beginning, and soon had my affection too. Bonnie Hunt has done a
great job in her directing debut, and a good job with the writing as well. I highly
recommend this movie and will see it again, I'm sure.
I think the romance of this movie helps couples develop a deeper appreciation for
each other. Although I saw one goof in the early part of the movie, it was fairly
well done. The plot can make you cry if you think about the situation enough. I
loved it..watched it twice already and highly recommend it!
I will start by saying I have always been a Bonnie Hunt fan.... She always adds
life to any character she plays, and she did a wonderful job in her directorial
debut. I have to admit this is a chick flick... But keeping that in
mind, it is a wonderful story, it touches on many emotions and elicits all sorts of
reactions. This film depicts real life like people with real life like
situations. (Tho I have to exclude the coincidence that is the major part of the
film) It's a love story.. not just of a man and a woman, but the love of
family, friends, and loved ones past. (Even pets). I really enjoyed it.
Well worth the rental or the purchase.
This film is great - well written and very entertaining. David Duchovny shows, once
again, that he is much more than Fox Mulder, and the performances by the old men
are funny as can be. Old married folks (like me) will appreciate the connection
between two hearts.
There are so many positive reviews on Return to Me that my opinion is not necessary
to encourage you to watch this movie. However, I feel the need to express my
admiration for this unique movie. Bonnie Hunt has proved that she is not only an
exceptional actress but also a marvelous director and script writer. This movie has
everything and is full of humanity, tenderness, sense of humor ... Don't miss it,
don't wait any longer. And, regarding the poor reviews don't pay any attention.
Some viewers forget that this type of movies have to be watched with your heart,
not only with your eyes. If some viewers prefer Notting Hill or You've got Mail
that's their mistake. For me, Return to Me is a true gem, an unforgettable movie.
This movie is so cool. It told me to enjoy every moment in life to its fulness. I
think that Bonnie Hunt (Jerry Maguire) writes well and I am so happy that she gave
aging actors opportunity to have such big roles in the movie. That is really neat,
in a society that worships wealth, health and youth, it was nice to see a movie
about normal people. The movie reminded me a lot of "While you were Sleeping" which
I really love. If you don't like this movie you should work on your sensitivity
skills. Favorite Quotes: Megan Dayton: "I'm just saying, for safety,
don't shave your legs,because then you definitely won't let it go too far." Grace
Briggs: "Megan, it's a first date." Megan Dayton:" I married a first date. I'm sure
you plan on being level-headed, but once you're in the moment, the male brain
seems, I don't know, everything they say suddenly seems brilliant. Hairy legs are
your only link to reality." Favorite Scenes: Megan (Good Will Hunting) riding her
bike. All the scenes in the garden. The conversation and comradery among the
grandpa and friends in the restaurant. Please do not miss this movie it will warm
up your heart!
This is a true "feel-good" movie, full of genuine sweetness and admirable people.
Although the premise requires a significant suspension of disbelief, it is worth
the trouble to do so. The director, writers, and actors truly convey what it feels
like to be in love.
I love this movie. At first, I didn't expect much of this movie since I didn't hear
anyone talk about it and it seemed like it went on video soon after it had just
opened in the theatres. I also didn't think David and Minnie would make a good on-
screen couple. (I've expected a lot out of on-screen couples since I saw "You've
Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle" with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.) Personally, I
think Joely Richardson should've played Minnie's part and vice versa. I don't know,
I just think Joely should've stayed in the movie longer with David. They seemed
perfect for each other. But it just figures that in a movie, the girl next door
always gets the guy. :) (Like in "While You Were Sleeping".) I was very wrong
though. This movie was fantastic!!! Everything was done brilliantly. Bonnie Hunt
did a great job of directing. The lines were perfect with the wise cracks
everywhere. ***WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!*** I love how
everything intertwined with each other. For example, in the beginning, Elizabeth
and Bob were talking about going to Italy, and in the end, Bob meets Grace in
Italy. Sydney (the ape) doing the hand thing with Grace like he had done with
Elizabeth is an example too. ***NOTICE: SPOILERS END NOW!!!*** One thing I didn't like about the movie was it was a little unrealisitic.
Well, I just don't think a man could get over his wife in a year when she was the
only woman he had ever been with his entire life. You'd think he'd isolate himself
from the world for years before even coming out of his house to talk someone.
Instead, he goes on a blind date a year later and falls *instantly* in love with a
woman he's never seen in his life but feels a connection with. Over all,
it was a splendid movie. It had me crying two or three times, and it had me
laughing countless times (the scene in the restaurant with Bob's picky date for
bottled water was hilarious!). It is definitely up there with great romantic-
comedies like "You've Got Mail", "Sliding Doors", and "While You Were Sleeping". GO RENT IT TODAY!!
Return to Me is a charming gem of a movie. With an absolutely star studded cast,
who can go wrong with this modern day fairy tale? It also includes many, many jokes
written by the funny girl herself Bonnie Hunt, who wrote and directed this film.
David Duchovny is also very good, showing a different approach then from his
everday alter-ego mulder on my favourite show the x-files. a great date movie!
This movie doesn't have any pretense at being great art, which is good. But it is a
well written script with well developed characters and solid acting. I think if I
wrote it I could do without the drama surrounding the wife, but it wasn't
distracting enough to detract from the main story concerning Minnie Driver's
character. I think that all too often Hollywood abandons an attempt at real quality
writing to try and inject more visual drama when, with an adult themed movie such
as this, the emotional type of drama is all that's really needed - and probably
more believable too. Overall, it's a very well done offering and well worth seeing.
This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest landmarks in history of cinema. By
seeing this film,we can only retrospectively notice that world cinema in 1950s had
such a purely humanistic dramaturgy,such a strong and adequate use of sound-image
montage,and almost religious admiration of ethical choices in human life. Cinema
was then not only one form of arts. It was much higher than ordinary life and it
gave many people hope to live after the tragic war. It is said, that even Picasso
was moved and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years!
Audience that time was also different. I read that after seeing Kurosawa's
"Ikiru(Live)" in its first release, young couple quietly told each other,"It is a
good film, isn't it?". I think,contemporary cinema, though technically developed
and opened some new narrative perspective, has lost the most important---reliance
of audience.Cienma was once really the most popular art from and, unlike modern
fine arts and contemporary music,gave millions of people hope and ideals. In this
point of view,"Letyat zhuravli" must be in the pantheon of classics of all the
time, as "City light","Ikiru" and "La Strada".
Gracie (Minnie Driver), a woman in her late twenties, is on a waiting list for a
heart transplant. Bob (David Duchovny) has just had the tragedy of losing his wife
in an automobile accident. One can guess the outcome. Gracie receives Bob's wife's
heart, although they have no knowledge of each other....yet! A year later, Gracie
is feeling like a new person while Bob is just beginning to think about his social
life. When a friend sets him up on a blind date, Bob finds himself interested in
the waitress, Gracie, at the restaurant where the date occurs. They begin to see
each other. How long will it be before the truth materializes and what will be the
consequences? This lovely, funny, and touching movie is one of the best romantic
comedies ever constructed. The two stars dazzle as the couple only heaven could
bring together and the supporting cast, of Bonnie Hunt, Jim Belushi, and Carroll
O'Connor, are just marvelous as well. Taking place near Chicago, the neighborhood
setting is likewise charming and beautiful. Let's make that dittos for the costumes
and script. If you know someone who goes ga-ga over mirthful love stories, you will
be in their good graces forever if you introduce him or her to this fine movie.
I saw this movie a fews years ago and was literally swept away by it. So charming
and so very romantic. David Duchovny and Ms. Driver have chemistry that is so hot,
you will need to take off a layer of clothing. The supporting cast is 100% top
notch. Just watching Caroll O'Connor and Robert Loggia play off one another is pure
poetry. Bonnie Hunt and Jim Bellushi and a wonderful team and some of the films
most charming moments are when they are on the screen. Like Jim Belushi screaming
at his children to go to sleep "FOREVER!" or him dancing in the kitchen. This film
made we wish I knew people like that in my own life. Not to mention, what woman
does not want David Duchovny for a boyfriend?
Awesome Movie! Great combination of talents! I'm a HUGE fan of David Duchovny and
he is outstanding in this movie! I would love to see him in more movies of this
nature. His talents are definitely under-used and has SO much more to offer besides
"Agent Mulder" (although I'm a huge fan of that series too), Anyway, I want to see
more of him. He is easily the Cary Grant of our generation. If you haven't seen
this movie, you MUST! Great love story that shows love never dies... it's with you
forever. Minnie Driver is great and how can you go wrong with a cast containing Mr.
O'Connor and Mr. Loggia and Mr. Belushi? This movie didn't get any type of awards
nod, but deserved one. Great job Bonnie Hunt! ** By the way... the soundtrack is
great too! **
especially considering I can count on one hand the romantic comedy films I have
ever enjoyed. Minnie Driver is very good as the heart transplant
patient, who has a mysterious connection to Duchovny's recently deceased wife. (I
can think of several awful films which have used this story line- I think there was
an LMN movie with Jane Seymour) This film, however, is a keeper. Duchovny is sympathetic, and the scenes with his dog are cute and sad- the dog
misses his deceased wife. All of his friends want him to find a replacement, and
there is an amusing scene where he is on a blind date and Driver is the waitress.
His date is horrible, and he finds himself intrigued by Minnie Driver. Caroll O'Connor is also good in one of his last roles, as the curmudgeonly
grandfather. Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi (this is the only film I have liked him
in) round out the comedy aspect of the film. This is a good film because
the story works, it is not overly romantic, and does not insult the audience's
intelligence. Highly recommended 9/10.
A delightful and wonderful film, which has entered my pantheon of great romantic
comedies. IN many ways it's even better than "When Harry met Sally." IT wears well
on viewing and re-viewing. The cast is excellent, and both David Duchovny and
Minnie Driver give us really believable characters.
I must admit that I didn't get around to seeing this movie in the theater. As it
was released at the beginning of a summer blockbuster season, this cute little film
couldn't help but get a bit lost in the shadow of multi-million dollar special
effects movies, could it? "Return to Me" has a lovely and simple story
at its core, and is extremely well-directed and written by Bonnie Hunt (who has
been in a number of major pictures as an actress herself....along with this one!)
The charming story is beautifully woven with clever comedy and brought to life with
superb performances by veteran as well as younger actors. To those who
say that David Duchovny hasn't really had a good shot at breaking out of his "Fox
Mulder" mold, I agree. I've seen his other film work, and is, by far, the best
thing he could have done for himself. Minnie Driver is simply beautiful, charming,
funny, and lively in her role as Grace. Outside of these two leads,
however, you are surrounded by Grace's close-knit family and friends. Jim Belushi
is an absolute stitch, Bonnie Hunt is a stable and real-life force. I cannot,
however, go without mentioning the talents of Robert Loggia, and the dearly
departed Carroll O'Connor. Ironically, I watched this film again on DVD only the
day before he passed away. This was his last film, and he gave a performance that
an actor of his calibre could certainly be proud to leave as the finale to a great
career. Overall, "Return To Me" turned what would have still been just a
fun love story, and grew it into a film that has become one of my favorites! Take
the time rent this one.....it's well worth the effort!
This particular film was one that I wanted to see in theaters, but never got around
to it. When I finally rented it in the summer of 2001 I enjoyed it so much that I
went out and bought the DVD soon after. Bonnie Hunt and Don Lake did a wonderful
job with the screenplay and are wonderful to listen to on the audio commentary that
is included on the DVD. They did a great job in creating characters that you really
care about. I really felt a whirlwind of emotions watching this film including
sadness, anxiety and joy. The film also does a great job in showing the importance
of family (a rarity in film today), which is a reflection of the director, Bonnie
Hunt, based on the comments she made on the DVD. David Duchovny showed me here that
there is life beyond Fox Mulder giving a wonderful performance with some pretty
poignant scenes. I highly recommend that you give this movie a viewing. I am really
thankful to the creators of this film. They have given me a wonderful piece of
cinematic viewing that I will recommend to all my friends. I have seen a lot of
movies over the years and it is very rare that I come away with such a feeling of
satisfaction after watching a film. I will watch this time and time again for years
to come. Return to Me reminds me that there are still moviemakers out there that
know how to sincerely please their movie audiences. Thanks!!
This is one of those movies that has everything in it. I don't think I would get
tired of seeing it. Hopefully more movies like this one will be made in the future.
The casting was perfect in all respects. In a sense, the song sung by Engelbert
Humperdink "I Never Got to Say Goodbye", is the song come to life. You will most
definitely laugh and cry throughout the entire scenario for sure. I'm just
surprised that I had never seen it before this past weekend. I think that it's
positively worth seeing, and your heart will be glowing. It would be nice to cuddle
up with your "honey"; sip a cup of hot chocolate and enjoy being in the presence of
each other. There is so much heart and emotion at times you honestly don't know
where to turn. You will know exactly how the character feels. True family
expression is available all the way through. In fact, at times you'll even think
you are part of that family or they a part of yours. See it!
I watched this movie again yesterday with a 20-year-old intern from my office (OK -
it was the quiet day after Thanksgiving) and we both loved it. I love the unique
plot, David Duchovny, David Allen Greer, and the way the dog keeps waiting at the
door. Isn't part of each of us just like that dog after someone we love dies? I also love the old folks at the restaurant - they remind me of some of the
older people around Southern New England, where your ethnic group is a very
important topic of discussion. And I love the wedding at the end. Minnie
Driver is great in this movie - and Bonnie Hunt should have won an award for
everything. Bonnie - make more movies!
I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! This beautiful, charming love story drew me in
immediately with its lovable characters and heart-warming romance. I became so
attached to the characters throughout the film that I felt as if I knew them
personally. The storyline is very enchanting, and it brought me to tears in several
touching moments. Duchovny and Driver have a very cute, chaste relationship that
you can't help getting involved in. This one's worth watching more than once, and
showing to all your friends. I'm just curious, why wasn't this a big hit? I give this a 10 out of 10! Spectacular film! (And this is coming from a
guy who thinks that 9 out of 10 movies aren't even worth watching.)
I watched this movie on TCM last night, all excited expectation, having last seen
it (twice) in its memorable 1957 release in Toronto. I told my wife, who hadn't
seen it before, to watch for the thrilling long tracking shot, no cuts, where
Veronika is seen on a bus on her way to find her Boris. In a hand-held frame that
certainly predates the modern Steadicam, the shot then pulls back up and cranes
(pun unintended) over the street as she exits the bus, and darts among the tanks to
cross the road. THEN I remember that, no cuts, we follow her up close to the fence
as she peers through, anxiously looking for him, but does not find him. But we do
continue to follow Veronika as she searches the faces of harried recruits and their
emotionally racked women, all extras, and each one a gem of riveting Stanislavskian
behavior. How, one wonders, did Kalatozov and his cameraman Urusevsky set up this
extraordinary sequence. But what did I see in this version? After crossing the
street dodging the tanks, the scene abruptly ended, and cut back to scenes at the
apartment, before continuing to the soldiers and their families at the fence. Seems
to me that this film was not only restored, but also re-edited. What a downer!
I saw this movie with my mother, and I loved it! It was such a sweet story, (Not to
mention funny because of the supporting cast!) They never make movies like
this...ever! My favorite part is when Grace(Minnie Driver) finds out about her
boyfriend's wife's death, and that she has the deceased wife's heart and she
screams, "WHAT WAS GOD THINKING?" I do believe everyone(No matter who you believe
in) has thoughts like that once in awhile. But while it's very sappy, it just might
make you believe in true love and destiny for once and for all.(Sigh) The comedic timing between Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi will just make you crack
up(especially in the aforementioned scene, it's terrible, and yet so funny!). They
make a good pair, and I hope to see them again in something soon. 10/10 Stars
I love this movie! It has everything! Bonnie Hunt did a fantastic job co-writing,
directing and co-starring in this film. David Duchovny is just plain hot. and
Minnie Driver is as cute as ever. combine all that talent with David Allen Grier,
Carol O'Connor, Robert Loggia, Joley Richardson, and Jim Belushi you have a Oscar
worthy movie! I'm surprised they didn't get one. if you haven't seen it, go rent
the DVD, watch it once then put directors commentary on...Bonnie Hunt is Fabulous!
My two daughters (ages 11 and 13) and I were lucky enough to see a screening of
this movie last night. We were all pleasantly surprised to see how entertaining and
funny this movie was. David Duchovny was very appealing as the male lead and Minnie
Driver gave her usually competent performance. Some of the scenes are laugh out
loud funny - especially one scene Minnie Driver has with a fellow "transplant"
donee. I liked the fact that it was a movie that I could watch with my children and
I wasn't embarrassed by any scene whatsoever. Everyone in the movie theater was
laughing and enjoying themselves. Thumbs up Bonnie Hunt!
When I saw the trailer for this film, I said out loud to no one in particular "this
film is going to bomb." I also said that about THE MATRIX and look at what happened
there. Now I am not a box office guru by any stretch but I usually have a pretty
good gut about what is going to be good and what is going to really suck. In this
case I was blinded by my complete and utter apathy towards David Duchovney. Let me
put it to you a different way: I don't like his as a person ( from what I have read
of him in interviews, he is unbelievably pre-madonna like and he is full of himself
considering all he has done is X-Files ) or as an actor. PLAYING GOD was a really
poor film but he came off thinking that for some reason he deserved big bucks on
the big screen. But I am happy to say that even though those things may still be
true about the man, Return To Me is delightful and has it's heart in the right
place. Bonnie Hunt has directed a beautiful story and she has told it with class
and grace. This is one of the most romantic films I have seen and even though it
may seem to be a bit sad and maudlin in its premise, give it a chance and you will
be hooked. It has to be said ( and this pains me to do so ) that the
reason this film works so well is because of the story and the cast. Duchovney and
Driver are so wonderful and believable here that I honestly wanted to cry along
with them. There is one particularly powerful scene when Duchovney comes home after
his wife has died and he slumps down on the floor of his house. As it always does,
the family dog looks to the door to wait for his wife to come walking in. She
doesn't and with his shirt collar still stained with blood, Rob ( Duchovney ) tells
him that she is not coming home, ever. He then calls the dog over to him and they
seem to share a cry together. The dog lets out a small moan and then Rob cries. And
this is one of the most realistic moments of pain I have ever seen in any character
in any movie. You can feel his pain and at that moment I forgot I was watching an
actor that I generally don't like, and I felt that I was watching someone that I
knew moarn the loss of his beloved. This is powerful stuff. Another
strength of the film is the supporting cast. Bonnie Hunt has combined an ethnic
melting pot of Irish and Italian characters that share a common bond. They share a
pub called O'Reilley's Italian Pub. That is a delicious name all by itself. And
heading the diametric scale of clashing cultures is Carol O'Connor and Robert
Loggia. These are two proud old men that love their homeland but love their
granddaughter and niece ( I think it is ) respectively. And that is the character
played by Minnie Driver. This scenario is ripe for comedy and Hunt doesn't miss
anything here. Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi also share some funny
moments together as the middle aged married couple and Belushi gets top points as
he accepts humility gracefully and shows off his ample keg of a stomach for laughs.
With his family consisting of three or four kids, there is very little time for him
and the wife to have quality time. And again Hunt handles this with perfect
elegance. This is a wonderful story of finding true love, knowing how
lucky you are to have true love and the power of friendship and family. Return To
Me is a wonderful romance and even though I still don't have a great admiration for
David Duchovney, I have to admit that he was perfect in this role and I could not
picture anyone else playing his character. He was sensitive and believable and the
movie was good because of him, not just because of him, but he sure added to the
flavour. If you are a sucker for a good romance and you want a good cry,
then this is the film for you. 8.5 out of 10 I will see anything that
Bonnie Hunt puts out with her in the director's chair.
I just watched this move for the 5th or 6th time and am still in love with it. It
still makes me cry and sing and worry and celebrate. I almost wrote
Bonnie Hunt a letter to tell her how much I love it. David Duchovny's grief scene
is so flippin real!!! Minnie Driver is so natural and honest. My favorite line is
when Duchovny says "I miss Elizabeth but I ache for Grace". Oh man! I'm crying just
thinking about it. ALSO... Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi are sooooooooooooo the
perfect Chicago area couple!! I know them I swear! I'm related to them I'm sure.
 This movie is in my three times a year rotation!!! I'd watch it once a
week but I'm afraid I'd get too used to it!!! I always want to make it a special
day when I watch it!!
Return to Me is a movie you will want to own. It is a story of inspiration and
family love that appeals to all ages. The story, though seemingly impossible,
aspires to divine intervention when a man looses his wife in a tragic accident and
finds that love again in the woman who receives his wife's heart. David Duchovny
and Minnie Driver give warm hearted performances as the designated to-be-lovers who
meet by chance. But the real story lies in the friends and family around them who
love and support them in times of trial. Carol O'Connor as Minnie Driver's
grandfather, is authentic in every scene. Bonnie Hunt as the friend whose wit and
encouragement underlines Minnie as a 'sister' is funny yet warm in the scenes
especially with James Belushi as her husband. Classic scenes and writing makes this
story so enjoyable and touching to watch over and over again. Thank you for making
a movie that demonstrates families and friends as close knit caring people who love
each other through difficult times.
As a non-theist Im not going to comment on the great mans theory which changed the
world 150 years ago. Safe to say, science is based on evidence, religion is based
on blind faith. Nuff said there then. The film was produced by the BBC,
and to be honest, it could quite easily have been shown on television. While the
acting is superb, the film itself isn't really worthy of a full blown cinema
release. That said, if it reaches a wider audience this way, then so be it. But I
have seen many period style dramas on BBC TV and they were well up to the finished
standard of this. Just don't expect too much of a big budget thrill ride when going
to see it. In some ways, I found the movie almost going out on a limb to
apologise to religious fundamentalists. While it attains a good sense of tension
the whole way through, I couldn't help wanting it to get to the publication of The
Origin Of Species much quicker than it actually did (you'll wait right until the
end for that). And it seemed to dwell much more than I was ever aware on Darwin's
struggle with himself and his wife Emma, portraying him almost as some kind of
insane lunatic at times - which is hardly true. There are many other errors and
facts missing in relation to the real story of the lead up to the publication of
Origin too, but the whole premise of the movie focuses almost entirely on the
difficulty Darwin faced domestically with the book, and a small portion on the
death of his beloved daughter Annie. This gives the film its most moving scene,
where Annie passes away as she asks one final time to hear Darwin tell her the
story of a captive orangutan which died of pneumonia. Though, you'll probably feel
a bigger connection with the primate in that scene than with Darwin's
daughter. With the early controversy apparently surrounding the movie in
the USA it will work well to promote it and ensure many more people will get to see
it. But to be honest, there is actually very little in it that insults any mythical
Godhead. Its hardly headline news about a theory that has been around 150 years
after all. But, as fundamental Christians (and many other religions which we're all
well aware of) like to wave a placard or two whenever possible, I guess this movie
is as good excuse as any. Personally, I cant see what all the fuss is about. But
maybe they're just monkeying around...
Last year was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th
anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species", so it's fitting that Jon
Amiel's "Creation" got released. The movie focuses on the period of Darwin's (Paul
Bettany) life while he was writing his famous work, and the mild strain that it put
on his family life. I guess that the movie overplayed Darwin's tension
with his religious wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly), and his guilt over his deceased
daughter Annie, but I still like the thought of Darwin's theory working like a
karate chop on religious dogma. As it was, the US was one of the last countries in
which "Creation" found a distributor, due to the creationism-evolution debate (yes,
it's still going on). All in all, this isn't a masterpiece, but I
recommend it the same way that I recommend "Inherit the Wind". I hope that one day,
the creationism-evolution debate won't be an issue. If this film helps put the
debate to rest, then more power to everyone in the movie! Also starring Martha
West, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.
As this movie unfolds you start to feel the conundrum of human existence. If you
carry with you questions, inner wars, unsolved puzzles about the meaning of life
then you will feel this movie with every morsel of your body. Charles Darwin begins
a war with an utterly predictable ending. War with God. His theories resemble the
fact that God has nothing to do with mankind, has nothing to do with the amazing
World that we live in. Savage, harsh, ironic and chaotic, this words surround the
mind of the character thrown into an universe of material truth, who slowly pushes
hope for God, out from his mind. Nevertheless, the movie as Charles Darwin, still
sees wonder and beauty beyond God in the universe of infinite Evolution.
I have read reviews of this film that found it 'disappointing' and 'confused'. I am
at a loss to understand why this should be so. From the beginning I found it a
remarkable experience and a complete joy to watch. Spoiler: The opening
titles overlay a beautiful visual of the evolutionary process, and this introduces
the story with a serene and sweeping style. The film isn't about the process itself
though, it concerns Charles Darwin's struggle with his conscience, his love for his
wife, his deceased daughter and his search for truth. The appearances of
his daughter are the manifestations of a tormented mind that knows it has "killed
God". The daughter is an adult, making adult comments about his work and torturing
Darwin with personal doubts. Was he in some way responsible for her death? Husband
and wife in real life Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly give truly wonderful
performances as Charles and Emma Darwin, as does Martha West as Annie. Bettany's
size and awkward gait give Darwin's character a genuine sense of reality, whilst
Connelly seems very comfortable with her English accent and occasionally somewhat
severe persona. It's easy to misunderstand the times in which this film
resides. The grip that religion had on society and the inner struggles that a man
like Darwin must have endured to seek the truth in what he witnessed. Science and
religion have always been awkward bedfellows and although it didn't cost him his
life, as it did with so many earlier men and women, science put a barrier between
husband and wife, fact and faith. This film portrays that barrier supremely
well. I give Creation ten stars, because I think it's beautiful,
profound, superbly well acted and a genuine, no-extraneous-frills-required look at
one of the world's true geniuses. What seems obvious to everyone today
(well, almost everyone... see Bill Maher's wonderful "Religulous") was hidden for
millennia. The truth, once it was discovered, was undoubtedly painful for many.
Creation examines that pain, and the realisation that we are all that we
possess. A wonderful cinematic experience.
If you believe that any given war movie can make you really feel the war, you need
to see "Letyat zhuravli" (called "The Cranes are Flying" in English). It tells the
story of Veronika (Tatiana Samoylova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), who are in love
on the verge of WWII. They are walking along the waterfront, watching the cranes
fly by, when the war starts. Boris is promptly sent off to war. Veronika hides out
with a family and ends up marrying the son, whom she does not love. Boris,
meanwhile, continues trotting through the countryside, fighting the Nazis and
experiencing all the horrors of war, until he he runs out of energy. When Veronika
- working in a military hospital - receives this news, she refuses to accept it,
until Boris' body arrives home on one of the trains. Simultaneously, the radio
announces that Germany has surrendered and the Allied Powers have won the war; the
Soviet Union lost 27 million citizens, but it's the start of a new era. This movie did a very good job showing the human impact of the war not only in
the battlefield, but also how it affected the civilian population. This is
definitely a movie that everyone should see.
I believe the reason this movie did not get the recognition it deserves is because
of the many misconceptions of Darwin, pro and con. I would say the real man is
depicted here without sterility. He is what he is. Although the movie is but a
snapshot of the man the technique of storytelling expanded his life far beyond the
years touched on in the movie. This is deep movie, a pondering of modern life and
the way we think, and can provoke a study into the man whose thoughts (and other
who used him) have certainly affected our lives. There are some movies that the
historical context is so great that it is the primary job of the actors to stay out
of the way. The history carried the day and the actors did their job. Good work to
them, I say.
Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star in Creation,
which recounts the period of Charles Darwin's life prior to the publication of "On
the Origin of Species" in 1859, his infamous, world changing tome on evolution and
natural selection. Darwin's research created an enormous rift, a schism between the
believers of his day and scientists. He was said at the time to be going to war
against God, and even to have "killed God". The film revolves around
Darwin's life with his wife and four children. Jennifer Connelly is excellent as
his extremely devout and loving wife. A revealing scene at the beginning when she
leads the dinner table in prayer and Charles fails to say "Amen" is foreshadowing
of what will follow and of the stark differences between the two. She is convinced
that he will be eternally damned and bring misfortune to their family by rejecting
God. Darwin is torn between his strong love for his wife, her faith and
his even stronger reason. There are beautiful moments of him observing animals,
dissecting their behaviors and the sequences that make up their lives, explaining
phenomenons of selection to his children, the first born, Annie, having a very
morbid curiosity. We see him interacting with England's first orangutan, Jenny,
playing with it as if it were a child, deciphering her every look and action.
 Annie, the eldest child, later dies and Charles becomes haunted by her
death, having been closest to her. In my opinion this part was too long, bizarre
and drawn out. I did not like the trippy scenes where he seems to be losing his
mind and is pursued by the ghost of his daughter, shouting and ranting. Although
Charles thinks that his wife blames him for her fatal sickness, she very poetically
says: "The truth is, if I knew then what I know now, I would marry you tomorrow".
Their bond is solid and unbreakable despite tremendous differences of belief.
 When Charles finishes his manuscript he hands his wife the final copy,
telling her she can burn it if she does not agree. She stays up reading it nights
on end and finally presents him with a package, the book ready to be sent to its
publisher. In the end, reason and perhaps love as well, triumph, as he makes an
accomplice out of his staunchest adversary. It is fascinating that
Darwin received a full Christian burial at Westminster Abbey, proof that his
ground-breaking ideas were seen as controversial of course, but were already then
recognized as vital knowledge for the advancement of the human race. The movie definitely draws heavily on Darwin's family life, its joys and its
troubles. I happened to like this aspect but Fabio said it was like watching a
documentary on, I quote, "Hitler's passion for ping-pong". This is true in some
respects and I can't disagree with his desire to have learned more about Charles
Darwin's theories from this film than we do. It remains nevertheless a well
executed and flawlessy acted period drama. My rating: 7 Fabio's: 7
Total score: 14
Paul Bettany did a great role as the tortured father whose favorite little girl
dies tragically of disease. For that, he deserves all the credit. However, the
movie was mostly about exactly that, keeping the adventures of Darwin as he
gathered data for his theories as incomplete stories told to children and skipping
completely the disputes regarding his ideas. Two things bothered me
terribly: the soundtrack, with its whiny sound, practically shoving sadness down
the throat of the viewer, and the movie trailer, showing some beautiful sceneries,
the theological musings of him and his wife and the enthusiasm of his best friends
as they prepare for a battle against blind faith, thus misrepresenting the movie
completely. To put it bluntly, if one were to remove the scenes of the
movie trailer from the movie, the result would be a non descript family drama about
a little child dying and the hardships of her parents as a result. Clearly, not
what I expected from a movie about Darwin, albeit the movie was beautifully
interpreted.
This is definitely a touching movie, and a great expression of Charles Darwins
personal struggle. The movie is not only about his struggle to get his book "the
origin of Species" published, but also his relationship with his oldest daughter.
His daughter was at start the only person in his family to approve of his views,
something that she as well had to pay for. Een more than him at times. Now, this is not an evolutionary propaganda film, as a matter of fact I think it
managed to stay very neutral. A hard thing to do in my opinion. of course it does
not condone the way the characters was treated by the church, quite the opposite
actually. If you need me to use the big words to shed light on this film; it will
be liked by deists and atheists alike, but goes away from theism. The movie talks
about evolution, and that's it. Paul Bettany as Charles Darwin was
incredible. Of course we all may think of Darwin as that old man with the funny
beard, but this movie centers around the man in his late 20's, early 30's. Jennifer
Connelly (Emma Darwin) is great as always, but the actor who impressed me was
Martha West as Annie Darwin, Darwins daughter. Definitely on of the best child
actors of the decade. The story is about Darwin and his daughter, and it is
beautifully acted. Except for a few jumps in time that was momentarily
confusing, the production of this film is pretty flawless. Some scenes were Darwin
observes nature is just marvelous, and is almost like taken out of a high
production National geographic documentary. I must admit though, I'm not
quite sure of why they chose "Creation" as the title. I doubt it is an irony, the
movie is too respectful for that. Well, I'm sure there's a meaning too it, just
don't let it scare you away. I give this movie a 9/10. This is truly a
great tribute to Charles Darwin, and please give it a chance.
Wow! Fantastic film in my opinion, i wasn't expecting it to be this good! I was
captivated from start to finish- it's a very well made and educational film that
really gives us a fascinating insight into the trials Darwin had to go through in
order to convey his ideas to the world, chronicling his life as he writes "Origin
of the Species"; fighting both personal demons as well as the ignorant society of
the time in order to do so. He struggles hard with his mind, body and soul as
personal matters get to breaking point and even his family seems to slip
away...whilst the rest of the world stand against him as he knows that his findings
literally shake the very foundations of their lives, culture and meaning of
existence. It's a subtle movie (not over-exaggerated in any way in that typical
Hollywood way, this is a BBC produced British film) yet thankfully very powerful in
meaning and this is thanks to the amazing well directed scenes as well as the
superb acting by Bettany. Connelly acts as more of a light supporting role but I
did enjoy her in this and she's as good as to be expected as always, her chemistry
alongside her husband was definitely strong and endearing, you could feel the
connection, and their real-life husband/wife bond definitely shines through their
performances. But the star of the show is definitely Bettany and he does a
brilliant job, a very touching performance- i both understood and sympathised with
him as he battled his own degrading health and impending "insanity" to try to
understand what he has uncovered and come to terms with what it all really is and
means as he found his thinking contradict his feelings, and found himself losing it
all including his wife who of course was a firm believer in religion and a strict
Christian whilst he was in the realm of science, two worlds which could not see eye
to eye, so their relationship was at stake too. Anyway- a really very
good, well acted emotional drama and dare I say I did shed a tear during the tragic
climax which was truly heartbreaking as well as beautifully poignant and moving.
The film is symbolic and very intellectually artistic as well, in fact i can't wait
to watch it again as there was a lot to take in first time round which i missed.
Easily one of the best films i've seen this year.
I saw this film on 19SEP2009 at the Cambridge Film Festival. The
Beagle's only in a couple of short flashbacks, the whole thing is about Darwin's
life from 1841 to 1859, when he was ensconced in Kent with his growing family, 200+
pages of Origin had already been drafted and he was wondering whether to complete
the book. The script is based on Randal Keynes's book Annie's Box
(Annie, Charles's daughter, died when she was 10). It is mostly a family drama, but
does include sex scenes - however, the participants are married, both on and off
screen. Not too exciting, not much science but a well-made film that's pleasant to
watch and pushes the right emotional buttons. A bit of a romantic weepie, actually.
I suppose the conclusion is that you can be an agnostic free-thinking scientist
from an atheist family background and still be an emotional romantic as well as an
excellent father. Some of the characters and Darwin himself state or
wonder whether he "killed god" but the viewer is able to doubt that. What is beyond
doubt, given the deadly struggle for survival and the web of predation on the
meadow-bank (well-known before Darwin and completely uncontroversial) and the
failure of Darwin's prayers is that the idea of a kind, providential god who loves
"his" creatures is untenable. I really cannot see many Americans
objecting to it very much. Some may have problems with the title, which is probably
the most controversial thing about the film, or with the fact that Bettany does not
have horns, a tail and a pitchfork.
I saw the world premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest, this is a great
film. Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star
as Charles and Emma Darwin in the midst of their struggle through the writing of
and decision to publish "Origin of Species". Their consideration of the
ramifications it may have for their family and the future of humankind are conveyed
in such a manner that one suspects only an off-screen couple could achieve. Jon Amiel (who gave a heart-felt introduction) and John Collee do and
excellent job of bringing Randal Keynes' biography to life. They created some very
poignant and human moments, great cinematography and sets and a generous helping of
tongue-in-cheek about the still divisive theory of evolution. The
surprise star is Martha West who plays Annie Darwin, the character around whom much
of the story unfurls. She plays the precocious young girl to a tee. If this
performance is anything to go by her star should be on the rise. All in
all a great film, and although it is a period drama the issues that drive it are
still very much alive today.
Simply put, Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly were remarkable. The movie is less
about the raw science of Darwin's beliefs, and holds the focus very strongly on his
relationship with his family, primarily his wife, Emma, and daughter, Annie. Toby Jones gives a wonderful turn as Thomas Huxley, the great defender of
Darwin's beliefs, and the rest of the cast is up to the task of sharing screen time
with Bettany and Connelly. But it is those two who carry the movie.
Their real chemistry is apparent from beginning to end, but develops transcendence
as Darwin grapples with his demons. The scene where Darwin relates the ending of
the story of Jenny, the orangutan, to his dying daughter, Annie, is utterly
gripping. The world premiere audience at the TIFF was spellbound. Bettany's
performance will be recognized as one of the year's best in short order. Equally
magnificent is Connelly's work playing the religious wife of a man who, in Huxley's
words, "killed God". The film moves slowly through the entire spectrum
of Darwin's grief, relishing every detail of Bettany and Connelly's acting. Brilliant.
This sitcom was a big crowd puller in the year 1984-1985.That was a time people
could see deserted streets in most of the over crowded Indian cities whenever there
were sitcom on Indian television screens. All this was the result of the setting up
of television relay stations across the entire Indian nation. This was one of the
essential elements of the modernization of Indian television network strategy
adopted by the late Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi.It was also continued by
her son Rajiv Gandhi. This series provided clean entertainment which a large
majority of Indian television audience watched on their black and white television
sets.A funny thing about this series is that it was sponsored by an indigenous
company dealing in Ayurvedic products. A couple of days ago I caught sight of some
episodes of this series but the overall laughter equation was missing. This goes on
to prove that may be with the ever changing passage of time entertainment material
lose their charm and hold over people's minds.
i was a huge fan of this series. Yesterday i watched it again on DVD. I was
apprehensive about whether laughs would come or not? But in a few episodes i was
laughing hysterically and some episodes were good. Acting wise Rakesh Bedi(Raja} &
Satish Shah is brilliant whereas Swaroop Sampat is plain bad but I think she gets
the job done. Maybe a better actress could have been used in place of her. This
series shows what good, clean comedy is. If this series were to air in
the current year I would have given it 9/10. And to think that this series is
almost 25 years old and its comedy is still good. I give it 10/10. I would highly
recommend this series for watching on DVD.
This is a magnificent, and in many ways impressive film. I saw it on TV as a little
boy, with my throat almost strangled with tears, and again today on the
magnificently restored Criterion DVD. Cranes is the very essence of the
War Weepie. Imagine Umbrellas of Cherbourg with no music and no color, or Waterloo
Bridge with no class consciousness. Tatiana Samoilova, a cross between
Vivien Leigh and Bjork, is deeply affecting as a pretty girl whose fiancé enlists
and doesn't write or come back. The fiancé, Boris, dies on the front,
and his death scene is indescribably romantic. Very daring too, because so close to
"over the top." But that scene will stay with you. Although the Soviets
were so defined by WWII, the movie is quite unspecific, and more powerful for it.
The pre-war and post-war scenes have a very 1957 feel. There is no attempt at
period detail. The whole film becomes more and more stylized, until the Siberian
scenes, which feel like a modern opera set (that is a compliment). The cathartic
final scene is milked to its last drop - there again, comparable to Cherbourg. The
production feels like a big budget (those staircase scenes must have cost a pretty
kopek). Go for it. Don't expect a bitter socialist pill (although it is,
of course, very sad). The Cranes are Flying is an impressive slice of world cinema,
quite advanced considering where and when it was made.
I saw this title again on Shemaroo. I also asked my nephew who was 17 to watch the
same with me. I am 35 and he is 17. He liked it and I did too. It still is funny, a
little childish a times but still very clean entertainment. Satish Shah is
hilarious in multiple roles. This sitcom would still fare better than many of the
recent serials on TV. But obviously some people obviously like mundane fares that
come out today. It would have been nice that Shafi Inamdar would have continued for
all the seasons. He is no longer alive today. I would wish if someone could list
all the episodes here. WHo can forget the lines "Yeh Kya Ho Raha HAi"
"What a relief" "Kaat Daalu Boss" "Vyavhaar hai Vyavhaar" "30 Years Ka Experience
hai" and the title track Yeh Jo hai Zindagi, teaching us to live the
life as it comes and take enjoyment out of it. The life of common people. I still like this sitcom. it may not seem as funny at times but certain
episodes are still hilarious.
One of the best sitcoms to run on Indian television along with Dekh bhai dekh and
Idhar udhar. Great acting, well paced and an extremely amusing script made this a
truly memorable series. The fun filled opening montage (sung by none other than the
inimitable Kishore Kumar)gave a very accurate picture of what one could expect. I
used to borrow it from my local video library years after Doordarshan had stopped
airing it. I wish Indian television would revert back to serials such as these
rather than the asinine saas-bahu soaps and reality television which is all its
good for these days. Anyone who's found of genuinely good comedy ought to go and
get this series. You'll might also enjoy a couple of Pakistani sitcoms such as ups
and downs and aik aur aik which are certainly comparable to India's best.
I am a firm believer that a film, TV serial or any form of art should and would be
fully appreciated once the timing factor- as to when written, produced or
conceived-should be taken in to account. Yeh Jo hai Zindagi is one such
series. I remember watching it in the mid-80's on TV and the re-runs via the video
cassette libraries during early 90's. and laughing out loud and being addicted to
it. That made me buy the full series DVD set and surprise of surprises- the comedy
and the moments of the good 'ol days simply fell flat for me. Even the very popular
"30 years ka experience" "GULAAAAB JAMUN!" and "Sofa cum bed" did not invoke the
kind of mirth I thought it would. The timing factor: for the 80's, this was the
showstopper. The main event. The mother of all TV comedies. And it worked during
the age and time! Perhaps the same cannot be said right now, but nonetheless,
watching the DVD did bring back pleasant memories. I wish the seasons
with Shafi Inamdar and Swarup Sampat were longer. Satish Shah has been un-
believably good as the heart of the show, with equally effective support cast of
Farida Jalal, Tiku Talsania and the bengali neighbours. Rakesh Bedi hams
throughout. All in all, an experience that will bring back memories for
those who saw it during the prime times, might not appeal to the younger viewers or
first time watchers!
It's taken years for cult icon Bruce Campbell to get this project off the ground -
but he finally has, it's here - and what a great piece of schlock entertainment it
is! Looking at the plot; it sounds like two things. A great base for a very silly
B-movie, and a shameless excuse for Bruce Campbell to what he does best - Evil Dead
II style slapstick humour, and this film delivers on both counts. The Man With the
Screaming Brain is comic book nonsense all the way through - but there's some
really great scenes, and it's almost impossible to be bored with this movie. Bruce
Campbell wrote, directs, produces and stars in this film - and while it's not quite
Citizen Kane, it has to be said that this is an achievement for the man most famous
for battling off his own hand in a woodland cabin. The plot follows American
businessman William Cole on a business trip to Bulgaria with his girlfriend. The
trip goes awry, however, when he, his girlfriend and his taxi driver end up dead;
thanks to the same woman. Mad scientist Stacy Keach is on hand to merge Cole and
the taxi driver's brains into one; and we've got a cult flick on our hands. The first half hour or so is entertaining and features a few laughs; but
once the main plot point has been executed; the movie really picks up. Bruce makes
best use of the scenario in all kinds of silly situations, from changing his
clothes in a waste bin, to deciding (with the taxi driver in his brain) what to eat
in a restaurant. The humour is mostly of the slapstick variety, and anyone who
enjoyed Evil Dead II (which should be anyone who's seen it), will no doubt enjoy
this too. It does feel like Campbell is playing to his strengths a little bit too
much with this whole project, but if you tuned in and DIDN'T see Bruce doing what
he does best, disappointment would ensue. Besides that, no disrespect to the man;
but he's never been the actor with the greatest range. Despite being lots of fun;
the movie isn't great, as it gets a little bit too silly at times; and there's a
whole sub-plot with a robot that I didn't like; but overall, The Man With the
Screaming Brain is a film that we, sadly, don't see too much of nowadays. The film
is an all-out, no holds barred, B-movie; and it deserves respect for that if
nothing else.
Now, the sci-fi channel original company has made some pretty crappy films (House
of the dead 2, All souls day, etc.) but when you leave the job entirely to horror
master actor/writer and now director, Bruce Campbell, you get one of the best damn
made for TV independent horror films ever made! I normally hate these movies, in my
previous review, House of the dead 2, I could not believe how horrible the film
was! But somehow I took a liking for this film, a very good liking for this film.
The violence is good and so is the black comedy in the film and I recommend you get
it, a true Bruce Campbell masterpiece! Well, since there is only a few more lines
left I can say whatever I want about this movie: IJAJKASIF JHJDJ NXD FNEHSD
FHNCFNFVHS DJKEALJWSNS.UHHD SISHSNHF AHCNAKDJH HNDCHJNDNH JACND HCHJNNHW JHJ
NASHDNFHCKA FHNKHAD SAKASDADJ FJKDFA
Its really been a long time since the last time somebody created a movie such as
like this on. A so called B movie. Maybe it was not a great movie, but it is fun to
watch, classic Bruce Cambell, it has its Good parts, funny ones, Disgusting ones,
even artistic ones. ******Spoiler Ahead******* ----------------------- ---------------------------------
--------------------------- ------------- The part where his wife as a
dummy-robot-avenger is about to die, I don't know about you, but it made me feel so
weird, so sad and disgusted in a good way. I compare this scene with the scene form
the Fly 2 where his dog as a monster dies. Makes you think oh my god. ---------------- ---------------------------------------------
------------------------------ -------------------------- ********No
more Spoilers********* If you are a Bruce Cambell fan, you definitely
wanna have this movie in your collection. If you are generally interested in
movies, you might wanna. Just think that the movies target is to make you smile,
gross you out(Don't worry not that bad though) and make you have a good time with
your buddies. Attention, I said buddies, not possible future girlfriend.
OK, well, no one in their right mind(s) would pick up a movie titled "The Man with
the Screaming Brain" and expect it to be serious. This is an outrageous b-movie,
and that means a truly hokey plot, strange characters, clichés, over-the-top
action, and oh-so-cheesy one liners. For that odd segment of the population
(including myself) that gets a kick out of that kind of thing, this is a gem. The acting is better than expected. Stacy Keach is embedded in his
character. Bruce Campbell brings a spirited, convincing performance. His physical
comedy skills are truly impressive in this movie and hearken back to the "Evil
Dead" films.
Or if you've seen the "Evil Dead" trilogy and/or "Bubba Ho-Tep", then you should
know that his movies are total farces. With "Man with the Screaming Brain", he goes
all out again. In this case, he plays smarmy American businessman William Cole
visiting Bulgaria - when do we ever get to see that country? - when a woman kills
him. So, strange scientist Ivan Ivanov (Stacy Keach) replaces half of Cole's brain
with the brain of a former KGB agent, leaving him acting sort of like Steve Martin
in "All of Me". Yes, the whole movie is pretty much an excuse for pure
nonsense. Much of the real humor comes from "Evil Dead" director Sam Raimi's
brother Ted as Ivanov's nearly brain-dead assistant Pavel. The two men have a
relationship more like Laurel and Hardy or Gilligan and the Skipper. So
just understand that this is a totally silly movie, and you won't be a bit
disappointed. I liked it, anyway.
an awesome made for the sci-fi channel movie which by far surpasses many of the
poor previous efforts they've churned out. Bruce Campbell is on superb form as a
possible investor who gets caught up in a bizarre experiment led by a delirious
professor,Stacey Keach,and his half-wit assistance,Ted Raimi. The film is pure b
movie gold and its great to see Keach and ram up on screen with Bruce, and the fact
that a lot of the film works purely on Bruce's comic slapstick acting is what make
it hilarious, and makes me ask the question, why isn't this guy getting more of his
scripts commissioned?, it indeed a sick world. Definitely worth a watch.
Man with the Screaming Brain certainly isn't a perfect movie, but I'm pretty sure
it was never meant to be anything more than a star vehicle for Bruce Campbell,
meaning it works as kind of a summary of his entire career: slapstick, sarcasm,
cheese, action, and happy endings. Campbell is, as a writer, uneven--there are lots
of things in the story that don't make a great deal of sense (why does the robot
suddenly have breasts merely because a female brain has been implanted into it?),
and some of the scenes feel like retreads of other, better incarnations (the scene
in the restaurant, where Yegor and William battle for control of William's body, is
straight out of Evil Dead II). There are, however, lots of little touches and non-
sequiturs that feel rather brilliant, such as when William is in the height of his
panic and screams at a statue, "What are you looking at?!" The movie looks like a
Sci-Fi Channel original, probably because it was. The acting is actually pretty
good. I particularly enjoyed Tamara Gorski as Tatoya; she was ruthless and cunning,
yes, but seemed to have a tragic air about her in certain moments that the story
never explored. Ted Raimi handled the standard "bumbling assistant" role admirably
enough, and Bruce is funny as the arrogant, sardonic, condescending American jerk.
(Now that he's writing his own films, you'd think he'd give himself a role that he
hasn't been typecast in already.) Man with the Screaming Brain is a bizarre,
nonsensical B-movie that ought to be enjoyable for anybody who can avoid taking a
cinematic experience too seriously.
I'm out of words to describe the beauty of "The Cranes are Flying", but I'll try
anyway to write about it. It's a powerful and delicate love story that takes its
place in the Second World War. It's the classic story of lovers (Boris & Veronika)
separated by the war and of what comes between them. The film's images are so
gorgeous, that you'll be carried away - the film technique is in perfect unison
with the emotion. There are few scenes that portray directly the war: A
bombing - wind, lightnings, explosions - that will have important consequences in
the life of the main protagonist, Veronika, who waits for the return of Boris; and
there's another scene on the front, where we we will be confronted by a
emotional/visual hurricane showing the images played in Boris' mind. Another scene
works as the leitmotif of the film and provides its title - the cranes flying in
the sky. This image stands as a the symbol for Nature and its seasons and
underlines the final message of the film: Not to give up hope and fight for a
better future. Kalatozov is a great director, this film is visually
stunning and it also touched me deeply. It is not just pure technique. Tatyana Samojlova is perfect as Veronika. What more can I say? The film
transcends the time it was made - the action takes place during the Second World
War. But it could have happened anytime, anywhere. As long there are wars (great or
small) the film and its message will remain relevant.
(Some Spoilers) It took some 19 years for Bruce Campbell to finally put his
masterpiece " Man with the Screaming Brain" on the screen. But Campbell had to
alter his story by having it, due to financial problems, take place in Sofia
Bulgaria not where he initially wanted it to be filmed in Los Angeles
California. In the film Burce Campbell plays US pharmaceutical tycoon
Willian Cole who travels together with his spoiled rotten wife Jackie, Antoinette
Byron,to the former Communist Republic of Bulgaria. It's there that William wants
to help finance Bulgaria's almost non-existent mass transportation system. It's poor William's misfortune to get involved with both Gypsy woman Tatoya,
Tamara Gorski, and her ex-boyfriend Yegor, Valdimir Kolev, an ex-KGB taxi driver.
The two, William & Yegor, will unwittingly end up shearing their brains, inside
William's skull,because of Tatoya's jealousy and vindictiveness. After
Tatoya murders both William and Yegor their bodies are delivered to mad scientist
Dr. Ivan Ivanowitch Ivanov, Stacy Keach, by his loyal assistant Pavel, Ted Raimi,
to have their brains experimented with. Dr. Ivanov has this theory in that two
heads are better then one. And now with the material, William & Yegor, available to
him Dr. Ivanov at last is finally going to prove it. What Dr. Ivanov is going to
sadly find out is that by fusing the two heads, or brains, together their brain
waves will overlap and cause them to not only malfunction but turn against each
other! William with Yegor's right lobe fused into his damaged brain is
out to find Tatoya and make her pay for the damage she caused both him and Yegor.
Yegor for his part is stuck in William's head who's likes and dislikes, in both
food and drink, are totally opposite to his own. This causes a lot of tension and
hostility between the two brains in them fighting for control of William's body! Things get even more screwed up when Jackie finding out that Tatoya
murdered her husband William confront her in the dangerous and high crime section
of Bravoda call Gypsy Town and ends up being murdered herself. Brought back to Dr.
Ivanov by his assistant Pavel it's determined, with no body available,to plant
Jackie's brain inside of an experimental robot that Pavel's been working on. The
operation is a rousing success but the only drawback is that Jackie, with her brain
inside the robot, has to have her brain recharged every few hours! Or, like a real
brain lacking oxygen, she'll die together with the robot's batteries. Combination 1930's-like screw-ball comedy and horror flick with both William &
Yegor turning the Bulgarian town of Bravoda upside down in trying to find Tatoya
and make her pay, with her life, for the sad state of existence she put them both
into. ***SPOILER ALERT*** It's Dr. Ivanov who in fact saves the day by
discovering how to keep the two brains from fighting, and thus cooperating, with
each other! This is done by him instead of fusing the brains together Dr. Ivanov
keep them independent by implanting a neutralizing cell wall in between the two
uncooperative globs of gray matter.
Normally, I do not review online, but it's Saturday and I'm trapped in my room, on
a rainy day with nothing to do but watch sci-fi movies and Xena: Warrior Princess
(I can't get the damned 'Joxer the Mighty' song out of my head, it's been there for
the past ten years or so, just pops up randomly when someone(me) does something
idiotic). If you have any complaints about this movie, and actually post them on
the internet, do you have ANY idea how much of an idiot you look like? If you
expect more out of Bruce Campbell than what he puts out (in the most literal sense)
than why in G-d's holy name do you watch his movies? No one watches a Bruce
Campbell movie when they want to see something genius and intelligible, we watch
them so we feel better about ourselves (like those people who watch Jerry Springer
and eat Chunky Monkey), and to be easily entertained by mindless psycho-babble. I,
personally, love Bruce Campbell movies. I'm not a complete idiot, in fact, I see
myself as an intellectual and a scholar(haha, shut up, Ally). His movies reflect
insane, random, quirky, ridiculous ideals which anyone with a brain, screaming or
no, can enjoy. That, and he was kind of sexy on Xena: Warrior Princess, even with
the facial hair. I rate this movie an excellent 10, just because I can. If you
can't take simplistic plot-schemes (if any), hot babes in sci-fi splendor(leather,
spandex), and familiar if not exhausted views of insanity, then fer cryin' out
loud, don't watch the movie(or any that so much as mention the name Bruce
Campbell). Oh yeah, Ted Raimi was awesome in this movie! Way to go Ted! You did the
best with what you had. ;|
I haven't seen so many people packed outside a theater since Star Wars Episode III.
Both shows sold out, and for good reason. The Man With the Screaming Brain was the
best movie to see with a crowd full of geeks. (Hey, I'm a dork too.) Bruce Campbell was present and had the whole crowd in stitches! The movie was
cheesy in the best possible way. It may be the funniest movie that Bruce has done.
Ted Raimi steals the show with his Bulgarian hip hop-itude and zany facial
expressions, he is a laugh riot! Who knew that Ted could rap? I changed
my mind, the person who stole the show was actually a robot. There is nothing
funnier than a robot...doing the robot. As for Bruce's performance: "I
take the 5th." Thanks Bruce. Thanks for being cool, thanks for taking the time,
thanks for all of the fun.
I saw this last week during Bruce Campbell's book tour. I thought it was amazing.
Almost everything I would expect from a Bruce Campbell sci-fi movie. Its campy and
very funny. Ted Raimi was also hilarious and extremely goofy. The plot is wacky, an
American business man goes to Bulgaria and is killed. Stacy Keach plays a mad
scientist who saves/brings Bruce Campbell back to life by implanting half of the
brain of an ex-KGB turned cabbie. Bruce Campbell spends the rest of the film trying
to avenge his death and has many internal arguments between himself and the KGB
agent. The movie has all the great Bruce Campbell slap stick and humor. The movie
is somewhat predictable, I knew once the wife was killed that she would be sharing
a brain with her killer. However I didn't go to see this movie because I thought it
would have an Oscar winning script, I went to see it because it was a Bruce
Campbell sci-fi movie and I was not disappointed in the least. I highly recommend
that you go see him on his book tour or wait and watch it on the sci-fi channel
next month. Although before the movie he said the Sci-Fi channel did cut some of
the movie out to make it TV friendly. If you are a fan of Bruce, I highly recommend
it.
This was a funny movie. Just having seeing the Evil Dead trilogy not a week ago
(and left wanting for more), I got as many Bruce Campbell movies as I could,
including really bad ones. This one is funny, without being exceptional, but as
sure as hell original. I mean you've got mad scientists, superhuman
cyborgs, half brain freaks, gypsies, ex KGB cab drivers, jealousy, murders of
passion, love, romance, sex, action and what more, all with the same 6 actors :) You really have to see it and enjoy it, I can't explain it in a text box. I
guess it is not so much a cult movie as Evil Dead was, but it certainly has that
Bruce Campbell touch I love. Ted Raimi lends a hand, Tamara Gorski looks both
beautiful and interesting (she has gone a long way from the hooker in Friday the
13th) and Vladimir Kolev also shows a lot of promise as an actor, although he will
probably be cast as secondary character in Hollywood movies his entire
career. Bottom line: funny movie. If you liked Evil Dead you'll like
this, too.
Ah, classic comedy. At the point in the movie where brains get messed together, a
two minute scene with Bruce Campbell beating himself up partially, reminds me of
how simplistic movies and ideas can grab you and wrap you into a whole movie. For years and years, Bruce Campbell knows what kind of movies we want out
of him. We want to see weird movies like Bubba Ho Tep. We want to see cameo roles
in Sam Raimi movies, and we want to see 'Man with the Screaming Brain'. With the
title alone, one knows that it's going to border that completely silly type of
movie, like Army of Darkness, only with more silly and less monsters. The idea of the movie is simple. Bruce sees doctor. Doctor has new idea. Bruce
gets bad things happen to him on way to see doctor. Coincidentally, it's the thing
the doctor wanted to show him that saves him. Hilarity ensues. With the
addition of Ted Raimi as a weird Russian guy, and journeyman Stacy Keach as Dr.
Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov, it's funny, that does this movie. Complete funny. Never a
point of scary. If you like the silly Bruce Campbell, you'll like this.
Then again, why would you be watching this if you didn't like Bruce Campbell?
This is screamingly funny (well, except when Bruce is in the hospital scene, which
is a little sad). Ted Raimi and Stacy Keach are both excellent and
worth watching. Sure, it's not a big budget-suit controlled blockbuster,
but it's everything it promises to be and more- and BTW- the women are wonderful in
their parts, though I don't know them from other movies, I'd welcome seeing them
again. The two-brain walking scene is inspired and certainly a showcase
for Bruce's outstanding physical comedy- he is one yummy guy! Thanks
Bruce, for your brain, this is your baby!
Okay, so I love silly movies. If you enjoy silly sci-fi movies, over the top
movies, or if you are a fan of Mr. Bruce Campbell, i would go see this movie. This
movie is all that i wanted it to be. Being a fan of over the top movies, this fit
the bill. Every time i thought to myself "this movie would be the sillest, best
movie ever if *blank* would happen...." then just as i thought it, *blank* would
happen. It's a wonderful silly 'b'-movie. If you are a fan of Campbell i'd say 'see
it', bring your friends, laugh at it. It's fun. It's not classic, or anything, but
if it's on TV some night, watch it. It has become, for me, a movie i would file
under "indulgent movies". Movies that may not be good, but after a hard day of
work, i could come home and watch, (this list also includes 'harold and kumar go to
white castle', 'army of darkness', and ' Intolerable Cruelty' ) If you
feel like a over the top, wonderfully slightly bad movie, watch this. if not, go
rent "Bubba Ho-tep"
I saw it last night and I was laughing out loud for the whole second half of the
movie. The whole audience was. Bruce Campbell has made a damn funny movie! I don't
want to give anything away, but when the film turns and gets wacky, it gets really
wacky. Just one funny scene after another. My hats of to Mr. Campbell and crew for
pulling this off on such a tiny budget. Bruce was there to introduce the film and
do a Q and A, which was a treat. A lot of the questions people were asking were
pretty lame, but Bruce would turn it around on them and be all sarcastic. He was
great! Anyway, loved the film. I'll be looking forward to seeing this on DVD later
this year. B sure to check it out on the Sci-Fi channel this fall. I highly
recommend this one.
These are the kinds of movies I loved, and still love growing up. Unlike big budget
movies that crate huge plot holes and never acknowledge them. This movie takes in
all in stride and just makes something you can sit back and enjoy. There
was some film student earlier that complained it wasn't A list material. But that
is not the point. The point of this movie is that no everyone likes huge CGI
Cliché' filled movies. There are a lot of people who like movies that are meant to
just entertain you, and not get as much money as they can. Besides, its
also nice to know that good ol' Bruce isn't dead yet.
Sick of the current cinema output, particularly American cinema, I've been making
an effort to see the Oscar-winning foreign films. That's when I came across this
gem. Slow to start, it picks up nicely once war is declared. Basically an old
fashioned girl-waits-for-boy-to-return-from-war-story, the performances, the
cinematography make this so very much more. Why Tatyana Samojlova as the young
woman didn't become an international star after this is beyond me(though she has
remained successful in her own country). You take the journey with her: young,
defiant impetuous young girl, who, through the ravages of war becomes a very sober,
somber woman who keeps a glimmer of hope (her final scene is devastating). We love
her as much as the camera does. And the camera-work! Was this the pioneer in hand-
held camera work? It truly adds an immediacy to the story. And the beauty of it
(like when Tatyana's character is running up stairs and next to a slatted fence). I
am humbled and grateful to see this film.
Shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, The Man With The Screaming Brain is a
hilarious love story between two rich ugly-American types and a murderous hotel
maid gypsy. William Cole and his wife Jackie arrive in Bulgaria on a
business trip and catch a cab driven by hustler Yegor. Things start to go awry when
Tatoya, the maid, murders Yegor and William and a mad scientist implants a piece of
Yegor's brain in William's head. Robots eventually become involved, as do gypsies
with broken fingers, head injuries, Bruce Campbell riding a pink Vespa with prissy
little streamers, and All-Of-Me-style physical comedy by a character at war with a
voice in his brain who controls half of his body. The Man With The
Screaming Brain is an incredibly funny film. It has the most hilarious tracking
shot I have ever seen (when Bruce Campbell's character, fresh from the lab and
complete with giant forehead scar and blue hospital pajamas, runs into a square and
scares a crowd of people) and a falling-down-the-steps murder scene that had the
entire test screening audience screaming laughing. The whole thing is a damn riot
from beginning to end and I would recommend it to any fan of physical comedy, Bruce
Campbell, or B-movies in general.
I went to see this movie at a book signing in Lexington, Ky last night. After a
wonderful night that consisted of a few brief words with Mr. Bruce Campbell (you
have to say it all, not just Bruce or Mr. Campbell ;D), friends while the books
were being signed, and a QnA session with our favorite deadite killer the lights
dimmed. So as not to spoil anything, I wont go into detail...but I loved
the movie! Mr. Bruce Campbell did a wonderful job keeping the classic b-movie feel.
The characters were classic 'b' characters, the place was refreshing (what movies
do *you* know of that are based in Bulgaria?) and the setting was both near-
original and fun! On top of that the humor that is portioned throughout the movie
that kept the audience laughing through much of the movie. While this
movie dosen't have as great of a general appeal to people as some, it is a beacon
of fun and laughter in a season of (as Mr. Bruce Campbell put it) 'b-movies' that
are listed as 'a-movies' (Bewitched, Dukes of Hazard, Charlie and the Chocolate
factory? Come on guys!).
I don't know what some people were thinking when they said this movie was bad. It
Was Great. Classic Bruce Campbell, yes it was low budget and the special effect
showed this but that is not what you see a Bruce movie for you watch it for Bruce.
Also Ted Rami was excellent. I found this movie hilarious and entertaining I still
crack up when I recall Bruce on that pink moped. Now I will admit this movie is not
for everyone if you don't like B movies you probably won't like this one if you
crave big budget effects and actors steer clear. But if you like slap stick and off
the wall sci-fi plots this movie is for you. Hail The King Baby!
I was fortunate enough to catch a midnight screening of this movie tonight. I must
say, I was expecting a horribly cheap movie with bad acting and a mediocre plot. I
was completely mistaken. This movie was not only incredibly entertaining, but
everything about it I simply loved. Bruce Campbell was as amazing as ever. The
biggest surprise was none other than Ted Raimi, you know, Sam's little brother. He
played the mad doctor's henchman to the greatest extent. Somewhere between physical
comedy and clever dialogue, he did nothing but shine. But i really cannot ignore
the magic that is Bruce Campbell. Though I did think that Ted Raimi stole the show,
Bruce did what he does best on the big screen. Somewhere between the sketchy nasty
American business man and the tragic victim, he displayed the same energy that he
has always shown to be incredibly attractive to audiences. The movie itself was
often interrupted by applause from the viewers. The crowd was definitely excited
with each little turn that the movie took. This movie may not be Oscar
material, but my goodness, it was amazing. I would highly recommend this to any
Bruce Campbell fan. Also, anybody that likes campy sci-fi movies, do yourself a
favor and watch this. Can't wait till this makes it out to DVD. Take it
as you want to.... - the fed
I find this film meretricious, tentative, lethargic, and skillfully a bad choice of
entertainment on celluloid. But I admire the courage to throw away a script, turn
the camera on, and act a fool. I find the inauspiciously performances, lighting,
cinematography, sound, and whatever film school laws D' Urville Martin broke funny.
Speaking from a film directors perspective there is times I just want to drop
everything and have fun on the set. This film looks like fun. When other aspiring
film directors ask me advice I just tell them to watch any film by Rudy Ray Moore.
They always return a puzzled look asking me why not watch the masters Woody Allen,
Scorsese, Lucas, Capra? I laugh and include that you always want to know what not
to do in cinematic story telling first.
If you watch this movie you'll be quoting it and referring to it for a long time to
come. It's been years since I saw Dolemite and I still quote it to this day. It's a
true classic. It is so mind-numbingly awful that it makes a hilarious view. Every
terrible line of dialogue is totally amazing. Every wobbly shot a work of art(?).
And every punch and kick so woefully executed. You won't believe your eyes. It's
all I can say. If I really get into how mesmerizing this movie is I won't be able
to stop and I'll go way over the IMDb 1000-word limit. Please, please
watch this movie. You'll be in hysterics. Either 1/10 or 10/10, depending on your
sense of humor.
This movie is funny in more ways than one. It's got action. It's got humour. It's
got attitude. It's got Dolemite's all girl army of kung-fu hos! And that's just
what the movie offers as a film. It's also badly acted by some, the mic makes more
than one cameo appearance, and some "punches" miss by feet. But when you make a
movie this cool, who's got time to pay attention to those "details"? This movie
rocks. Rent it tonight, if you can find it... I had to buy it to see it, but I
don't regret it!
The best so-bad-it's-good movie ever made. Rudy Ray Moore is my personal hero.
Whether dealing with day to day life or pimping ho's down the block, I can always
look to him for inspiration and guidance. When it comes to blaxploitation, Rudy's
the man. Nobody is meaner. Watch Dolemite as he and his army of all-female kung fu
killers take down Mr. Big and Willie Green. Awesome plot, huh? There are so many
one-liners that multiple viewings are necessary to improve your vocabulary. If you
say a couple of lines from Dolemite, you are instantly cool. If you are in the mood
for a laugh riot, rent this movie. Also check out The Human Tornado, Disco
Godfather, and Petey Wheatstraw the Devil's Son-In-Law. Now, can you dig that?
 "You no business barring, insecure, rat soup-eating, motha!!'"
Yes, this is one of the greats of the black action genre. Confusing mixture of
racist comedy and racist violence (at times reaching a disturbing pitch, even for a
fan of the genre) this movie isn't your Shaft in the park. Wonderful bits of Rudy
Ray Moore comedy stand up that don't seem funny, at least not to a white boy like
me, but great in context. Much better than its dissimilar sequel, "The Human
Tornado"
Anybody interested what black film making was like in the 70's watch this film.
Some the dialog in this film is so funny IE the summary of my submission. Also
watch out for the boom mic to show up in some of the scenes as well as some of the
best karate action ever. Don't take this movie seriously or you will be
disappointed, go into it with an open mind and step into the world of one the the
baddest mutha in the world Dolemite!!! Editing wise its put together like it was
sliced with a razor but once again this film is so much more than what you see in
the movie it has influenced the black community in ways you cant understand!!!
This is a fantastic film. The acting is some of the best I've seen. Tatyana
Samojlova is obviously very beautiful, and she automatically draws you into the
film with her believable acting. The The cinematography was extremely ahead of its
time. Watching it, I could see parallels of cinematography used today. This is
truly a groundbreaking film. Because of the cinematography and acting, the audience
can feel the change in tone from beginning to end as the tone in the environment in
the movie changes. It's a very touching and powerful piece. My friend told me it
was must see, and I definitely agree with her. This is one of those films that you
watch and never forget. Everyone should see this intensely moving film. This should
be put on everyone's "Movies to See Before ________ (whatever)" list.
"The Dresser" is perhaps the most refined of backstage films. The film is brimming
with wit and spirit, for the most part provided by the "energetic" character of
Norman (Tom Courtenay). Although his character is clearly gay, and certainly has an
attraction for the lead performer (Albert Finney) that he assists, the film never
dwells on it or makes it more than it is. The gritty style of Peter
Yates that worked so well in "Bullitt" is again on display, and gives the film a
sense of realism and coherence. This is much appreciated in a story that could so
easily have become tedious. In the end, "The Dresser" will bore many people silly,
but it will truly be a delight to those who love British cinema. 7.7 out
of 10
The various Law & Order and CSI franchises had better be glad Dolomite doesn't pass
through. The lady cops,ADAs,and coroners would all be enthralled and the males be
subject to such soul shivering,badge melting warp speed kicks ( Wouldn't you just
love to see David Caruso's Horatio and that know it all on CSI get Dolomite's Hush
Puppies pulled from their respective asses)Ice T might start crying and get back on
the Playa Trail. Low low budget,bad but enthusiastic acting,and a vision
at what gutbucket nightclubs offered to its patrons;funk bands soul singers,the
last vestiges of old style Chitlin Circuit entertainers( that weirdling dance
troupe)James Brown,Wilson Pickett,Otis Redding,and a host of others came from those
clubs to glory, while their peers labored on in local or regional stardom. Rudy Ray
Moore came from that background and the character of Dolomite is a mix of the bold
Black badasses who strutted through. He shouldn't have went to the joint, the swine
didn't have a warrant, how his middle aged ,blubbery self maintained a loyal stable
of kung fu wenches is a mystery only a student of cults can explain, but all that
is beside the point. It's a glorious home movie of a legendary performer that
compared to the mirrors of actors ranging from Established Hollywood to indie film
snorefests,hits its mark. A fun dumb movie!
This movie is all about blaxploitation, there is absolutely no plot at all. A pimp
stops some bad guys with his kung fu hoes to try to get his nightclub back. Rated R
for Strong Language, and a brief sexual situation.
Dolemite may not have been the first black exploitation flick to come along but it
certainly is one of the best. It is a pivotal film in the Black Exploitation genre
as where it caused a dramatic shift between the films that came before it in
contrast to the films that came after it. It wasn't necessarily a poignant or
moving film about black culture and it's fight to overcome issues like racism or
anything as important as that, but it was the story of one bad-assed dude fighting
"whitey" with his army of hot kung-fu mama's. It was a guilty pleasure, great fun
and best to watch it with friends. (10 out of 10)
Dolemite is one of the best movies featuring a pimp as a hero, who takes down the
man, meanwhile hooking up with all the finest women that the ghetto has to provide.
Mind you that these women know karate, and are fine foxy ladies. SPOILER--the end fight scene is pretty crazy, with Dolemite ripping the heart out
of Willy Green. Make sure your copy is unrated. Plus there are a cast
full of innovative brilliant characters like the Hamburger Pimp, Reverend, Mayor,
Queen Bee, and others. The apparel is great, and the sets are full of 70's style.
There are a few mess-ups in the production, such as boom mikes accidentally
appearing, among other things, but that adds to the charm and laughs. I
would recommend drinking a 6-pack before and during this movie, and keeping squares
and the man a far distance away.
Citizen Kane....The Godfather Part II....D'Urville Martin's Dolemite. This is the
single greatest piece of celluloid ever created and unleashed upon humanity. Rudy
Ray Moore, in a role that transcends Academy Awards stars as Dolemite, the baddest
cat in the universe. He clearly does not take any jive from no turkey (I myself am
unfortunately a turkey) and proves it with his powers of rapping, pimping, and
karate chopping. This is blaxploitation at its absolute finest, a shining example
of the genre with its low budget, continuity errors, and hatred for rat-soup eating
honkey expletive expletive. The true Godfather of Rap (not this new Ali nonsense)
Moore is something of a juxtaposition of acting technique; somehow managing to be
the most charismatic awful actor of the 1970's, and thats saying something. This
one is HIGHLY recommended folks, if not for the one-liners alone.
Certainly this film is not for everybody---but for anyone with a sense of humor and
love of period film Ð buy this immediately! Where else can you get a run down of
70Õs fashion, a period vocabulary primer, karate trained hookers, crime, a rap
about the TitanicÕs sinking, shoot outs, and a co-star named Queen Bee (watch for
her moving crying scene early on in the wardens office!) With a filming style
thatÕs a cross between a porno movie/Dawn of The Dead/ and Car Wash, you cannot go
wrong. This is one to watch over and over againÉafter you put the kids to bed.
Of course, seeing a few boom mikes doesn't mean anything, does it? Lord, Rudy Ray
Moore and D'Urville Martin really put this one together didn't they? I laughed a
lot, as often happens in these types of movies, but I don't know what I was
supposed to laugh at because I laughed at so many other things. I am not saying the
movie was bad, but I will say that a little more editing would have done wonders. I
am a huge fan of Blaxploitation, so I don't think that it was horrid, but I know
that "The Human Tornado" was several times better than this. I think that those who
can make it through this movie might need a Colt 45 or two afterward. I mean, it
really helps you to not notice the boom mikes when you watch it again.
Rudy Rae Moore is getting out of prison and getting revenge! Often referred to as
the Godfather of Rap, he should also be the Godfather of great movies. The non-stop
action will keep you on the edge of your seat and will leave you begging for more.
Luckily, Rudy comes back as Dolemite in Human Tornado, so sit back relax, and have
the rewind button ready because you won't believe your eyes!!
Yeah...I read David Lee Roth's autobiography, "Crazy From the Heat," (which by the
way is an amazing read), and DLR says this was his favorite blacksploitation movie
as a kid. In fact, he says he always imagined himself as a black guy in Southern
Cal. Mr Roth is quoted as saying: "We saw every Blacksploitation
picture, and those movies were a HUGE influence on me. Trouble Man, Superfly, Foxy
Brown, Shaft, Cleopatra Jones, Blacula, Rudy Ray Moore doin' his Dolemite vibe-I
saw all of those..." He goes on to say: "Dolemite - Rudy Ray
Moore - was one of the originals. He was a blue comic, doing blue humor. Like Redd
Foxx did on early party records. So he was the most perfect to play a new secret
agent. His answer was not "Bonds. James Bond." His answer was "Dolemite,
motherf*****!" We would wait for that line in all of his movies. "Get Whitey" would
show up in every single movie at least once, and we would wait for that, too. They
had the cars. They had the shoes. They had the guns. The Haircuts. The Slang. And
the scams. And we all knew that all those beatific resolves at the end of the movie
were white bull****. He's trying to feed hungry children but he's actually a
pimp...bull****. That was designed to make it palatable to our moms and dads so
they'd let us go see the picture." Spoken like a true genius. So upon
reading about Dolemite in Mr. Roth's book I immediately bought in on DVD and I
really like it. Yeah, it's super low-budget, and yeah...I hate rap...but as a fan
of Tarantino movies, I can see many similarities, especially some of the 70's
fusion/funk ala-jaco pastorius music throughout the film. I also love the scene
where the two cops 'bust' him for coke and then one of them snorts a whole bunch of
it like he'd done it a thousand times before, and says something like, "Aww
yeah....that's the real mccoy!"...and then he continues to talk and has a little
bit of coke still on his lip. CLASSIC! Some of the violence is a little over the
edge, but shocking, which I would consider to be a positive quality. Not as
predictable as I assumed it would be. Definitely going to pick up "The Human
Tornado" very soon. 10 out of 10.
Dolemite is awesome. Rudy Ray Moore's rhymin kung fu pimp with horrible
choreographed action sequences is about as close as you can get to becoming a spoof
of a genre without actually being spoof. Citizen Kane this may not be nor Les
Infant Au Revoir, but this is undoubtedly genius in it's own right. The production
values in this movie are so bad they could qualify as existential special effects.
The plot drags a little in the middle but the power of such a cheap premise as kung
fu hookers is enough to bring all but the snootiest film lovers through. The
infamous ever present boom mike evokes shades of the gloriously incompetent Ed Wood
and never grows unfunny. I sometimes wonder if the boom mike was left in on purpose
as commentary on the ridiculous aspects of movies in general but i usually get
distracted by erotic scenes that lack eroticism to the point of high art
mundanacity. Everything is this movie is alive and breathing, dripping with
desperate longing to be simultaneously loved and reviled. It works. 9
out of 10
Fabulous cinematography from Sergei Urusevsky help to make this a stunning piece of
work. The opening scenes are as if one is leafing through some master
photographer's album and as the story begins to unfold we are swept away with both
the events depicted and the beautiful look. All is well shot but there are several
whole sequences that are simply breathtaking. Difficult to describe without
'spoiling' but suffice to say one is a very intense scene during an air raid and
the lady left behind and her lover's brother are at odds as the sirens whine and
the windows shatter. Another superimposes a swirling staircase and a spinning shot
of tree tops and even develops into a fantasy sequence. Soviet film making of the
highest order.
Dolemite is a blaxploitation film about, well, Dolemite and his army of kung fu
killer women, led by Queen Bee. He fights to get his club, The Total Experience,
back from Willie Green by utilizing their kung fu abilities and their devotion to
him. I liked this movie because of the witty dialogue and also the use of Rudy Ray
Moore's ability to preach to his brothers in rhyme.
A blaxploitation classic, this movie was terribly influential in rap music for the
"toasts" that Rudy Ray Moore performs. Toasts are long rhyming stories that are
funny and deliver a point, and you can see how they would naturally evolve into
rap. For more on toasts, Rudy Ray Moore, and why this movie is important, go to
Dolemite.com. Which leaves us just to talk about the movie itself. This
movie packs in a great deal of "laugh-at-the-funny-outfits-and-hairstyles" bang for
the buck, as nearly every shot has some sort of outrageous element or dialogue. It
starts as Dolemite is being released from prison in order to find out who framed
him and bring him to justice. I was unaware that prisons release people so they can
prove their own innocence, but that's me, I'm a neophyte in the prison scene. He is
helped in this by Queen Bee, who is Dolemite's lead prostitute and has been running
his brothel while he's been gone. She has also put all of his prostitutes through
karate school, so now he has an army of female karate fighters. I
watched this movie in two parts, which is usually a mistake, but in this case it
provided an interesting contrast. The first part I watched on my lunch break while
exercising, and wasn't enjoying it much at all. It struck me as particularly poorly
made blaxploitation, with a ludicrous story, shoddy craftsmanshipwell, I guess
that makes it sound like it had SOME craftsmanshipand tons of outrageous locales,
outfits and dialogue. But I wasn't enjoying thatin fact, it kind of made me feel
dirty. Let's face it, a white guy watching something like this to laugh at the
outfits and the things the characters say is essentially getting an enjoyment out
of it that is racist: how ridiculously those black people dress, what silly things
they say. I wasn't really enjoying it, wasn't laughing, and wasn't looking forward
to watching the rest. Later that night, when I was in a "much more
relaxed state," I watched the restand legitimately loved it. Like Disco Godfather,
which I had watched a few days previously, this has a warmth and sweetness at its
core that makes it likable even when it's silly or violent. The character of
Dolemite has an element of self-parody about him that makes the whole thing fun,
and the appearance of several actors who were also in Disco Godfather implies that
we're watching the group effort of a bunch of friends who just want to make
something fun together. Even the poor dubbing, karate fights, and everything else
just makes it that much more charming. What I find interesting about the
Dolemite films is that they have some moral ambiguity I don't see in other
blaxploitation films, and certainly in very few mainstream films. In this one,
there is an African-American woman who gives a speech about the (white) Mayor,
saying "he has done more for the black community than anyone." We later find out
that the Mayor is, surprise, corrupt, but I like that the movie would present this
woman as essentially misguided and not try to "redeem" her in some other way.
There's also the figure of the Hamburger Pimp, who is presented as a useless
junkie, and no one makes an effort to find some redeeming, socially positive angle
to what he is, he just is. In Disco Godfather the religious character Lady Reed
plays is presented as just nuts for wanting to pray for her child, hopelessly lost
to angel dust. I like that the films would present such harshly critical portrayals
of people in their own community without sugar-coating or trying to redeem them to
make them more palatable. There are a lot of hootworthy elements, such
as when Dolemite says "Move over and let me pass, or I'm gonna be pulling these
Hush Puppies out your muthatf** a**." There is Queen Bee reaching over and
answering the phone: "Dolemite's Total Experience." And you will not be able to
miss (though you may wish to cover your eyes) the extended nude scene by the
REPULSIVE Mayor. I am all for mustachioed pervy older men, but even I have limits-
and my limits are usually a few miles past most people's, so be warned. The DVD I
had is clearly edited, which is noticeable in certain of the dialogue scenes, and
at the end, when Dolemite's killing of a major character with his bare hands
obviously excludes the main event. If you do get the DVD, however, be
sure to watch all three trailers for the Dolemite films, as they are a hoot. I
wasn't going to watch The Human Tornado, but after seeing that trailer, you'd
better BELIEVE that I am. Also, there is a scene in the Dolemite trailer that I
don't remember from the movie when Dolemite swings at a Mexican-looking thug,
obviously misses, and the guy flips himself into a nearby car trunk. After watching the first half, I was going to say to skip this and watch Disco
Godfather, as the film-making and story has marginally improved, but after really
enjoying the second half, I would advise watching this one over Disco Godfather, as
this one is even more exuberantly fun, outrageous, and good-naturedand has those
toasts which, even if one doesn't understand the roots and nuances of the form, are
still something to see. --- Check out other reviews on my website of bad
and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com
Being a bit of a connoisseur of garbage, I have stumbled across this little
treasure. Action, romance, crooked cops, violence. Its all here and not a single
one has been pulled of right. I was in love immediately. Then, a funny thing
happened about the second time around. I became addicted. I thought it was going to
be a one rent and chuckle kind-of-movie. Rudy Ray Moore knew what he
wanted to see in a movie. He didn't have the money to make it look good, but he did
it anyway. That's very commendable. It also shows he was making the movie for his
self. I don't know how many of you have heard Rudy Ray's music, but if you haven't
he has a whole slew of albums reaching into the fifties.
Dolemite is, for me, an object of my deepest affection. It's got everything: a gang
of karate-fighting prostitutes, Dolemite punching his fist through Willie Green's
(director Martin) stomach, high pumps and 100 gallon dalmation-print hats. Moore's
unique comedy raps, actually toasts, are close to the roots of hip hop. No wonder
Dr. Dre mentioned "Dolemite" 3 times on his classic album "The Chronic." Add the
best list of characters to ever grace a movie, like the horny preacher, the
hamburger pimp and, of course, "the one who no one knows until it's time." Credit
should be given for style to director D'Urville Martin, a fella who probly doesn't
get as much attention as he should around film fan circles (I've been looking for a
copy of his and Fred Williamsons' movies from the early 70s for years and can't
find them). A lot of people are really down on this movie and say it's
really bad, and it is true that you can see boom mikes appearing everywhere (look
to DP Nicholas Josef Von Sternberg, for whom I think this was a very early effort),
there are a lot of things going for this movie. Number one, there is no other movie
like it. Number two, you get to see Rudy Ray Moore do a (highly sanitized; everyone
who HASN'T seen Moore's outrageous live act will have to use their imaginations)
cinematic version of his toasts, plus him living the life of his comic book
character superpimp come to life. The action scenes are pretty poor, but the
characters' dialogue when they're talking trash more than makes up for it. It's
full of strange little details (like the fact that the Hamburger Pimp is wearing a
Dolemite T-shirt inside out -- was this intentional or did the guy just pick up
whatever shirt was lying on the set and put it on?) that keep you coming back to
watch it again and again. At least I have. 
Dolelemite (1975) is a cult classic. Starring Rudy Ray Moore as the pimp superhero
out to wrong rights whilst challenging the MAN along the way. He has two enemies,
that no good Willie Green and the sleazy mayor. Watch Dolemite kick, punch, slap
and pimp his way across the screen. What's the man's name? DOLEMITE! Interesting film that paved the way for a generation of rappers and performers.
To sell more of his party albums, Rudy Ray Moore made several on the cheap films
during the seventies. Self produced and marketed he catered towards a specific
audience. Some people call it blacksploitation others call it trash, I call it
entertaining. Dolemite was followed by the semi-sequel The Human Tornado and a
direct to video Return of Dolemite 25 years later. Highly recommended, a
definite cult classic! Footnotes, if the film was properly matted on
video you wouldn't see the boom mikes. Dolemite was cut to receive an R-rating.
What a trip down memory lane. Do not look for great acting, believable
plot lines, or anything resembling a quality movie. This is pure
blaxploitation at it's finest. Outrageous outfits, unrepeatable dialog,
objectification of women, and the sleaziest cops you can imagine. This
vanity piece by the "Godfather of Rap," Rudy Ray Moore, who left us for good last
week is the standard by which all blaxploitation is measured. You not
only see blaxploitation at it's finest, but get glimpses of his comedy genius, and
see why his records were kept under the counter.
This is definitely one of the ultimate cult classics, and is a must see for all
psychotronic fans. Why? It has everything a great 70s exploitation film should
have. Over-the-top dialog, bad acting, enthusiasm, sex, sleaze, political
incorrectness, violence, and many other elements of a good cult classic are
included. In other words, Dolemite is a must-see. As with a lot of these
films, the plot makes little to no sense. What I picked up from it is that pimp-
hustler Dolemite got framed up for having stolen furs and half a million dollars
worth of narcotics. While he was doing time, his arch nemesis Willie Green (the
same man who framed him) took over his nightclub. However, the sympathetic warden
(the only white character in the whole movie that isn't completely evil or
incompetent) decides to spring him free to stop the evil Willie Green and his drug
trafficking. Luckily, he knows kung fu, as does about 50 to 75% of the characters
in this film do. And even more luckily, while he was locked up, the madam Queen Bee
sent all his "hoes" to kung fu school. With this army of kung fu fighting "hoes"
(his words, not mine) on his side, he plans to take back the nightclub from Willie
Green. However, two racist white cops try to frame him up again and have him thrown
back in jail. As I said earlier, don't try to follow the plot. I've seen
this movie about five times and there are many elements that seem to have no
connections to anything else. Supporting characters wander in and out of the film.
I'm still attempting to figure out what was up with Reverend Gibbs, the Mayor, and
the Hamburger Pimp. Who cares ultimately? The scenes with these characters are all
priceless. As for the dialog, its horrible with even worse delivery. Since Rudy Ray
Moore was originally a comedian, I begin to wonder if this film was meant to be a
spoof or a serious action film. It seems he couldn't decide which one. Lines such
as "Yeah, I'm so bad, I kick my own ass twice a day" call for further
investigation. Either way, the film is hilarious, and the plot has more holes than
a swiss cheese factory. Another hilarious element is some of the most unerotic uses
of sex and nudity ever in film. Actors that you would never want to see naked get
naked (including the Mayor and Queen Bee). Not to mention the fact that the boom
mic seems to show up in every other scene. Most of all, Moore shows
incredible enthusiasm. He seems to be having a generally good time and is certainly
charismatic. His comedy raps proved to be a huge influence on latter day gangsta
rap, including Dr. Dre who sampled him on his groundbreaking 1992 album "The
Chronic". As technically inept as the film is, it is culturally influential. Even
more important, it is an all around good time. The biggest crime an exploitation
film can commit is being boring, and this for all its flaws is quickly paced and
entertaining. In other words, if you dig this kind of film, you'll love "Dolemite".
If you don't dig it, you're a "no-business, born-insecure, jock-jawed motha-f***a!"
(7/10)
I saw this movie on TV and loved it! I am a real disaster film fan, and this one
was great. The cast was made of some really interesting people. Connie Selleca is
always great. And William Devane is in a league of his own. He can play both comedy
and thriller in the same movie like few others can. The story line is great too.
The thought of being able to follow a time line of what will happen, and to use
this time line to prevent a global disaster is an interesting idea. And this movie
brings it out in such a way that is almost totally believable.
well-made documentary about a sailing race, sanity and the loss of both. i remembered reading Sir Francis Chichester's account of his trip around
the world when i was in high school as i watched this film. what an adventure that
was. deep water tells an equally fascinating story. it
takes a special person and an excellent sailor to manage a non-stop trip around the
world...alone. this film does a great job of demonstrating that. i love to sail, and my brother races J-30s. but i could never
accomplish such a feat.
This is an excellent documentary about a story I hadn't heard about before. The
first solo, non-stop sailing race around the world took place in 1968-69 and
involved a handful of racers. It's a truly fascinating story about man vs. nature
and man vs. himself. The story focuses on Donald Crowhurst, the tragic figure in
this story. The film elegantly combines interviews with footage which was shot by
the sailors themselves aboard their boats. The story is very suspenseful and sad as
we learn the details behind the history of Donald Crowhurst. This is one of the
best documentaries of the past few years. It has true human emotion in it as the
men face this almost impossible task of navigating the world non-stop on their own.
Director Mikhail Kalatozov's film The Cranes are Flying (Letyat zhuravli) is a
glorious piece of cinema. From the screenplay by Viktor Rozov, based on his own
play, Kalatozov shows us a vision of the heroism of war and the suffering by those
left at home. Inundated with countless war movies showing us the frontlines and the
carnage, the topic itself becomes tedious and avoidable. However, this Russian gem
shows how the tale of hardship can be told in a different way; by telling us,
straight from a soldier's mouth how war is hated by all, that they hope those who
died did so for a cause that will allow for peace and the end of fighting, we see a
new vision of WWII. We have young men volunteering to wage war for peace, to keep
their families and loved ones safe at home rather than draftees fighting a battle
they don't believe in. With so much hatred towards our current situation in the
Middle East, and how people are dying for no reason, against their will, it's nice
to see a film that shows just how selfless and heroic these soldiers are, as well
as those awaiting their return. Communist Russia shows how involved all
were in the war. While Boris may have volunteered to go to the frontlines, his
father is head doctor of a hospital aiding in the mending of soldiers injured and
his sister is helping him there as well as his girl Veronika, doing all she can to
keep her mind off the fact that no letter has arrived from her love. An entire city
comes out to send the boys off in celebration. Even the factory that Boris and his
friend Stepan work for send representatives over with gifts of gratitude. Whether
this is all a glorified look into Russia at the outset of WWII or not, I don't
know. There are no protests or badmouthing of these boys risking their lives for a
country, it is all praise and thanks. Some in America could learn a lesson from
this because whether you agree with the war at hand or not, protesting and wreaking
havoc in its name only sullies what these men and women are sacrificing each and
everyday. The acting is top-notch throughout, but some deserve singling
out. I really enjoyed Antonina Bogdanova in a small role as Boris' grandmother. She
is the one family member he can trust and her sadness at his leaving is very
evident on her face and through her body language. Vasili Merkuryev, as the
patriarch Fyodor Ivanovich, brings what is perhaps the best performance. As spoken
at the end, about fathers needing to choke back hidden tears, Merkuryev epitomizes
those sentiments. He puts on a tough exterior, especially cracking jokes and riding
his son hard when he finds out about his volunteering just hours before he must
leave. But when Boris exits to go to the assembly station we see the true pain of
the man, seated in sorrow at the table. He loves his son dearly and although he may
not be able to show it to him, his actions throughout the film express it to the
audience. Aleksey Batalov is effective as Boris, a happy-go-lucky young man, and
idealist, doing what he believes is right, and Aleksandr Shvorin is good as the
villainous Mark, staying home due to his talented piano skills, or maybe just to
steal his cousin's love. That love, played by Tatyana Samojlova, really draws the
audience in to her grief, dejection, and slim glimmer of hope. The true star of the
film, she must go through many emotions on a journey where she does lose her way,
needing to steer back on course, hoping that she did so soon enough for Boris'
return. Besides the realism to the story, as well as being unafraid to
use tragedy to get the theme across, I also loved the visual style of the film.
Sergei Urusevsky's cinematography is amazing, especially when considering the movie
was shot in fullscreen. It is one thing to create stunning compositions in a
widescreen panorama; it is completely different to do so in a square frame. Right
from the beginning we get a beautiful static shot of a winding walkway along water,
a bridge in the background at the top, as our two lovers skip their way up the
screen and into the distance. There are multiple instances of the camera being
behind barriers yet still allowing for the action to be seen, creating unique
spatial depth and interest at all times. Sharp angles are utilized, as well as
careful blocking to allow for overhead shots and exaggerated juxtapositions of
characters in frame together. The real feats, however, are those
instances of the long shot. Used well towards the end to follow Veronika through
the mass of returning soldiers, it is magnificent earlier on as she roams through
those saying goodbye to their loved ones while she searches for Boris, her own
farewell needing to be said. The planning for this shot must have been extensive
because while she weaves in and out of people, the camera focuses on couples
kisses, people yelling to one another, and more, all purposely in frame at specific
moments while the camera moves through. Everyone needed to hit his mark precisely
and it leads to a brilliant piece of cinema. It's just one part of an overall
masterpiece of tone and style; The Cranes are Flying shows how successful placement
and mise en scène can be in showing the audience what it needs in as simple a way
as possible. Composition and professionalism from the actors and crew can work
wonders, adding something that huge setpieces and special effects can never do.
Filmmakers made a rather boring everyman's story look interesting and complex by
focusing on his wife back at home. At the same time, we're exposed to a truly
original, existential French loner. The film is more than a
documentary. Hardly ever do I feel that I've experienced something that's
accidentally profound, which makes it all the more profound. Film has
visually interesting interior moments. Absolutely loved the journey the filmmakers
took me on. (Quite a lot of Europeans in the credits). Hopefully, PBS will screen
this so that it reaches a wider audience in the USA.
Even if you do not typically enjoy documentaries, odds are you will find this one
fascinating. Not only does it have a well-mapped out plot that while easy to
follow, contains its interesting detours; it also has a very strong emotional
resonance, and not one that relies on a simple specific tone. Instead the emotions
here are as profound and turbulent as the seas featured. That being
said, if you know nothing of Donald Crowhurst and the 1968 single-handers boat race
around the world...as was the case for me...please stop reading, and rent/view this
film. SPOILERS FOLLOW My friend Brian recommended this at
the same time that my Aunt had sent me a clipping linking this film with
Antonioni's work In 2007, I was mesmerized by several of Antonioni's films, still
am! To connect this film to Antonioni, I think is a bit of a stretch, the character
most likely to be seen in one of Michaelangelo's movies is Francoise Moitessier de
Cazalet. It's funny on the main IMDb page, he isn't even listed as playing
"Himself" which is probably a function of his lengthy name, as opposed to his self
realization/renunciation. Since Moitessier sails right out of the race, that could
be considered is a bit like Anna in L'Avventura. Quite a major minor
character. While there are many things to love about this film: the
actual footage from the time, the stoic best friend, the sheer power of the Roaring
Forties, I walked away with a simple connection. A man, truly at sea. There have
been times in my life where I wonder how I got to such a point, caught between
dreams and reality, feeling like a stowaway in my own skin. It may be that I'm
reading too much into this documentary, and that in turn the directors read too
much into Crowhurst, but I found that sense as spell-binding as the other secrets
kept in this film. On the odd chance that Crowhurst's wife (who seemed a
remarkable study in restraint with understandably conflicted overtones) and his
children (so young in the found footage, and still young at this late date in the
sense of their pain and pride for their father), I am certain the comments here and
the film itself fail to catch the man that your father was. In his death however,
he has given the world a glimpse of something like a lost myth, he is a pre-GPS
Odysseus. Never finding his body adds to the air of frail immortality, if not the
stature of a cosmic being of which he had writ. This film sticks with
you after the viewing, as if you expect another twist to emerge from the deep
waters. Or at the very least, you hope for the Moitessier sequel. Thurston Hunger 8/10
Have you ever found yourself watching a film or documentary and having to hold
yourself back from screaming things like "No! Don't do it!"? No? Well it's time you
do. And undoubtedly DEEP WATER is the one to get you started. The story
is based on that of Donald Crowhurst and his entry into the first round-the-world
yacht race to be undertaken by individuals in 1968. That word "individuals" is
important, as the men who set off on this nearly suicidal escapade head out
alone. Most of the men are well-knowns in the sea-faring communities of
England (where they launch from), but one of them is the "unknown dark horse," and
his name was Donald Crowhurst. Struggling financially, Crowhurst enlists a backer
who can take everything from him should he fail to at least attempt to make it
through a large portion of the race. He could take his home, his property,
everything. Crowhurst now finds himself between a rock and ...well
...deep water: either attempt the race with an unproven ship and an unproven
captain, or lose everything you own (which was significant since Crowhurst had a
wife and several children). You'll note the term "unproven captain" in there, too.
Not only was he unproven, he'd never been out on the open sea! Did I mention
suicidal? Flicking between archival footage of the pre- and post-race, and those of
Crowhurst's friends, family, and acquaintances of today, Deep Water is put together
masterfully. Initially seen as a poor sap who got in over his head, the film
gradually shows you the limited choices Crowhurst had after months and months out
on the water. His ship leaks. Equipment breaks. Psyche stretched to the breaking
point (and beyond). Crowhurst finds himself lost in an internal struggle with no
successful way out. It is interesting, too, to see the psychological breaks that
other racers have as they deal with their solitary confinement on-board their
respective boats. The wave-like emotions that you'll feel as you watch
this astounding documentary may make you a bit ill (not unlike trying to get your
sea-legs). And you'll probably be frustrated at the choices being made; perhaps
just as frustrated as poor Mr. Crowhurst. The ending is also amazing in
that we get to see the actual ship that Crowhurst sailed, sitting deserted and
rotting on a Caribbean beach ...not unlike other things that felt deserted and
rotting toward the end of this poorly thought-out race. Incredible.
If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and
the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out. This is
one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession
to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the
media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only
40 years ago. The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide
range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed
him. I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the
Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON
while experiencing --you don't simply "watch"-- this story. If you live
in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel
100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did.
Deep Water (2006) **** "It is indifferent... it's there waiting for you
to make one slip up." Those words (paraphrased) are perhaps the best sum up of the
nature of the ocean I have ever heard muttered. Its furies are boundless, not least
of which, her loneliness. Those words come from the mesmerizing and heartbreaking
documentary Deep Water. It is the story of Donald Crowhurst, an amateur sailor who
partook in the 1969 Sunday Times Race around the World. If you do not know his
story, it may be best to stop reading now. Don't read this or any other information
on Crowhurst or the race. Find the film and just watch it. After the
first solo circumnavigation of the ocean in 1967, adventurers and watchers of
adventurers began seeking the next one-up. This time the journey would have to be
done without making landfall or stopping along the way. Having fallen on hard
times, Crowhurst saw the race as a great chance to get his family back on their
feet. He had lived through financial hardships as a child, and wanted part in going
back to such a life. So he set out to find sponsors, and soon did in Stanley Best
and Rodney Hallworth. The two men spelled the potential cash cow, and granted
Crowhurst a boat, on the condition that if he should pull out of the race he would
be forced himself to pay the expenses. His boat however was in serious need of
repairs, and he feared it would not be ready in time for the final departure day.
He was informed however by his sponsor's that he simply must go after all, they
ponied up the dough and expected it back many a time over. The details
of the story are infamous: Crowhurst's boat began taking on water, and his progress
slowed to a crawl. Faced with the decision of trying to round the horn of Africa
(certain death in such a boat) or turn back (financial devastation and
destitution), he searched for a third option. He chose to hide out, alone on his
yacht, waiting for other competitors to round Cape Horn in South America. From
there he would rejoin the race. He reported false positions, and record breaking
speeds. Then he stopped all communication for fear that his position would be given
away. He also had to painstakingly construct fake log books for each day of a
journey he did not take. Eventually the loneliness, the guilt, and the realization
that he would likely be caught weighed too heavy on Crowhurst. His final log
entries make the musings of a Kurtz seem entirely sane. Only a few weeks from home,
he turned his boat away from home, and is reported to have jumped overboard soon
thereafter. Crowhurst's odyssey is a fascinating one, and its ending is
heartbreaking, but strikes of inevitability. Our dreams so often turn into fears,
and the consequences of our actions often leave us so few options for a happy
ending. It is a story of a descent into madness, teased on by the infinite abyss of
the cruel seas. The filmmakers do a wonderful job in telling this story. It's put
together with chilling audio and video recordings done by Crowhurst, and narrations
of his ever-increasingly maddening log notes. The story starts slowly, and may
distract some viewers, but the rewards of the story are entirely worthwhile as it
progresses. There are also inquiries into some of the other
competitors, such as Frenchman Bernard Moitessier, who was on par to likely win the
speed competition, only to pull out and begin a second trip around the world. Also
in the film is Robin Knox-Johnston, who was the winner of the competition. He
donated his prize money to the Crowhurst family. To read briefly on the
Crowhurst saga simply does not do justice. It's interesting of course, but a quick
browse bypasses the raw emotions and oddness presented here. The final moments of
Deep Water are genuinely heart breaking, hearing the thoughts of his widowed
family, and the adoration and understanding of his friends. This is a fascinating
story, and it is that which carries the documentary into such great channels.
This is a story about a journey made by a man who once had a dream and guts. Donald
Crowhurst was an English businessman and amateur sailor who competed in the Sunday
Times Golden Globe Race, a single-handed, round-the-world yacht race. I
was very intrigued by the story after listening to a radio interview from the
producer John Smithson, who is also the producer of "Touching the Void", one of the
first documentaries that made a commercial success in 2003. I had gone to the
cinema with great hope and not much previous knowledge on the historic event, and
I'm relieved that it didn't let me down. For 92 minutes I was led through a
haunting story and came out with much to think about. Without any
reenactment, this film made great use of the limited audio and video archive
footage they found and turned it into a compelling story which allowed the audience
to understand Crowhurst from a personal level. The story unveiled itself as people
who had direct links to the events including his wife and his son, and the eventual
winner, also the only one who made it back out of the 9 competitors, Robin Knox-
Johnston gave their own accounts of what happened almost 40 years ago. Crowhurst's logs(journals) that he kept during the 243 days at sea are so
haunting that it made it much easier for me to come to understand what being in
total isolation can do to a man. While Crowhurst's body was never found, the other
competitor Nigel Tetley whose yacht sank just weeks before claiming the prize for
fastest passage committed suicide three years later after unsuccessful attempts at
properly completing a circumnavigation. Everything could take its toll,
especially the sea. The director Louise Osmond was also at the Q&A
session after the showing together with producer John Smithson. I had no idea that
it's a female director and that just came as a very nice surprise. The film is
getting a limited release in the UK (a couple of days in certain cinemas). Catch it
in cinema while you can, unless you have a state of the art sound system that can
recreate the sound of the bashing Southern Ocean.. then I'm sure they'll soon have
it on DVDs too.
"Ideas are dangerous." Comment by one interviewee. DVD Rating: B+ / 4
out of 5 / 8 out of 10 / Worth the time. A great story for adults / or
teen boaters but not for children. None of the stupid violent crime stuff so often
mistaken by Hollywood these days as "quality work." And, it can be used as a
trainer film on what proper boating preparation is all about, or not about, prior
to "sailing the seven seas." The movie starts out somewhat slowly to develop the
story as most documentaries do, but as it draws the viewer into the saga, emotions
begin to percolate in one's head! Emotions include anger, sadness, and disbelief.
The era: late 1960's. That solo sailing around the globe is dangerous is
not surprising. What is surprising is all the twists that viewers wouldn't expect.
Its not your average group of guys in a sailing race! Each boat was different as
allowed by the race rules. Each solo sailor had different levels of ability as
allowed by the race rules. There were well known sailors among them and a few not
so well known. One was considered a mystery man as nobody seemed to have any
knowledge of his ability at all. Each boat was allowed to depart at will so long as
all were underway by a certain date. And this was, of course, prior to modern
electronics that allow boaters to communicate with shore about vicious storms,
etc. Actual video and audio recordings are interspersed with interviews
of family members and others involved. The mood of the interviewees is always
somber despite the years that have passed. The main character, Don, is
the focus of attention & how his journey relates to those who he not only wanted to
beat but, due to circumstances of his own creation, HAD to beat. He HAD to win. The
story was about what that circumstance did to his life as he moved South West
across the Atlantic Ocean over a years time alone on the water. Do NOT
fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished.
The entire saga isn't fully understood w/o viewing the 'bonus' stuff. In
the end, once you've watched everything on the DVD, you will likely just shake your
head and exclaim, 'wow.' And keep in mind, THAT is why the story has remained alive
for the last 40 years. SPOILER: Do NOT fail to view the "special
features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. One sailor who was headed
back to England after circumnavigating the globe decided on the fly that, no, he
was going for another spin and the film records his spouse's opinions about that
decision. The opposite story unfolds as another sailor wishes the race allowed two
on board so he could take his wife along and their photos demonstrate a very warm
union between them. The interview with an burley ex paratrooper who had actually
ROWED a boat across the Atlantic with a friend prior to the solo sail race was
incredibly funny as he described not even knowing how to sail and who thought the
bad things happening to him were 'normal.' Too many people think that setting sail
in the open sea can be an romantic adventure without mishap. Don't you be one!
Note: This should probably be read only after watching the film. It is
very rare to find a documentary or movie that focuses on the loser. Deep Water does
just this, making it one of the most thought provoking films in a very long time.
It does not provide us with a hero to look up to, but rather an anti-hero who
forces us to look into ourselves. The film is about a group of men who
attempt to sail around the globe, singlehandedly, and without stopping. Only one
makes it, several die, one decides not to return home, each of them on a
psychological journey intriguing enough to merit entire films for themselves. Yet
the most interesting is Donald Crowhurst, or rather the way that he is portrayed by
the filmmakers and our reactions to him as viewers. By any standards
this man should be considered a despicable character, yet why is he depicted so
heroically? Why are we so sympathetic to him? From the beginning he made all of the
wrong choices. He risked his family financially to get the boat, he left at a more
dangerous time to get more publicity, he ignored all of the warnings despite his
lack of experience, he chose to lie instead of admitting defeat, these choices
snowball until the inevitable and final one: suicide. All for what? A place in
history? A feeling of accomplishment? Perhaps. What is important to consider is
whether this mans situation was inevitable. Each individual must ask
himself if his natural human drive for fame and accomplishment would bring him to
such recklessness, and I believe that examining your own reaction to Crowhurst's
story will offer at least some answer to that question.
I happened upon this by chance. I was at my friends house and he had just started
watching it, so I sat down thinking we would shoot the breeze whilst this was
playing in the background. However, within seconds I was immersed in this docu-
drama, and we both spent the rest of the time completely focused on this and not
saying a word to each other. I never knew the tale of the the first
solo around the world yacht race, let alone the tragic events of one man's attempt
against the odds, which set out to be his redemption for all of his misfortunes in
life, but ultimately ends up becoming an example of them. Having not known of the
story, I did watch this with the same fervor as I imagine those who were reading
about the race at the time it actually was happening, engulfed in what was taking
place and eager for more information, hoping the lone amateur was going to pull it
off against the odds and beat the pro's, which makes the shocking twists of the
story all the more tragic, I felt like I was living the story. The story
is told with great care, and the interviewees have clearly had time to reflect on
the tragedy, which gives great insights, but is also contrasted nicely by the
archive footage of interviews at the time of the tragedy, the recordings and
photographs of the lone sailors is also excellently used, and the insights into the
minds of the sailors and how solitude was affecting them was superb. I'm
shocked that this story isn't more widely known or has been turned into a movie,
but also thankful. Thankful that we have this drama-documentary to tell the tale
from those who knew the man, instead of some wishy-washy movie adaptation, and
thankful that I caught this gem of a film by pure chance. It's a must
see, whether you like documentaries or not.
I remember the events of this movie, the ill fated cruise of Donald Crowhurst in
1968, in the Golden Globe single handed around the world yacht race. I was a 13
year old, living in England. The previous year Francis Chichester (later Sir
Francis; he was knighted for his exploits) had completed the first solo
circumnavigation of the globe. I remember it mostly because we were given time off
school to watch his return (on a grainy black and white TV!) and then his knighting
by the Queen. It provoked a huge outpouring of patriotic fervor in the UK. It all
seems so quaint now. Chichester became a national hero, but he had stopped half
way, in Australia, to re-fit his yacht, so the next logical step for yachtsmen was
to attempt the journey without stopping. It's important to remember that
this was a world pre-GPS, when communications on land were still pretty erratic,
never mind in the middle of the ocean. Now with GPS receivers that fit on a key
chain and calculate a position within a metre anywhere on earth, it's hard to
recall a time when you could go to sea and quite literally, vanish. As Donald
Crowhurst did. A number of yachtsmen signed up (all men back then),
including mystery man, Crowhurst. Essentially a weekend sailor, Crowhurst had not
been a spectacular success in any previous enterprise, including careers in the
British Army, the Air Force and as an electronics entrepreneur selling navigation
aids. He wanted to do something big with his life, and he saw the five thousand
pound first prize (well over $100,000 in today's money) and the ensuing publicity
as a means of kick starting his business. He signed a deal with a sponsor that
proved more watertight than his boat, and which meant failure would bankrupt him,
and soon found himself a popular figure with journalists as he prepared for the
race. Now the Brits always love the idea of the gutsy amateur taking on the 'pros'.
(Think Eddie the Eagle losing endless Olympic ski jump competitions, and the
amateur riders who regularly start the Grand National horse race.) The public
queued up to see him set off, but his boat wasn't really ready, and even as he
started (the last competitor to leave the UK) Crowhurst must have known he didn't
seriously have a chance. But too much was riding on him to quit. In the
wonderful archive footage we see doubt written all over his poor wife's face. Left
behind with their 4 children, she is interviewed movingly throughout the film,
together with one of Crowhurst's sons. She was in a no-win situation. Had she
attempted to stop him, she would have been considered a spoiler, but afterward she
was riven with doubt, as to whether she could have saved his life by stopping him.
Faced with the certain truth that his boat was leaking and would never make it
through the southern oceans, and unable to turn around and face ridicule,
bankruptcy and ignominy, Crowhurst devised a plan to cheat. Laid up offshore
Argentina and Brazil, out of radio contact, he waited for the leaders to round Cape
Horn and start back up the Atlantic, thinking he could sneak in at the end of the
line and pretend he had sailed all the way around the globe. He elaborately
falsified his logs, and made 16mm films and audio recordings to back up his plan.
But as one after another the other competitors dropped out, he realized that in
fact he would come in 2nd and his logs would be scrutinized. Unable to face certain
detection, his journal suggests he lost his grip on reality and eventually
committed suicide. His yacht was found. He never was. This beautifully
edited film also follows the journey of Bernard Moitessier, an experienced and
enigmatic French sailor, who was in second place and certain of the fastest journey
prize, when he abruptly left the race, unable to deal with the clamour and
publicity he knew he would face, and sailed into the wide blue yonder, eventually
pulling up some 10 months later in Tahiti. Having spent some seven years working at
sea myself, (albeit on very different ships to these) I well understand the pull of
the ocean. Standing on deck, seeing water in every direction to the horizon,
knowing there's a couple of miles of water below you, nothing between you and
oblivion but a thin metal hull, without easy access to TV or radio (even nowadays
on most working ships, you feel pretty isolated), it's possible to truly escape
from the responsibilities of everyday life for a while. There is some thoughtful
analysis of what drives people to attempt this kind of very long, lonely journey
and the effect it has on the human mind. Most people would think that attempting to
raise 4 children is adventure enough, but much is made of the need for self
discovery in the hardships at sea, the search for self. I strongly
suspect that Robin Knox Johnston, the ex navy guy who won the race (and many since)
probably knew pretty well who he was before he set off, which was why he succeeded
not just in winning the race but also retaining his sanity en route. Those who went
searching for something profound within themselves, may not have entirely liked
what they found. The marvelous archive footage of Britain in the late
60s is almost reason enough to watch this, (did it really look quite that bad? I
don't remember it looking quite so dowdy, but perhaps we blot out the worst aspects
of the past?) but overall, it is an excellently well made and engrossing movie.
Highly recommended.
Mikhail Kalatozov's The Cranes are flying is a superb film. Winner of the golden
palm at Cannes Film Festival, it has an excellent cinematography and performance by
Tatyana Samojlova, the only Russian actor ever to win an award in Cannes for a
performance. She plays Veronika, a teenager in love with her boyfriend, happy and
without preoccupations, with plans of getting married. Her life will get upside
down when World War II strikes and her boyfriend volunteers to the army. The film
depicts the effect of war on a teenager love and on the people that stayed and saw
their loved ones go and fight, waiting for a letter or other information. It is a
portrayal of lost innocence. Samojlova does a magnificent job, and her character
transformation will break your heart. The camera movement is fast with a lot of
close-ups, it is a dancing camera. The first scene in the stairs is fantastic, but
it isn't the only one, there is later a scene when Veronika attempts committing
suicide, and another, in my opinion one of the most powerful scenes in movie
history, the bombing of Veronika's house when she runs the stairs in the middle of
fire, to find her apartment completely destroyed. Simply great! 10 out of 10.
This is a gem. As a Film Four production - the anticipated quality was indeed
delivered. Shot with great style that reminded me some Errol Morris films, well
arranged and simply gripping. It's long yet horrifying to the point it's
excruciating. We know something bad happened (one can guess by the lack of
participation of a person in the interviews) but we are compelled to see it, a bit
like a car accident in slow motion. The story spans most conceivable aspects and
unlike some documentaries did not try and refrain from showing the grimmer sides of
the stories, as also dealing with the guilt of the people Don left behind him,
wondering why they didn't stop him in time. It took me a few hours to get out of
the melancholy that gripped me after seeing this very-well made documentary.
Deep Water examines the pressures and ambitions on an ordinary man in a compelling
documentary. The testimony and archive footage are a fascinating insight to the
late 1960's and a ground-breaking round the world yacht race. The personal
conflicts of duty to family, self and reputation are played out in one of the most
memorable and affecting films I have seen. I was not familiar with the history of
this story and the drama was successfully and clearly directed. The story is mostly
respectful to the participants with heroes and villains implied rather than
ruthlessly exposed. Most of the interpretation is left open to the viewer allowing
room to personally relate to the situations and characters. This movie is a bitter
sweet experience with an entertaining mix of thoughtful suspense, joy and drama.
This is an account of events that have been covered in print several times, and I
had read two books - 'A Voyage for Madmen' and 'The Strange Last Voyage of Donald
Crowhurst' before seeing the film in Sheffield just before Christmas. I must say,
it exceeded all expectations in its telling of the 1968 Sunday Times Golden Globe
yacht race. These men set out to do something that had never been done before with
no support vessels, wooden boats, no satellite phones, no GPS, and just their wits
and skill to get them round the globe in one piece. Not to mention the months of
solitude, the thundering southern ocean, little sleep, and boats that were often
literally falling apart around them. This documentary is excellently put
together in my opinion, tightly edited, well paced with superb narration. The
archive footage and the interviews are fascinating and bring the story to life.
Clare Crowhurst's interview footage is especially revealing and moving as she
relates the events that led up to her husband, Donald Crowhurst's departure from
Teignmouth, the doubts and fears in his mind and her reaction as subsequent events
unfolded. I was moved and had even shed a tear or two by the time the
credits started rolling, and overheard other people expressing similar feelings. The two books I mentioned above are useful for more detail and back-story
which couldn't have been fitted into the 90 minutes and I would recommend those
too. This is ultimately a true story of human courage and human frailty.
A must see for anyone interested in sailing, adventure, human endeavour and real-
life heroes.
1931 also presented "an American tragedy", the original tale of "who will he take
up with, poor girl or rich girl". this was a truly entertaining film. Babs stanwyck
was a pretty as she could be, ditto sally blane. Monroe owsley, unmemorably played
Babs's husband. i had never heard of him, but i thought he bore a good physical
resemblance to bing Crosby of "the big broadcast" ('32), even a receding hairline
and wingy ears. Ricardo cortez, the rich playboy with a heart of gold. a true movie
pioneer going wayyy back. the dilemma is resolved at the end, to the strains of the
title and i believe Annette hanshaw had the hit recording, although the off-screen
voice did very well. i also enjoyed the dance hall scenes. i'm sure they were
authentic; the band, a leading one of the time was superb. good job, Lionel
Barrymore!!!!
One of the last films DIRECTED by Lionel Barrymore, "Ten Cents a Dance" stars
Barbara Stanwyck as the dance-hall girl "Barbara" in her sixth role. Stanwyck looks
quite "plain-jane" in this one, and opens with her getting chewed out by the dance
hall manager. Then along comes rich guy Bradley Carlton (Ricardo Cortez) who wants
to sweep her off her feet. (Cortez and Stanwyck had made three films together in
the 1930s.) Then she meets Eddie, who's very different from the dashing Carlton.
The writer, Jo Swerling, had worked on some biggies (Its a Wonderful Life, Guys and
Dolls, and Gone with the Wind) so I was surprised that the characters and script in
this were so ordinary. The story starts getting more interesting about halfway
thru, and is VERY similar to "The Bride Walks Out" from 1936, ALSO starring
Stanwyck.... T.B.W.O. is much more clever, but also more tame, due to on-slaught of
the Hays code...
This is one of Barbara Stanwyck's earlier films and it sure does have an
unconventional theme. She's making money by dancing with men at a dance hall. She
really doesn't like the work, but it's a living. Her boyfriend seems like a pretty
nice guy, but she's also pursued by rich guy Ricardo Cortez. Well, after marrying,
it turns out her "nice guy" is a thieving, womanizing weasel and rich Cortez turns
out to be a heck of a guy. By the end of the film, Barbara simply has had enough,
as any SANE woman would walk from this horrid marriage. In the 1920s and
early 30s, Hollywood did pretty much anything it wanted and some of their films had
themes or scenes that would surprise many today--such as nudity, adultery and bad
language. While TEN CENTS A DANCE isn't a blatant example of this morality, it does
have a theme that never would have been allowed after the toughened Production Code
was created and enforced starting in 1934. In some ways the Code was great--after
all, parents didn't need to worry about what their kids saw in films (such as
nudity in BEN HUR, 1925). However, it also tended to sanitize some of the movies
far too much--and there is no way this particular film could have been made and
approved because it tends to glorify divorce--a serious no-no 1934 and thereafter.
This is really a shame, as I don't think TEN CENTS A DANCE was bad at all to
discuss this--especially since the star (Barbara Stanwyck) was married to a
philandering thief. Even so, allowing the film to end with her divorcing him and
marrying a man who himself was twice divorced just couldn't have been. Overall, the film is interesting and thought-provoking. Plus, it was well-paced
and suited its relatively short run time. Give this one a look. FYI--
Sadly, Ricardo Cortez was actually NOT Hispanic but changed his name because of
possible prejudice because he was Jewish. He was an excellent leading man of his
time, but today is all but forgotten.
This relic from before the days of the Production Code and the Hays Office is good
fun, not great but entertaining. Based on a song by Rogers & Hart that
was an enormous hit at the time, the story revolves around dance hall girl Barbara
Stanwyck who is romanced by wealthy businessman Ricardo Cortez (who was indecently
handsome), but whose heart belongs to her bookish neighbor Monroe Owsley. She and
Owsley marry, but keep it a secret, while she dismisses Cortez, who still holds out
hope. She helps hubby get a job in Cortez's company, but married bliss quickly
turns sour as Owsley develops a taste for the high life and steps out with a
college sweetheart and gambles in high-stakes bridge (Yup! I know, it's pretty
funny....). Finally he embezzles $5,000 from Cortez, and is about to go on the lam,
when his devoted wife goes to Cortez....and I won't reveal anything else, although
the ending was certainly a surprise. Stanwyck is the best thing about
this movie; in one of her earliest roles she's quite accomplished. Owsley is the
weak point; he's unattractive and sniveling, while Cortez is amazingly suave and
sexy, while his performance is earnest but unremarkable. While
ostensibly a drama, it's filled with laughs, many inadvertant as some elements of
this movie have aged very poorly. But there are a lot of good witty lines; at one
point Stanwyck says to Cortez, "My brains are in my feet, while yours are in...."
That's pretty darn suggestive for 1931! There's a lot of bawdy and suggestive stuff
in this flick, in the last days before the Code clamped down and whitewashed
everything. An amusing antique, a good reminder of how far we haven't come in 70
years....this story could very easily be changed to fit 2003 but could keep the
basic plot, with the original ending, in place.
This is a forgotten classic of a film, and Harmony Karin borrowed a ton from it for
"Gummo". Gummo is good, River's Edge is way, way better. Its no secret that Keanu
Reeves isn't the best actor whoever walked the earth. No, in fact, he's a
horrendous actor. But, he was born for some roles: Ted Preston, Esquire from Bill
and Ted, and his role in this film. He is perfect as a sort of good natured but
very apathetic and confused teenager. Then there's Crispin Glover. I think his
performance in this film is the best of his career. He is phenomenal as the drugged
out wackjob character. Then there's Dennis Hopper, who is perfect as well. This
movie is simply amazing, and if you haven't seen it, run out and watch it today.
Its brilliant. One of the best portrayals of modern America I've seen.
"River's Edge" was one of the most disturbing films of 1986, and for a year that
also saw "Blue Velvet", you know thats saying something. Viewed today its lost
little of its power and remains much better than the overrated "Kids". The previews
for "Kids" played it up to be an expose of the deterioration of the nation's youth.
In reality, it was little more than an exploitation film based mostly around shock
value. "River's Edge" was promoted as a teen exploitation flick but was in
actuality much better. The only times it goes from being disturbing to distasteful
is the constant image of the dead nude body. Outside of that, the film is thought-
provoking and, for all its minor flaws, quite realistic. Keanu Reeves,
known for being a particularly wooden performer, gives his best performance as a
burned-out teenager. Ione Skye is equally sympathetic and likable. Dennis Hopper
(on the comeback trail with this, "Blue Velvet", and "Hoosiers") gives a great
performance as the creepy yet pathetic hippie generation leftover. Crispin Glover,
while always entertaining to watch, seems a bit out of place as the manic stoner
and leader of the group. The best performance however is definitely Daniel Roebuck.
As the murderer John, Roebuck is frighteningly emotionless. Its a shame he didn't
become a bigger star as hes a much better actor than Reeves. The film is
overall fantastic and daring. Don't mistake this for another lame John Hughes
clichéd high school flick such as "The Breakfast Club". This is a shocking piece of
nihilism that resonates with the viewer. Fans of this movie are advised to check
out a Canadian film from 1981 called "Out of the Blue", directed by Dennis Hopper.
Its another shockingly bleak examination of the generation gap and, despite its
obscurity, may have been an influence on "River's Edge". (7/10)
River's Edge is more than just the story of a murder. It's an indictment of the
wave of apathy that has plagued pockets of youth for decades now. Our main
characters are a group of what my high school would have referred to as "stoners".
One of them just decided to strangle his girlfriend because she apparently had the
nerve to "talk sh*t" to him. This dangerous young man played by Daniel Roebuck has
an intensity that will startle you. He takes the other kids in the group out to
show them his girlfriend's body, and strangely enough, nobody seems really freaked
out about it. The balance of the film punctuates the desperate circumstances in
which these people live, and how guilt is eventually able to worm its way inside
even these apathetic kids. River's Edge is certainly not condoning or
championing the behavior of its characters. We clearly see the dangers presented by
such unchecked apathy and having only the desire to get drunk or high. We are shown
the dysfunctional home lives these kids have, and perhaps this is meant to explain
their awful behavior. But could it only be unstable homes that lead to this type of
destructive living? Crispin Glover is his usual whacked-out self. He drives around
town in a state of complete paranoia after the murder. He tries to sympathize with
why his friend had to commit the crime, but clearly he does not understand what
could have made the young man do it. Dennis Hopper plays an older man these kids
get their dope from. Though he is certainly a rebellious figure, he cannot relate
to the apathy and rage of the younger generation. Witness his confused reaction as
Roebuck describes how killing his girlfriend made him feel. As wild as Hopper's
character is, even he knows this young man should not be walking the face of the
earth. What will you think of these kids? Well, there is really no way
to like their characters. Some are less despicable than others, but you cannot help
either hating or feeling sorry for them. Twenty years later, there is still an
apathy alive and well in a great many young people out there. When do these kids
get lost? What makes so many of them want to act anti-social? This film, and the
questions it poses about teenagers will stick with you for a while. That's a
fact. 8 of 10 stars. The Hound.
Like in a circle the movie leads back to its point of departure, the image of the
cranes that are crossing a Muscovite sky. They represent the freedom to realize
your life as you wish, in order to aspire the greatest possible fulfilment. In the beginning Veronica and Boris experience such a promise of happiness,
and their eyes follow the path of the cranes in exhilaration. It seems as if they
might be able to live according to their dreams. But Man is not a bird.
Life draws up its own rules, from which no human can escape and which we cannot
change - not even by making a supreme effort. War breaks out, and without much
hesitation Boris signs up for the front in order to fulfil his patriotic duty. He
cannot even say good-bye to Veronica, for she arrives late at the assembly point
from which the soldiers are sent away. Surrounded by a jubilant crowd all her
attempts to attract Boris' attention must inevitably fail. Boris
eventually gets killed in war, without Veronica learning about it for the moment.
His brother Mark, a vigorous musician, who obtained the exemption from military
service by corruption, is eager to take his place. Veronica initially resists, but
in a frightful night of bombing she finally falls victim to his charms. A marriage
takes place, which is never accepted by the family. Soon feelings of
guilt seize hold of Veronica and she realizes that Boris' return is the one and
only thing she actually longs for. She therefore eases her bad conscience and
despair by the self-sacrificing work in a field hospital. When war
finally is over, once again a crowd of enthusiastic people gathers in order to
cheer the victorious soldiers. Again Veronica is among them, forcing her way
through a wall of bodies. In her hand she is carrying a bunch of flowers, until she
finally has to give it away to complete strangers, for one of the homecomers has
just dashed her hopes by confirming the sad certainty of Boris' death. Once again the cranes invade the sky, drawing their wayward lines. But now
Veronica is watching them on her own, and the look in her eyes is a different one.
She has had to accept the impossibility to live according to preconceived plans, to
follow the guidelines of your dreams. For all humans are nothing but helpless
puppets hanging on the inscrutable strings of fate. 
i just glanced over another comment posted here in which the writer discusses the
disturbing ways the teenagers in this film use the body of their dead friend. one
overlooked in this statement is perhaps the most unsettling of them all, no
surprise it's what crispin glover's character (layne) does. he is thrilled over one
of his friends murdering another friend of his, the killer's girlfriend. not
because layne did not like this individual, rather he is excited about her death
because it gives him something to do. this poor boy is bored in life, and dead
inside, that a murdered friend is something to get excited about because it
provides him with something to focus on.
I think this is a pretty good movie, but one thing makes it VERY interesting to me.
It is blatantly obvious once you look out for it: the main characters in this movie
are the inspiration for the bullies on The Simpsons. Layne is Jimbo, John is
Kearney, and Tony is Dolph. There is even an episode of The Simpsons where Jimbo
uses the line "I poked her with a stick." The Jimbo-Layne connection is
the most obvious with the knit hat and long hair and the voice. Kearney has the
shaved head, unlike John, but is the big, dumb one. The Tony-Dolph connection is
pretty obvious with the long, parted haircut and even the second-tier status.
Crispin Glovers' way of acting (and not only his) is tremendous. You really want to
believe him because his body language and performing fits the person perfect. He
gives Layne this extraordinary bit of personality that makes this movie a cult. As
well as Feck, which role is done very well by Dennis Hopper. It's about choosing
the right or wrong side, without logical thinking about the scene. Friendship is
more imported, and that's exactly what I think is what makes choices this
difficult. Rivers Edge lets you experience this with serious tones and family
mathers. I really enjoyed it watching. I saw it a month ago for the first time, but
if you like a nice 80s feel, this is the one that you have to see. I'ts a same that
I didn't know of it earlier.
i was flipping through the channels and had to stop and laugh when i came across
this movie. It was so clearly about teens in the early 80s, and i called my mom
"hahaha, turn to channel such and such, the kid totally looks like if dad were a
kid". Um. Yeah. Turns out this movie is about my dad & his
friends. Even without it being about loosely based on my dad's
childhood, i'd say watch this movie! It is just.....bizarre to say the
least, the apathy instilled in teens even back then. This is a good "human
interest" and showcases some strange sides of the psyche.
I have seen this movie three times. Going back to VCR's, in the 1980's, and again
on The Encor channel last night (Feb.11, 2010). Based on a true story which I
remember being in the news, during the early 1980's, I've decided that I find it
too disturbing to watch ever again. Yet it's hard to look away from a car accident.
The creepiest character is Joshua John Miller, who plays Keeanu Reeves little
brother. (The story this movie was based on can be found anywhere on
the Internet -- just Google it. It's about Anthony Jacques Broussard who murdered
Marcy Conrad in Milpitas, California, in 1981.) The characters portray Generation X
pre-grunge, borderline sociopaths, with the exception of Keeanu Reeves, who grows a
conscience. Old hippies did a great job raising that generation. For such a young kid, I thought Joshua Miller was excellent, as the serial
killer in the making character. In actuality, he went to Yale, and has written
screenplays as well as directed. His acting capabilities in this film were amazing.
Just the way he treats his little sister by drowning her doll, and tearing up her
dolls grave, gave me the shivers. It gave me nightmares. Even with whats happening
in our world today, in 2010, it still is the most degenerate film I've seen to
date. The apathy, and dysfunction, of these families, is enough to make
one puke. This thrill kill almost makes the Manson murders pale in comparison.
 Crispon Glover got a little too much into character. He wound up on
David Lettermen to discuss his role, and almost kicked the host in the head.
Apparrently Glover had to seek psychiatric help after portraying his character. Also, fight the good fight to the great Dennis Hopper. You're one of the
best!
River's Edge is an extremely disturbing film written by acclaimed American screen
writer Neal Jimenez.It is based on an actual event which happened at a time when
most of American youngsters were trying to make sense of their lives.This is one of
the most outstanding films made by American director Tim Hunter.Much of film's
attention is focused on a reckless murder committed by a feckless teenager.This
unfortunate event sets in motion a whole range of questions about real motivations
of youngsters in American society.Those who saw this film during its initial
release must have had vivid memories of great actor Dennis Hopper in a confused
role as a sympathetic social outcast. Matrix star Keanu Reeves also looks good as
one of the teenagers before he reached star status.At a time when teen flicks are
made without any kind of serious preparation,it is hoped that "River's Edge" cannot
simply be ignored as just another silly teen flick.It had massive impact on people
who lived during turbulent times of the past when being an inhabitant of a sleepy
town was akin to not having being born.For today's generation with their heady
overdoses of Internet props such as Facebook,Twitter and Orkut,River's Edge might
appear to be outdated but its importance cannot be denied by any serious film
admirer.
Although I was hoping that I'd like it a little more, this was still certainly an
impressive film. There were great performances by all the leads, and the story,
while not what I'd call chilling, was still effective and it kept me interested.
For me, the best part of this film was the look of the picture, for it always
looked cold and damp and it just really seemed to suit the film well. I also
thought that the low budget suited this movie, for I don't think that a crisp
picture and clear sound would have worked as well in a film this grim. All things
considered, it fell a little short of my expectations, but I'm still very glad that
I finally sat down to watch this movie.
I finally saw this on video, after years of hearing about it. It is by no means a
perfect movie, but it is oddly hypnotic - one of those rare, special films that
creates its own world. ***SPOILERS*** First, the bad stuff. The scenes
in Burkewaite's class are excruciating. Even if the subject is Social Studies, this
guy is WAY over the top. His speeches are so overwrought they are laughable. And no
teachers I ever had would grill their students like that, and tell the ones who
protest to "Shut up!". These scenes are brief, but they break the mood and pull the
viewer out of the story. Next, how the heck does Layne just walk out of the police
station near the end? Also, what happened to Samson's car after the first scene of
him riding into town? He spends the rest of the film being chaffeured around by
Layne or Feck. ***END SPOILERS*** Ahhh, Feck...this guy is great.
Dennis Hopper effortlessly steals the movie. "Check's in the mail", "I love
company", "you're my friend" - every line is a classic. He gives Feck an internal
logic that makes the story work. Incredibly, he actually makes the audience feel
empathy for this guy, especially when Samson talks about his (Samson's) future. By contrast, Crispin Glover is hard to take sometimes. Yet the scenes of
him driving around in the Beetle are perfect - kids with cars in high school always
have something to do, and buds to do it with. Matt's low-key attitude makes a good
foil for Layne - their friendship is believable. Glover's mannerisms are a little
much, but he is consistent throughout. He drives the plot and exudes a sense of
urgency that no one else does - just try to imagine this flick if Layne were as
much of a zombie as Matt or Samson - snoozefest! ***SPOILERS*** What
makes "River's Edge" unsettling is the fact that Samson is not really evil, in the
usual sense. He is kind of a boring guy who got sick of being taken for granted -
in other words, he is like thousands of other boring guys. After he kills Jamie, he
starts to unravel, which creates some suspense as we wait to see when he will snap
again. ***END SPOILERS*** Part of this movie's appeal is the way the
action stays centered around the teens and their point of view. The parents are
comic relief - Clarissa's mom, Tony's dad - or overwhelmed - Matt's mom. This
underlines how the kids hang together for the attention no one else gives them. It
keeps the story focused on the relationships within the clique, and emphasizes that
the only adult they can relate to is Feck. "River's Edge" is a textbook on
alienation. It conveys how awkward, mysterious, and disconcerting adolescence is
like no other film.
This film is so 1980's and that is what I like so much about it. It does an
excellent job of conveying the feel of that odd decade. The reality that Russian
nukes could wipe you out at any time. Reagan in the White House telling everybody
that things were great, while more and more social programs were slashed. Young
people dropped out, but not as far as their parents of the 1960's did. Young people
still went to school, they just smoked so much dope that their sensetivities were
all but dead. Nothing effected them, not even the death of one of their classmates
at the hands of one of their friends. How weird is it to realize that the murder
was wrong, but you are not sure why. Watching the characters deal with the crime is
fascinating and telling of a very sick society. Glover is great, Keanu is great,
Hopper is incredible. One of the most memorable movies I have ever seen.
I didn't expect much from this movie, it was just one of those movies I thought I'd
just watch because it was on television. i certainly underestimated this movie. It's about a guy who kills his girlfriend and brags to his friends. I was
very happy with the acting, they had the characters played well. It was a
particularly great scene when Feck(Dennis Hopper) and John(Daniel Roebuck) are
talking to each other about why John killed Jamie. It's upsetting to hear how he
explains that he wanted to feel control and thats why. But Feck had loved the girl
he had killed. Feck felt remorse while John felt nothing, hell he was proud of what
he'd done. It really makes you think about people. Keanu Reeves did a great job as
Matt, and Ione Skye was good. It's weird to see her as a valedictorian in 'Say
Anything' and her as Clarissa. Every actor did great at .....acting. It was real
nice for a change. It was a great movie and I would definitely say I recommend it.
It's not difficult, after watching this film, to see why post-silent Soviet cinema
is held in such little critical esteem. Don't get me wrong. THE CRANES ARE FLYING
is, for the first half at least, supremely entertaining, boasting a lightness of
touch completely unexpected from its country of origin; a fresh, brisk, spacious
technique that eventually irritates as much as it initially charms; two stunning
subjective set-pieces; and a romantic verve that flirts with, but never quite
topples into, Lelouch territory. It's just that , in its subsuming of vast social,
national and world events to a love affair, it is essentially no different from a
conventional Hollywood movie. Of course, in a Soviet Union that
emphasised the state above all else, and in an era (World War Two) that suppressed
individualism and liberty to uphold murderous symbolism, this foregrounding of two
appealing young lovers is a relief. And the thematic similarities - all consuming
love rent apart by war - with two of the most wonderful of all films (SEVENTH
HEAVEN, LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG) also adds to its potential loveability. The story is simple enough. Boris, a young factory worker from a bright
medical and artistic family, and Veronika, a student, conduct a breezy relationship
at night, their only free time. Boris's cousin Mark, a composer, also has eyes on
Veronika. When the Nazis invade Russia, Boris secretly volunteers, to the chagrin
of his family and lover. He promises to write to Veronika, but never does, thinking
maybe she hasn't bothered to see him off, or perhaps the mail is simply unreliable.
Veronika's parents die during an air raid, and she moves in with Boris's family,
helping out at the hospital where his father tends wounded soldiers. Distressed by Boris's silence, Veronika is also assailed by the attentions of
Mark, who has gained exemption from military duty by bribing a local official. She
is eventually worn down, and marries him, to the disapproval of her adopted family.
Boris, meanwhile, is killed in action. Veronika, disgusted with herself and an
adulterous Mark, refuses to believe this, and awaits his return, fostering a young
orphan bearing his name. The title refers to the birds the couple see at
the height of their love, symbolic perhaps of its transcendant, epiphanical power.
But this is illusory - the cranes fly in a V formation, and this shape pervades the
entire film, through the geometric shapes of buildings, interiors, exteriors,
groupings of people, composition, camera angles, the heroine's name - or by editing
in which feet walking southwest in one story are met by feet walking southeast in
another. This serves to fatally trap the lovers who have no control
over their destinies, and also suggest the Stalinist power that is never,
specifically, mentioned in the film. Although the pair seem to be free in space,
whether literally in an unpeopled environment, or privileged in generous close-ups,
they are always ironised, minimised, torn apart - by circumstances, families, by
crowds (see the brilliant, if obvious, sequences where Veronika is engulfed by
tanks, or the pair fail to meet in a huge crowd), or simply by the film's
structure, which is constantly distancing, through paralellism, their closeness.
Although at the beginning, the lightness and brightness of style suggest a
beautiful romantic idyll, it is constantly being broken by strange edits or camera
angles of distracting snatches of music. What is most remarkable is how
these blocks to romance are achieved by abstracting rather than emphasising
historical forces. The whole film, but especially the war itself, is strangely
unreal and dreamlike, we are never shown its harsh, brutal actuality, just its
effects on the lovers. In fact, it is transformed into a majestic spectacle, devoid
of nasty Germans. On the home front, the air raids create delicious
effects of light and shade, or ruins of almost Gothic decadence. In the bunker, the
threat to the Soviet empire is less important than Boris's perceived indifference.
The empty, oneiric Moscow spaces the lovers initially, than Veronika with her
mother, walk though are less actual locations than emotional spaces. When Mark tries to force himself on Veronika, the air raid is less a destructive
reality than a symbolic release of sexual and emotional frustrations. This is a
brilliant sequence, filmed with silent, Expressionistic terror, in which the screen
seems to burst with hysteria and violence, all the more compelling for the earlier
scenes' wistful gentleness. It's not much different at the front either,
where fights over girls' honour are more urgent than tactics, Nazis or despair. The
movement of Boris and his wounded comrade into a final space is a further
abstracting of the experience of war, its setting in a forest giving it a sexual
dynamic; and Boris' final, pre-death flashback is an extraordinary mixture of
dream-wish fulfillment and heightened anxiety, in which what is wished for becomes
menacing and grotesque. From this point on the film becomes a little
less interesting, slightly more obvious. One more grasp for Expressionist overload
- Veronika's attempted suicide and her rescuing the infant - is clumsily handled;
and her sombre guilt casts a paralysing shadow over the whole film. The use of deep
focus, at first ravishing, soon becomes wearing, devoid as it is of any of the
moral force or meaning Welles brought to its use in CITIZEN KANE. After what seems
a quietly sly critique of totalitarianism in favour of the individual is cruelly
betrayed at the end, when individual suffering, as so often in Russian art,
transmutes into symbolic (i.e. sexless, dehumanised) hope. A pity.
Loosely based on actual events, "River's Edge" is a film, much in the style of
David Lynch, about a group of teenagers who are aware of a murder committed by one
of their friends, but no one does anything about it for a long time. With top notch
acting by Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper, we are able to forgive the average
acting by everyone else in the film. The film begins with a young boy,
Tim (Joshua John Miller), dropping a doll off of a bridge (murder #1). Tim then
hears someone yelling, when he looks up he sees Samson (Daniel Roebuck) standing on
the bank of the river with the dead naked body of his girlfriend behind him (murder
#2). Samson eventually shows the body to his friends. All of which are horrified,
not only because of the murder, but also because the victim, Jamie (Danyi Deats),
was a friend of theirs. Despite all of this, no one goes to the police. You may
think this is unrealistic, but this is what happened in the real story. If you are
familiar with the story of "Alpha Dog" (2006) you will know that the same thing
happened there as well. Through all of this, Layne (Crispin Glover) is working to
keep Samson safe, although no one (including Samson) seems to care about keeping
him out of harms way. As time goes on we learn that Feck (Dennis Hopper), a middle
aged shut in who deals drugs to the local teenagers, has also killed a woman before
(murder #3). From here things begin to close in on Samson and his friends and
eventually everything is revealed, but not in the way you may be expecting. In the film we learn of three murders, each one with a different reason, a
different reaction, and a different effect on those involved. When Tim drops his
younger sister's doll off of the bridge, we are never made aware of his motive.
However, we do see the reaction of the younger sister. She cries and screams while
her mother consoles her. Later, her older brother, Matt (Keanu Reeves), helps her
put a cross in the yard in remembrance of her doll. The murder of Jamie horrifies
everyone (except Samson who is apathetic to the whole situation, and when asked by
Layne why he did it, Samson replies with, "She was talking sh*t."), but they do not
sob or scream, the run away and go on with their lives trying to forget what had
happened. In Feck's situation, he did not kill his girlfriend out of hate. We never
really know why he killed her, but we see that Feck is not proud of what he had
done. He even mentions that he is sorry, and that her loved her. From this we see
the different ways we can be affected by death. In the film, it is easy for us to
identify with the teenagers, because they do not know what they feel, or how they
should feel about the death of their friend. In much the same way, we, the
audience, do not know how to feel, because we do not know Jamie. We are obviously
saddened by the death and realize that Samson should be arrested, but we don't feel
strongly for Jamie as an individual. There are several similarities
between "River's Edge" and "Twin Peaks" (1990-1991), especially in the overall feel
of the film. I wonder if Mark Frost and David Lynch were thinking of "River's Edge"
when they were creating their series. After all, Tim Hunter did go on to direct
three episodes of "Twin Peaks". Crispin Glover's performance as the
hyperactive, frantic Layne is an Oscar worthy performance. Always in a rush and
always worried about keeping Samson from getting caught, Layne is an intense
character that seems to be on speed. If you have seen Crispin Glover in any film,
you know that he can deliver a line like no one else. It is always a treat to see
him perform. The other great performance in "River's Edge" is by Dennis Hopper. His
portrayal of Feck, the shut in drug dealer who has one leg and an inflatable sex
doll he talks to named Elly, reminded me of a more toned down and more humorous
version of Frank Booth, Hopper's character in David Lynch's film, "Blue Velvet"
(1986). River's Edge is great film and I believe it shows us how easy it
is to be apathetic, when in reality we need to step up and speak out against the
evils in the world.
A teenage film about angst, friendship, loyalty and growing-up but this isn't a
happy outing on its part due to the circumstances and life-changing dilemmas
surrounding the premise. What eventuates is quite numbing, haunting and downright
cold. However I was expecting something a little more powerful and effective and
while engrossing and unforgettable it didn't entirely stir up much in the way of
emotions. The performances are reasonably a mixed bag, but there's a brutal honesty
to them all. Dennis Hopper and especially Daniel Roebuck are amazing Crispin
Glover eccentrically over does it and Keanu Reeves' dead as wood turn seems to pay
off in his custom slacker role. Joshua John Millar is quite good and so is Ione
Skye. Jim Metzler chimes in with a short, but highly engaging performance. The
story is dramatically confronting, character-laced and harrowing in its eventual
breakdown where it infuses a gritty and painful punch. Jürgen Knieper's swirling
music score is simmering with anxiety, tension and wonder as the morals and
commitments are tested and learnt.
Pot-seeking pre-teen Joshua Miller (as Tim) throws his sister's doll into the river
while Daniel Roebuck (as Samson) howls and smokes a cigarette, after killing Danyi
Deats (as Jamie). The doll washes away, but the naked young woman stays by the
"River's Edge", for any passerby to see. Viewing the dead body are a group of
twenty-something teenagers, mostly classmates of the naked corpse. Stoners Keanu
Reeves (as Matt) and Crispin Glover (as Layne) are found most camera-worthy. The
friends wonder what to do about their guilty, beer-guzzling killer friend. Veteran-in-the-cast Dennis Hopper (as Feck) keeps the youngsters' heads fed. Mr.
Hopper once killed a woman. He lives with one of those life-sized sex dolls, with a
mouth apparently ready for action. Ione Skye Leitch (as Clarissa) is a more living
doll, and she is waiting for Reeves to kiss her. Their copulation is notably cross-
cut with a flashback to the opening strangulation. An actual teenager, in her first
feature role, Ms. Leitch is the daughter of sixties-singer Donovan. Make other
quirky connections on your own. You can read a lot into the movie, or
not, depending on your mood. Some of the characters' backgrounds may be a little
too subtle. Most obviously, the killer teen was teased; note his weight, attitude,
and "toilet"-connected nickname. Some of the characters' relationships and
motivations are too vaguely defined, but the cast certainly keeps the material
interesting; and, director Tim Hunter, photographer Frederick Elmes, and writer
Neal Jimenez are obviously skilled. ******* River's Edge (8/27/86) Tim
Hunter ~ Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover, Dennis Hopper, Joshua Miller
Apparently this movie was based on a true story. I'm not sure how accurate it is,
though. But it really reminded me of how when I see that someone has been murdered
on the news, it's amazing how much it doesn't affect me. Sure, I think it's
terrible, but I honestly don't care. I move on. It seems that murder is trivial
now. This is what River's Edge shows. Nobody really seems to care about this girl
and her death, not even the killer. Then what's the point? The killer
in this story is John, and for the large amount of the movie he hides out with
another killer named Feck, played by Dennis Hopper. Feck is older, and you can see
the generational gap. He says he loved the girl that he killed. When he asks John
if he loved the girl he killed, he simply replies, "She was okay." The movie only
seems to offer one solution: life is more important than death. A character's life
is spared, people get second chances, and one hopeless case is killed. The acting is really good. After watching this movie I could only come to the
conclusion that Crispin Glover is either a brilliant actor, or a terrible actor. I
still have no idea. He was my main reason to see this movie, though. But the best
performance is clearly given by Dennis Hopper. Even though the fashion
is really 80's and characters sometimes mention then-current issues, I still think
River's Edge is as relevant today as ever. My rating: 10/10
I'm not sure whether i like this film or not. I think it is creepy and completely
weird.Crispin Glover as always gave a great performance as Layne. I think his
performance was really good and one of his best, but i don't like the character at
all. Keanu Reeves performance was really good, and i truly felt for his character.
Over all i think the whole cast gave great performances as felt like the characters
were real. I disliked some, but genuinely felt sorry for others (Keanu Reeves). I
would like to know if that was the original ending that the film was supposed to
have as it didn't end how i expected it to. I was disappointed in the ending and i
don't feel that it did the rest of the film justice. If you are into creepy, weird
and really well different movies, go for this one. If you like things that are
normal, please stay away.
IMDb forces reviewers to type a certain amount of lines, but all I really want to
say is -- "This is an incredible film, and you can't consider yourself a film fan
without having seen it." You ought to just trust me on this one and stop reading
this review and get the movie and push play. But I have to type something. So, let
me point out the following: (1) River's Edge contains what still may
well rank as Crispin Glover's all-time funniest and best performance in a film, and
if you have been following Crispin Glover at all, you know that that alone
justifies giving it a 10. Funny lines galore. (2) River's Edge contains
the second-most memorable performance of Dennis Hopper's career (other than the one
in Blue Velvet), and it is really excellent. Dennis Hopper is really funny. (3) River's Edge contains the best performance of Keanu Reeves' career, and
it is excellent. It was the role he was born to play. He has plenty of good lines,
but one in particular is really really funny. Listen close when his character and
the step-dad are talking to one another. Still the best stoner film, it
is much more than just that. It tends to show up in the drama sections of film-
rental stores, but if this is a drama, it's the funniest drama of all time.
I really don't have any complaints about this movie, except for the disturbing
scenes with the body. I fell upon it while switching around the tv one night. The
acting was actually amazing, I didn't expect it to be better than it appeared! I
thought Keanu's(who looks the SAME since 1986, which is a very good thing hehe)
acting was really *great*, and Crispin played his character perfectly! This movie
is a hidden gem! Its a fresh awaking of reality to the '80s, compared to the other
teen movies done by the brat pack(even though I do like those moives alot too). All
in all, I give it thumbs up!
After reading some of these reviews, it is apparent that some have missed the
point. What is great about this film (here comes the point), what is incredible
about this film, what is astonishing about this film is that there is no
proselytizing. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. There is no preaching.
Life goes on. It is a masterpiece in letting an audience think for its collective
self. These are just kids doing what kids do - without consciousness. We all went
to school with kids like these. We are being numbed by fiction-/movie-/tv-/news-
based reality/invention. Feck's (Dennis Hopper the great) girlfriend
alone and his relationship with her is worth the price of renting this movie. There have been few movies before or since that measure up to the
intelligence of this film. AMEN. 
I hope the writer, director, editor, and composer (and let's not forget producer)
read this... because their work was truly incredible on this movie. Let me start by
saying that I am in no way affiliated with this movie. I am only a regular guy who
has been a fan of this movie for about 12 years and have seen it about 8
times. Every second of this movie is touching. Every scene is classic.
The acting is real. The movie is honest. You can relate to these characters as
people, not actors. This tale follows three distinct killers at
different stages in their lives. The story is carefully thought out and every sub-
plot is intertwined and woven together, culminating in a message that leaves us
pondering the values of right and wrong that each of us carries inside. Crispen Glover, Daniel Roebuck, Dennis Hopper, and Joshua John Miller (as a 12
year old boy) give absolutely amazing, real performances. I've seen this movie
about 8 or more times and I still get so absorbed in their performances that I
forget I am watching a movie. It's that good. Great job everyone who worked on
this. Great job. The music is also wonderfully matched and haunting.
With the chosen cast, the carefully timed editing and pacing, the mood and tone,
and even the subject matter, the director made some of the best decisions for a
movie I've ever seen. This movie is real. It's honest. It's a true movie
experience which I will never forget. You may not be into the subject matter but it
is something you cannot ignore. Ultimately, it's about people being people... and
everyone can relate to that. I recommend this movie to fans of drama, suspense, and
horror above almost every other film.
I can remember a college professor commenting as to how disturbing this film was,
reflecting the apathy of adolescents (this was before Generation "X"). In a way, most of us are products of the same consumer culture; these high school
kids spend their time drinking, getting high and wondering what to do about the
body left on a riverbank. What would they do today? Would things be
different?. Some very important questions. There are some excellent scenes with
Keanu Reeves, and the dysfunctional family he lives with; his 11 year old brother
going out to get wasted; the mother has no idea what to do- spends her time
drinking with her boyfriend. This film was a bit before its time in that
it addresses the problems in lower class American society; these kids had no
outlet; what is available for them in this dirt-water town? . All in all a few
interesting social commentaries are presented, and there are no solutions. 9/10.
Unlike the many who have posted here, I'm not movie literate. I stumbled across
this movie by accident (channel surfing), and couldn't surf away. This is a truly
incredible movie, worthy of all the praise the critics and those on this site have
heaped on it. The actors are terrific. Tatiana is beautiful and innocent. Her
fiancé Boris is sweet and patriotic. You couldn't help but feel Boris' father's
exasperation and sorrow as he upbraids his son for such foolishness as volunteering
to serve in the great war. Others have summarized the movie so well, so
I'll just mention a couple of scenes that moved me the most. When Boris' brother
reveals to his family that he has broken trust with his brother and "has to marry"
Tatiana, Tatiana's twisted mouth shows her revulsion at this betrayal (even though
her part in the unfaithfulness might have been through rape). You fear that the
rest of the movie might right this wrong by visiting just destruction on Tatiana
and the brother, or worse, show Tatiana destroyed by an immoral descent into
cigarette smoking decadence. Since this isn't "French existential cinema", the
latter doesn't happen. Thankfully! Another scene that tears at your
heart is when the unnamed "musician" soldier who was saved by Boris returns to tell
Boris' father of the death of his son. He unwittingly breaks the news to Tatiana. I
can't describe the sorrow of this scene... Still,Tatiana finds finds a straw to
grab and hope that Boris will yet come home. The musician actually never saw Boris
buried, after all. I won't mention more scenes, but do want to observe
that the touches of Soviet political correctness didn't detract at all from the
film. Boris' brother is revealed as the piano playing anti-soviet slacker that
someone who steals his brother's wife-to-be would have to be. No doubt he gets at
least a "tenner" at the conclusion of the film! The ending, when Tatiana finally
learns for certain that Boris is dead, still manages to end with cheerfully and
full of hope for the future. You don't even want to imagine the tears and catharsis
that must have swept through the theater when survivors of that war, with their own
losses in mind, first saw this movie. Incredible. Go see it.
I have seen this movie a number of times and find it very compelling and sad. The
lack of real emotion from most of the characters is very disturbing. They seem
empty, hopeless. The story is based on a real event. A teenage girl is
murdered by her boyfriend for no obvious reason - apparently he just felt like it.
Then he boasts about it to his friends and as they don't believe him he takes them
to view the body - a number of times. No one reports the murder. There are two
strong leads - Keanu Reeves and Crispen Glover - Crispen Glovers character is
seriously annoying. Keanu's character Matt appears to be the only one
who has a sense of right and wrong. This is Keanu at his best - a flawless
performance and very believable - anyone who thinks this man can't act should watch
this movie. Matt's little brother is almost the most disturbing character in the
movie. Only twelve and no compassion or love factor in his life. It is very sad to
think there are kids out there like this. It really makes you grateful for what you
have. 9/10.
River's Edge is an excellent film and it's a shame that it hasn't made more of a
mark for itself in cinematic history. There were a number of gritty films based
around school kids made in the eighties, but of all the ones I've seen; this is
certainly the most nihilistic and disturbing. The film takes a storyline that is
disturbing in its own right and adds the theme of teenage slackers and their
uncaring attitude about things, which takes the story onto another level. The film
works because the central story is interesting and it's played out by complex
characters. The film begins with a murder. We then follow the murderer, nicknamed
John, as he goes back to school and tells all his friends about what he has done.
Rather than give the expected reaction, most of them hardly react at all and the
strongest reaction that the murderer gets comes from Layne; who makes it his number
one priority to help John clear up the mess he's in and get him out of it. The
other friends mull over the crime, and before long one of them goes to the
police... River's Edge features a host of great performances from its
young cast. Keanu Reeves has a reputation for wooden acting, and for good reason;
but he fits in very well to this early role and this performance is easily one of
his best. Crispin Glover is the biggest standout as the slightly insane Layne.
Glover always stands out in every film he's in, and while he does go over the top a
little bit; he convinces well as the lead in this movie. Reeves and Glover receive
good support from a talented young cast that includes Daniel Roebuck and Joshua
john Miller, as well as the great Dennis Hopper in another wild role. The film
features a very gritty picture which bodes well with its nihilistic tone. The
central characters are all of the 'slacker/stoner' generation and the way that they
genuinely don't seem to care about the murder of their friend is more shocking than
the murder itself; and the point that the film tries to make about modern society
is both strong and well defined. The film is also rather funny, owing to some of
the characters' lines; but the humour is pitch black and clearly this film was
never meant to be a comedy. Overall, this is an excellent and memorable film that
is definitely worth seeing!
Less Than Zero could have been the 80s movie that reveals teenage apathy in its
most extreme form had they actually stuck to the damn book. But, where they hadn't,
this movie presents does the job, and leaves you with the creepiest feeling when
its all over in ways not done until the late nineties with Larry Clark's movies
'Kids' and 'Bully.' Societal outcast teens are faced with a rather
curious dilemma (they don't treat it much like one) when their estranged friend
(Daniel Roebuck) boasts to them that he killed a teenage girl near the river's edge
in their suburban town. Keanu Reeves may be the only civilized character among the
bunch, the only one willing to exhibit any sort of conscience, anyway, while the
others either don't do anything about the girl's death or want to help their friend
hide the body. I don't know who is more sick in this film--Crispin
Glover--who becomes nearly obsessed and quite paternal in trying to protect the
friend and hide the crime by smuggling him out of the state. Dennis Hopper, an on-
edge drug dealer (who clings to a female blowup doll) that befriends the teens (as
a dealer, of course) and suddenly becomes involved in the events. Or, Josh Miller,
who plays Reeve's little brother, Tim. He appears to be the most apathetic of them
all, at least until his emotional breakdown at the end. It is definitely not peppy
80s teen fare, obviously. And certainly makes the point strikingly clear about the
serious detachment these kids deal with (despite a bizarre series of events) thanks
to many great performances all around (even Reeves proved some acting
capability). Help yourself to a comedy to recover if it rocks you too
hard.
I just saw this movie for the second time. I first saw it back in the mid-90's as a
Vanguard Video selection. It has retained it power. It is interesting
from several aspects. One is that it is based on a true story. Two is it is a
launching pad for two interesting actors: Keanu Reeves and Crispin Glover. And
three, it has Dennis Hopper in one of his better social misfit/psychotic character
roles. The movie is also a study in the way people act in different
settings. You have characters in one-on-one, family, peer group, school, general
society settings, etc. The story does well in demonstrating how a person will act
in each setting. I wish I could find the details of the actual murder to
compare to the movie. I saw a short bit that indicated it occurred in California
and that several schoolmates were taken to view the corpse. This is a
good choice for a rainy night video rental. Be prepared to feel unsettled at the
end.
This film is one of the best of 1986 with creepy, yet intriguing performances from
Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper! The Reagan years were pretty bleak for a lot of
people, not just teenagers, but this flick really captured the desperation and
despair. Well-directed with great script (apparently based on a true story), I
don't really see any weaknesses in this. The opening shot was brilliant. Keanu Reeves was decent for a change and Miss Skye was right on the money.
Hopper had three other great performances that same year (Blue Velvet, Texas
Chainsaw II, and Hoosiers). I imagine this has a cult following and I wonder how
this picture would fare if it was re-released. Super stuff!
One of the better movies to come out of the 1980's, this based-on-fact movie tells
the story of a disturbed high school student who murders his girlfriend, leaves her
naked body on a river bank, and brags about it later to his friends. What is just
as bad is their inability to FEEL anything about it. Disturbing but
incredibly compelling look at aimless and apathetic kids who have no respect for
their parents or any sort of authority, who seem almost doomed to live lives of
rebellion and recklessness. This drama hits hard and is impossible to forget. The
young cast does a creditable job - even Keanu Reeves, in one of his earliest roles,
is better than usual. Of course, there's no reason for the character of Layne
(Crispin Glover) to be as crazed and off-the-wall as he is, but that's just Glover
being himself. Veteran Dennis Hopper has an especially good role as a loner who
despite his own sordid past is saddened by the attitudes of this group of kids. I
would like to point out the chilling performance by Daniel Roebuck as the young
murderer; he's an under-rated actor and aside from Hopper, his is probably the best
performance in the film. I saw "River's Edge" for the first time a long
time ago when it first started being shown on cable TV movie channels; however, I
didn't catch all of it; I saw it in its entirety for the first time a number of
years later, and now I've seen it again for what is probably the definitive
time. Some potently affecting moments include Madeleine's (Constance
Forslund) breakdown where she wails that maybe she should leave her children just
like their worthless father did. I also liked the scenes where Matt (Reeves) faces
off with his disturbed younger brother (Joshua Miller) and when the teacher, Mr.
Burkewaite (Jim Metzler) deplores the fact that the girl has died and that none of
his students seem to care. I will never forget this film, not as long as
I live. It's too saddening for that. 10/10
River's edge is not a PLEASANT film to watch but it is an incredible one. Having
viewed it many years ago I truly think it would still have the ability to shock
were it to be re released or remade or something. Perhaps no movie ever made has
captured the essense of young suburban inertia like this distrubing frightening
movie. Given that this is based on a true story it is even more disturbing. Very
well acted and just UNPLEASANT at many times to watch but also a little known
masterpiece and a truely important film. Should be a mandatory to watch shown
nationwide in all highschools. Fantastic.
This is actually the first movie I ever saw in a theatre , where the people didn't
leave immediately when the end credits started. In stead they remained seated for a
few minutes , gaping with their mouths open staring in the infinite , trying to
understand what they 've just seen. The only thing I can say: Try to go
watch this movie with as little knowledge about it as possible (so did I)!. I gave
it a 10
Fair and nifty little science fiction/horror fantasy thriller about a well-known
video game designer, Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh) whose latest game -
"eXistenZ" not only draws the attention of people who volunteer to try the game,
but one who nearly kills her (and her game, too). Since she forced to stay out of
sight, Allegra is stuck with Ted Pikul (Jude Law), a marketing trainee ("P.R.
nerd") to be her bodyguard even though he only has a gun that's made out of flesh
and bone and the bullets are teeth. Director David Cronenberg has, well, used some
bits from his earlier films ("Videodrome", "Scanners", "The Fly", etc.) and placed
it into certain parts of the story with some good timing. Law and Leigh are fine
here and so are some of the supporting cast (Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Sarah Polley,
Christopher Eccelston, and so on) that has an international twist to it. Dafoe is
anything but devilish as Gas, a deceiving garage mechanic. One of the movie's best
scenes is witnessing Ted eat (fish and frogs) and construct a gun and admit to
Allegra - " I can't help myself." "eXistenZ" manages to show that he (Cronenberg)
is up to his old tricks and it still works like a charm.
This was a movie I came across by accident. I was flipping through and saw it was
on Showtime so I watched it. Now i watch it at least once a month. This is a movie
that is filled with symbols that might cause some people to trash it. Don't listen
to people that hate this movie, if they want an action movie with expensive f/x
they should have rented a movie that promises them. If you are in the mood for a
good sci-fi, i highly recommend. If purchasing on DVD I recommend the Alliance
Atlantic edition of the film, it contains many more extras than the Dimension Films
edition.
The aftermath of World War Two almost resulted in the death of Soviet cinema. In
the early years of the 1950s, film production came close to a complete standstill
{a mere nine feature-films were released in 1951}, and the work of all filmmakers
was closely monitored, and often censored, by the government. Following the death
of Joseph Stalin in 1953, filmmakers were given greater artistic freedom with their
pictures, though many remained reluctant to challenge the heroic, optimistic and
propagandistic stance towards warfare that had been prevalent in previous years. It
wasn't until 1957 that director Mikhail Kalatozov and writer Viktor Rozov became
bold enough to produce what is widely-considered the first post-Stalin Soviet
masterpiece, 'Letyat zhuravli / The Cranes are Flying,' one of the finest
depictions of war I've seen from any country or time period. Not only was the film
lauded for its artistic brilliance in the Soviet Union, but international
recognition was soon to follow, and Kalatozov's film was honoured with the Palm
d'Or at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival. 'The Cranes are Flying' is both
an invigorating visual feast and an audacious, humanistic portrayal of war. Unlike
many Soviet war-themed films of the time, it was less constrained by the archetypal
figure of the traditional war-time hero, and more concerned with the futility,
brutality and, indeed, the inevitability of conflict. Love, as a cinematic concept,
is too-often idealised as a notion that somehow conquers all and endures endless
hardship, and yet the reality is substantially less romantic. In the film, two
lovers, Veronika (Tatyana Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), separated by the
advent of the WWII {widely known in the Soviet Union as the Great Patriotic War,
1941-1945}, pledge to marry after the war, but tragedy denies the couple their
wish. Driven to betrayal by the unending torment and uncertainty of waiting,
Veronika agrees to wed Boris' cousin, Mark (Aleksandr Shvorin), a handsome but
unworthy youth. The film may conclude with the proud victory of the Soviets, and a
patriotic flag-waving parade, but the optimism of this sequence is overwhelmingly
eclipsed by the bittersweet tragedy of our young female protagonist, who wanders
soullessly through the celebrating crowds. Perhaps the most remarkable
feature of 'The Cranes are Flying' is Sergei Urusevsky's inspired and dynamic hand-
held cinematography, which realistically and dizzily captures the chaos and
confusion of war, not necessarily in the hail of gunfire and the cries of dying
comrades {in fact, only one of the film's sequences joins Boris on the Eastern
Front}, but from the perspective of the family and friends who are left behind. In
one particularly impressive, oft-cited long shot, the camera follows Veronika as
she frantically searches for Boris in a crowd of departing recruits and their
families. The hand-held camera smoothly follows the girl off a bus, jostles through
the crowd alongside her - capturing momentary snippets of loved ones saying
farewell to their sons and husbands - before unexpectedly craning above the crowd
as Veronika disappears into the dust of a passing squadron of army tanks, a
breathtaking movement that offers scope and urgency to the dramatic episode.
Urusevsky first acquired his filming experience as a military cameraman during the
war, and obviously fell in love with the storytelling possibilities of hand-held
photography: "The camera," he once declared, "can express what the actor is unable
to portray: his inner sensations. The cameraman must act with the actors."
I have seen this movie twice and it's theme is an invigorating one. I have been
into computers for many years now and this movie inspired me in a technologically
sense as does a fresh love which stoked the furnace of my poetic passion in the
heat of infatuation. Very original idea,great allurement in the way it holds you as
it tells it's story to minds that need a release from the every day realities of
this life.
David Cronenberg movies are easily identifiable, or at least elements within the
movie stand out as his trademarks. Fetishism, the blurring between the organic and
inorganic, squishy throbbing things that shouldn't be squishy and throbbing.
"eXistenZ" is classic Cronenberg. Briefly, it's about a future generation of
computer games, but instead of a video monitor, visuals are supplied by your mind.
The game plugs directly into a 'bio port' in the base of your spine and while the
game is running, the player can't tell reality from game. Jennifer Jason Leigh
plays the game's developer, guiding a novitiate marketeer, Jude Law, through the
game's paces. While in the game they uncover strange goings-on and possible crimes.
But are they real, or is it the game? Not even the game's author knows. The movie is quite a treat, keeping the viewer engaged, but in the dark
until the final minutes. Another thing I like about "eXistenZ" is that it doesn't
use a heavy reliance on special effects, it's the story itself that propels the
movie. Recommended for the Saturday night when science fiction is called for.
The movie eXistenZ is about a futuristic video game on a "pod" system that is
almost like virtual reality. The only copy of the video game is damaged when an
assassination attempt is made on the designer (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Unless it can
be repaired, the many years and 38 million dollars spent on the development will
all go to waste. The only way to repair the game however, is to actually go in the
game with the only person she feels she can trust(Jude Law). This movie was pretty
good, but doesn't really pick up until very late in the film. The best thing about
this film were the twists toward the end. Definitely worth seeing. 7/10
I loved this movie but then again I am a big Cronenberg fan. If you have not seen a
David Cronenberg film then this is not a good place to start. Scanners, The Fly,
Rabid would be a place to start and then work up to Videodrome before checking this
one out. This is certainly one of his best and takes the interactive game phenomena
one step beyond. In this game the players plug a bio-engineered game pad
through a jack inserted into their spinal cord and get into the game directly
through their nervous system. It is very hard to tell you more without giving away
the story and the plot but it is enough to say that this is a game you will not
forget. It is full of Cronenberg's slimy body works, dark foreboding scenery all
populated by a great cast including Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law and Willem Dafoe
who take the situation they find themselves in very seriously. These people will do
what they can to figure out the game and then to win at it. Like other movies of
his there is no shortage of imagination or parts where you sink to the seat but
like an auto-accident you don't look away. If you liked any of the movies mentioned
above then by all means go out and get this one.
yes, i have noticed that there are 347 other comments, i think that is a good sign
for a movie, even if some are negative. i have seen this movie 2 and a half times.
i adore it and would watch it again. it is very smart, but i can understand why
some people would hate it. they don't get it's appeal. yes, i have a weird taste in
movies, but this is a great movie. some of the lines are just so quick, like the
whole scene in the chinese restaurant. i started dying laughing. that and when he
was in the assembly line talking to the contact. jude law was wonderful, though it
was humorous, him trying to cover up his wonderful accent. anyways, i do not
consider myself the movie goddess as some critics of this movie and if you have
nothing better to do than write pseudo-intellectual movie commentaries about films
you hate online, i feel sorry for you. why don't you write about movies you like,
like me. i just love how everything ties together, it keeps you guessing, even
though you guess wrong. the ending was interesting, and not overdone. it was purely
clever. i would not compare it to the matrix, because i think people then get the
wrong idea. i went into this movie expecting nothing except jude law and a sci-fi.
i was blown away. i have no clue about any other of cronenburg's films, but love
this on its own merit. another clever thing was the foreshadowing with the dog.
definitely watch this movie.
This was a great movie, I would compare it to the movie The Game. You get to the
end of the flick and cant move... your brain has been removed and shaken (not
stirred) and put back in your head. Dont plan anything after this movie, you will
need time to think about what just happened. Dont come to this movie
expecting the Matrix style multi millions spent on special effects, this movies
special effects come from the actors, they keep you involved, no, they suck you in
and dont let go for the entire duration of the movie. Great acting, great plot...
very enjoyable film, I cant say enough. Also very original plot, plenty of twists
and ideas that I would have never thought of. The ending is abrupt and leaves you
hanging wondering, was that real? Is this really the end? Good ending, not saying
that it is bad... just leaves you wondering, and a little frazzled. Great movie for those who like action, like a good plot (dont get up for a
bathroom break on this movie, you will come back lost) and like mind games, because
thats exactly in a nutshell what this is.
A bit "the movie in the movie" case, or as the theme is virtual game here, which is
the reality or even more frightening which reality is the "real" one.As any
Cronenberg there are organic things, like the pod and that wonderful idea:the
organic gun, a weapon made of bones and tissues that shoots teeth. If there are
some slower moments, the sets, designs and ideas are there with some thoughts of
revolution. Can be not liked because the way the movie is happening is quite
unusual and sometimes disturbing, but it's definitely worth it.
 my favorite science fiction, incredible ride through mistrust and the
warping of reality. Probably the best performance I have ever seen Jude Law play.
Incredibly original with interesting character developments and a story line that
twists and turns so rapidly that it takes a couple of minutes after the film to
fully grasps its genius. Even more fun watching it again for the end changes the
beginning.
Now being a fan of sci fi, the trailer for this film looked a bit too, how do i put
it, hollywood. But after watching it i can gladly say it has impressed me greatly.
Jude is a class actor and miss Leigh pulls it off better than she did in Delores
Clairborne. It brings films like The Matrix, 12 Monkeys and The Cell into mind,
which might not sound that appealing, but it truly is one of the best films i have
seen.
 eXistenZ is simply David Cronenberg's best movie. All the people
compare it to the Matrix. They're not even similar. If you enjoyed Cronenberg's
other works just a little bit, you'll love this one...
This movie won a special award at Cannes for its acting and it's not difficult to
see why. (A few spoilers - but for the ending, you'll have to watch the movie!) A
simple story - in Moscow on the eve of war between Russia and Germany in WW II
Veronika (Tatiana Samoilova) is in love with Boris (Aleksei Batalov) but they have
a spat when she learns that he has enlisted in the army. Boris leaves for the front
before Veronika can tell him she loves him. Boris is shot but his ultimate fate
remains unknown to Veronika or his family. Mark, Boris' cousin, rapes Veronika who
feels obligated to marry him. Degraded and demeaned by the cowardly Mark, Veronika
clings to the hope that someday Boris will return. Superb camera-work and wonderful
set pieces by director Kalatozov. (For anyone interested in film technique another
movie by Kalatozov, I AM CUBA, has at least two superb set pieces - one of them a
long tracking shot that begins with a funeral procession through the streets of
Havana, rises two stories to a cigar factory, tracks though the window and follows
the procession down a long, long avenue - all without a cut.) Superb acting,
particularly by Samoilova and Vasili Merkuryev (as Boris' uncle) that is made all
the more poignant by sheer understatement. A devastatingly romantic movie with a
heart-stopping performance by Samoilova. (This movie is frequently linked with the
other Russian classic Ballad Of A Soldier.)
This movie is breath-taking and mind-blowing. But I think maybe it can only be
appreciated by die-hard RPG funs. It is like a game. One problem is the plot is too
game-like and just has too many twists. The twists are excessive. Jude Law gives a
very good performance. I really like him in this movie, just as Jerome in Gattaca
and Gigglo Joe in A.I.
The bottom line is: if you come looking for a sci-fi thriller/horror film, The
Matrix is what you'll like. If, like me, you long for the rare true science fiction
film involving characters with depth and provocative thought about where science
will take us, then you need to see eXistenZ.
eXistenZ was a good film, at the first I was wondering what is going on, organic
"pods" made out of mutant reptiles which connected you and other players to a
surreal virtual reality game via a umbilical cord, well it seems a little
odd. But once it gets going its a pretty good film, with a few twists
with a great open ending and the good aspect of weridness throughout the film is
entertaining too see as your not sure whats coming next. Security
personnel throw away the metal detectors; they have bone guns !
eXistenZ combines director David Cronenberg's traditional love of blood and gore
and exploding heads with the more confusing aspects of a reality twisting David
Lynch film. And it actually works effectively. I won't bother trying to give even
the bare bones of a plot synopsis here because it'll only cause more confusion. All
you need to know is that the film is about a virtual reality computer game that is
so incredibly lifelike that it becomes difficult to tell the difference between
reality and virtual reality. The film almost seems to abandon its technology
fearing point at the end, but then it throws in the final twist in the very last
line of dialogue. There's also some very gross sexual imagery based
around the 'bio-ports' in the protagonists backs, as well as some very gross acting
from Jude Law. He manages to come off as naive and stupid and boring and any other
annoying habit you can care to think of. Jason Jennifer Leigh comes off much
better, and everyone else can be called a supporting character, including Willem
Dafoe in a functional, if unspectacular, role as a money-crazed mechanic. Overall,
eXistenZ is a very effective sci-fi film about the possibilities technology can
present and the possible consequences it will receive.
WARNING: PLOT SPOILER The always-abnormal movies of David Cronenberg
certainly are an acquired taste. Fans of his earlier films will probably like
èXistenZ', but it definitely isn't one for the squeamish. All of the usual
elements are here. A game pod made out of skin (hooked into your back), buckets of
blood, a gun made out of bones, and a manic mechanic to name but a few. The result
is good in parts, bad in parts, and just plain weird in others. But one thing the
film has is undeniable originality. Despite the excessive use of
weirdness it does prove a point- virtual reality games can have a dangerous effect
on some people. In the movie, a character shoots someone dead claiming that he was
ànnoying' (assuming that she was still in the game). But it leaves the question as
to whether that really happened or if it was an occurrence in this stunningly life-
like game. èXistenZ' leads to a conclusion that can be responded to in several
ways. Despite some extra gadgets and gook, it was simply your classic
ìt was all a dream or was it' twist. It is a smart surprise and answers a few
questions, but giving that the entire film was leading up to this moment is a bit
disappointing. At only 97 minutes it could have went on a bit longer too. In a
peculiar way the film raises moral issues but answers them in a violent and rather
inappropriate way. Jennifer Jason Leigh appears here in her first big
role in quite a while. But her character doesn't have enough qualities to make her
jump off the screen or even give her a likeable character. Jude Law on the other
hand (equipped with a curious American accent) is good as your average Joe sucked
into this abnormal world. We see the film through his perspective. èXistenZ' is far from flawless but it certainly is a movie experience to
remember. There's tonnes of weird characteristics to match the similar styles of
David Lynch (what next? - being consumed by a question mark?!?!?!). It definitely
isn't for all tastes but it is rewarding enough to recommend. My IMDb rating:
6.2/10.
So let's begin!))) The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's
movies would usually appear... My intention to see it was certainly JJL
being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie! I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite
interesting and entertaining to follow. The rest of the cast is not
extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;) Recommend with confidence!))))
I always believed that a film that's plot is centred around a virtual reality video
game never sounds as though it's going to be anything special but eXistenZ proved I
couldn't have been more wrong. This film is unbelievable and, whilst highly
entertaining, offers so much more than that. From start to finish, this film has
you conceptualising to the point where you can have so many ideas, you can not make
a final conclusion. David Cronenberg has a talent for this as he does so many
things. eXistenZ is pure Cronenberg; the way it's written and the way
it's directed is very unique to his style and that can only be a good thing.
Cronenberg set himself a clear target with this film and that was to keep the
audience guessing which he did with apparent ease. His fondness for the grotesque
is not as predominant in this film as it is in The Fly or Naked Lunch but there are
still some elements such as the game pods and how they are made that can make the
audience wince. With regards to his earlier work, eXistenZ is more a combination of
Videodrome and a less violent Scanners, a pretty awesome combination. Setting the
film in the not too distant future was a really good decision as it allowed
Cronenberg to be extremely imaginative with the films surroundings and also enabled
him to visualise more concepts, allowing for less inhibited writing. It was
important that the film didn't become over confusing and Cronenberg avoided this
very well by keeping things relatively simple. Besides, if he wanted to make an
unwatchable film, he'd know how to do it a lot better than this. eXistenZ boasts an extremely talented cast of character actors and all perform
very well. Jennifer Jason Leigh gives the standout performance as the game designer
who spends more time out of reality than in to it. Leigh is sexy and commanding in
her role as Allegra and she really gets her teeth in to the role. The emotional
range she shows in the film is particularly impressive, making her completely
believable (if you can believe anything). Jude Law is also good and is very
convincing in his character's fear of implantation. The chemistry between these two
is very electric and gives the film an extra bit of flavour. Ian Holm and Willem
Dafoe are just two of the great actors in support who add further depth to the film
with very colourful performances. The cast of the film isn't huge but eXistenZ
definitely has the 'quality is better than quantity' ethic which works very
well. As well as being entertaining and thought provoking, eXistenZ
touches social issues such as control and loss of self. This further demonstrates
the film as an intellectual vessel and could also explain why it wasn't a huge
Hollywood hit. eXistenZ has so much to offer and although it isn't to everyone's
taste, those who like Cronenberg's work or who like science fiction will almost be
certain to like this film. It is one of those films that needs to be watched with
an open mind but it really is something special.
The producers of this picture are Hungarians. It's not by crazy artistic momentum
that X and Z are capitalized in the titles considering that the word 'isten' means
'god' in Hungarian. - By the way, David, Isten is the word for God in Hungarian...
- Hum... Is that so ? Let's consider this movie as 'A History Of
Violence' science-fictional sibling. Both films have in common the strength of
blowing up respective genres ; thriller and drama in the 2005 one and 'none FX-ed
as hell' science fiction in the one we're looking at right now. Everything he does
have a meaning and is surrounded by details : The nod to Phil K. Dick (who wrote
"In The Days of Perky Pat") by creating a 'Perky Pat' fast-food restaurant. The nod
to Stanley Kubrick by using 2001's naming pattern ; as IBM became HAL (one letter
down in the alphabet) in the 1968 movie, in eXistenZ 'classic lubricant spray' WD-
40 becomes XE-60 (one letter up) when Allegra cleans up Pikul's port. The nod to
David Cronenberg by using Videodrome's witty kind of formula ('Death to...' & 'Long
Live'..) and by taking another medium for central theme of a picture (tv in
Videodrome, Video games and virtual reality in eXistenZ In 1983, you penetrated a
TV set. In 1999, you're penetrated by a game. Welcome to Canada!) The
nod to good taste by getting Peter Suschitzky's cinematography, Howard Shore's
music and Ronald Sanders's editing (a team that wins). For everyone born in the
early 80's with a super famicom, a genesis or an arcade stick in the hands, this
movie rings a bell. Enough with the nods. The plot ? "Jennifer Jason Leigh stars as
a game designer (Allegra) who creates a virtual-reality game that taps into the
players' minds" as we can see on the movie main details page. That's the story in
the story. To me, this picture is about a 'reality demonstrators' young couple
infiltrating the 'brand new virtual game' presentation session to destroy its
programmer. I assume that what we see in the last five minutes is reality, if
there's such thing as reality. Jennifer Jason Leigh is always playing a game
designer in the game they're in and the end of the movie IS the reality, with video
games freaks giggles, big hairy dogs, 'Cronenbergy realistic' plastic textures
(helmets and stuff) and 9mm handguns. What you see is true. They play transcendenz
during an hour or so (in this game, there's a game (eXistenZ) in which JJL plays
eXistenZ's genius programmer and Jude -Pikul - Law a marketing trainee associated
with Allegra's game), they play eXistenZ because Allegra is very concerned about
her pod's health (the thing you plug your nervous system in, in order to play), she
has to plug herself and Pikul in then wins the game (Transcendenz) and back in the
reality they kill Yevgeny Nourish, TranscendenZ programmer. Playing
eXistenZ and TranscendenZ is about facing your essence, face your subconscious
while its creating a virtual reality you'll have to overcome in unexpected ways to
win the game (by playing the game, the girl playing Allegra, the 'reality
demonstrator' turns into Allegra, a 'virtuality goddess'). What game
would Heidegger have played to feel his abstract da-sein term ? To be truly engaged
in the world ? And what about Nietschze (Yes Friedrich, God is dead and
you know what ? Willem Dafoe stands for him! - God, The Mecanic -) ??? Yes we do construct a narrative for ourselves, and losing this thread we follow
from one day to the next disintegrate people as personalities ; eXistenZ's
discusses the fact that reality is the whole perception of itself by anyone who
engaged it truly. And we could sometimes get some neat stuff ; a perception of
virtuality in virtuality in reality.
After his earlier movie "Videodrome", which definitely shows similarities to this
movie, director David Cronenberg again ventures himself in the world of virtual
reality, in which truth and fiction mix. It's virtual reality taken to a whole
other level. "eXistenZ" is an highly original movie that is well
directed and acted out but above all very well written. The movie features a
fascination and well thought out concept, which gets greatly executed by director
David Cronenberg. "eXistenZ" is a movie that knows to constantly fool
you. Just when you thought you figured things out, another surprise awaits around
the corner. Things are never like how you think they are, especially when the line
between truth and fiction gets explored. You just never really know what is the
reality and what is the game-world, right till the ending. It makes the characters
and events all very unpredictable and also provides the movie with a great ending
that will leave you thinking even more. The movie has a perfect kind of
game-play storytelling, mostly with its character appearances and its puzzling
events. They have to complete a certain step or task first before they can continue
in the world and find out what their purpose in the game is. The movie
knows how to create a perfect balance between realism and surrealism, without ever
going over-the-top with either one. The storytelling keeps the movie as simple as
possible, though of course the movie isn't always that simple to follow because of
its events, dialogs and unusual environments. The movie is not only just
weird though. I was actually surprised to see that "Videodrome" has an higher
rating on here, thought it's a far more inaccessible and 'odd' movie. The movie is
also still made entertaining and has a good fast pace. It doesn't ever allow the
movie to get stuck in its more philosophical moments and deeper meanings. It also
makes this movie perfectly watchable for people who normally don't watch this sort
of movies. The movie is good looking, with subtle effective special
effects a great visual look, that also provides the movie with a certain required
'gaming' feeling. The movie is well cast, with Jude Law in a role you
don't too often see him in, that of a shy insecure person. It once more shows how
actually versatile Law as an actor is and that he is way more than just another
pretty face from Hollywood. Jennifer Jason Leigh also was a great female lead. She
hasn't really played ever that many big parts in big productions but with this
movie she shows why she nevertheless always have been regarded as a big movie star.
The movie also features some other well known actors, in much smaller roles, such
as Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe. An highly original movie that is well
worth watching, especially if you have seen "Videodrome" previously. 8/10
eXistenZ is an exploration of reality and virtual reality, wherein characters run
from realm to realm, landscape to landscape trying to beat a game they know not the
goal of or exactly where it's leading them. Within that virtual reality game is
more layers of virtual reality games, calling into question which reality they
arrive from is the "real" one. Of course it's not spectacular at hiding
the fact that it's not going to reasonably answer to a true reality, instead
tossing the idea of whether it's real or a video game into question even up to the
end. I'm not even sure Cronenberg pretends that twist won't be there, it's so
incredibly obvious in a sense it's kind of disconcerting. The problem
with this film though is its base nature, in a sense. Cronenberg is questioning
reality AND criticizing game play. Yet the same things that he uses to criticize
game play makes him revel in it: the violence, the discontinuity, the lack of focus
and in a sense, the pixellation even if there isn't such pixellation in the film. I
have once heard someone state that Cronenberg's violence is actually a criticism of
hyperviolence in media, but he hides that well with the fact that he derives such
incredible pleasure in ripping new orifices into humans, animals, and amorphous
piles of biological sludge. What IS brilliantly written and done about
this movie is the use of video game conceits (not being able to say exactly what
you want to say during cut scenes, relative lack of surroundings or surroundings
that don't make sense, only a few people around where it feels there should be many
and vice-versa, all of that stuff) along with the motif of penetration. It
definitely deconstructs the video game reality in a way that's nauseating and
absurd, but it does it even better by replacing video game electronics with literal
"pods" of biological matter that squirm and shift and are, frankly, disgusting to
the one of the most horrifying degrees. For what it's worth, this film causes a
reaction in you. But what for? It criticizes virtual reality, but it's a
movie: it is its own virtual reality. It seems to criticize the banality of video
game plot lines and character design, yet it maintains that banality. It definitely
seems to worry over whether killing a video game character is more okay than
killing an actual human being and how video games can be confused with reality and
cause people to not think about the consequences of their actions in real life, and
yet I say again, it derives the utmost pleasure from ripping people, objects,
beasts, things, and organisms into bloody shreds. So whereas it has a
key focus of angst, it doesn't really do anything with it, not really. Only what it
does do is present that angst in such an original way it can't really be denied its
own moment of splendor. In a sense, it'd be much easier to just hate
this movie for being gory and violent, because there's no good reason I can see for
loving it and yet I can't disregard it as mediocre or bad. It'd be easier to simply
not be able to take it, but since I can, there's nothing I can really do with it. I
do believe it is a little excessive, it really didn't need to go as far as it went,
but Cronenberg's intentions are so mixed up and confused I don't know if that was
Cronenberg's flaw or Cronenberg's point, and I don't think there's really any way
to figure it out except maybe ask him directly. --PolarisDiB
Russian actress TATIANA SAMOILOVA reminds me so much of the young Audrey Hepburn
and the camera in THE CRANES ARE FLYING seems to love her just as much. She is the
focal point of a bittersweet war romance against the background of World War II in
Moscow. The film is almost poetic in its gorgeous B&W cinematography
which was the main reason for watching the film in the first place, since I had
never heard of it and decided to give it a try when it aired on TCM. It's a very moving love story about a girl's deep love for a man who is suddenly
swept away by his role as a soldier drafted in wartime Russia. She's unable to
forget the memory of her romantic attachment to him, but inexplicably marries
someone else who has forced himself on her, a pianist who soon realizes that she
still loves the soldier she hopes to hear from. Their marriage is a troubled one
because she can't let go of her remembrance of a happier time with her soldier
sweetheart. By the end of the story, she accepts the idea that he's
never going to return and is able to face reality and cope with the situation.
There's a very poignant final scene at a train station where arriving soldiers are
greeting their loved ones and the tearful girl shares the joy of the returning
soldiers by giving some flowers from her bouquet to the joyous families. The stylish and striking camera-work is what carries the film, as well as
the honestly played story. Tastefully done, but perhaps the English
subtitles didn't tell the whole tale because some of the plot elements seemed a bit
blurred to me as if they had been glossed over. Summing up: Easy to see
why it won awards at the Cannes Film Festival. Reminded me, in style, of another
great Russian film, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER.
An absorbing exploration of virtual reality, although it is not yet clear how much
the director himself intended. This film deliberately takes you through several
layers of artificial reality, leaving only subtle clues about which layer of
virtual reality you are in, positing an ontological confusion for the viewer to
ponder. Also can be seen as a satire of video games-- the whole movie
though may fall into the fallacy of imitative form here. It seems unable to escape
from the video game genre which it imitates; thus the satire becomes problematic.
 A number of interesting ideas crisscross throughout though: the
biological mutant is one; the interface of technology and biology, the cyborg urge
to transcend reality-- and philosophical allusions such as the title's to
Heidegger, along with existential questions: i.e., the game characters are partly
scripted or determined and yet partly free to alter their fate, and they wonder at
how strange that feels in the game. One character then notes that this existential
confusion is just like real life, thereby erasing again the distinction between the
virtual and the real. Likewise with the observation that it is unpleasant to
stumble around in a world where you don't know what will happen next and you're not
sure how to play since you have to stumble around just to find out the goal and the
unknown rules. A virtual game within the game is titled "TranscendenZ". Also a
critique of how virtual violence makes us unable to feel the effects of real
violence. Even the heroes at every level of ontological existence find themselves
confused about violence. They don't like it but it is thrilling and part of the
"game", which then they fear is real. The game creator, the god of the
system, is assassinated in the end; yet that very scenario is played out in direct
parallel to a video game we've just witnessed-- and the onlookers believe that it
is still just part of the virtual reality. In the end, the film does not resolve
the doubt about whether or not this is "real" but the point is clear (to me
anyway). Existenz means Da-sein: You are there. You are thrown into a set of rules
and mysteries at every level. Ontologically, virtual reality recapitulates reality.
And its common game motifs express, like a royal road to the unconscious, our own
fascination with violence. Nevertheless, while Cronenberg affirms these
philosophical allusions in an interview about the film, he claims that he is very
much against the "Reality ... {underground name of terrorist group} portrayed in
the film both in the game and in the 'real' level." Seems that Cronenberg himself
did not put that much thought into the film, though his impressive education comes
through. The interview in Cineaste gives the impression of a middle brow
intellectual who's trying to be avant-garde by inclination. Cronenberg is simply on
the side of free imagination -- the clichéd bourgeois modernist credo-- despite the
acknowledged ambivalence there. (My impression here might be due to one limited
interview.) Still, Cronenburg seems to miss the point that his film betrays the
fallacy of imitative form (here imitating computer games while doing a satirical
critique of them, but a critique that is unable to "transcend" the same form)
probably because he actually thinks that it is "imaginative" and radical. Yet the
film's imaginative world is less bearable, and more jejune, than our own all-too-
real world. It remains trapped in the computer game worldview.
"We're both stumbling around together in this unformed world, whose rules and
objectives are largely unknown, seemingly indecipherable or even possibly
nonexistent, always on the verge of being killed by forces that we don't
understand." So says Ted Pikul in the film. Which for some people sums up life and
'eXistenZ' probably is a film about existence. What is real and what is unreal and
how you tell the difference. Or not. The last line of the film is superbly
ambiguous. The film seems like a shaggy dog story (indeed it has a real
shaggy dog in it) but it takes you along on an interesting ride, full of
provocative Cronenberg touches that will make you look at amphibians, game pods,
fish, spines and bones in a new light. Some bits are quite icky. It takes place in
a rural setting where the gas station is called 'GAS STATION' and a Chinese
restaurant is called 'CHINESE RESTAURANT.'The film has an engrossing texture that
is leagues away from your usual big budget science fiction movie.You can read many
things into the film and it repays watching more than once. The main
actors are Jude Law who is OK and Jennifer Jason Leigh who is great. Some roles
don't suit this very talented actor but when she has a good role like this she is
unmatchable. Her unconventional beauty and fascinating voice suits the part of
Allegra. (Looks great in a short black skirt too.) There are other familiar actors
but they are not given much to do. It looks good, sounds good and a Howard Shore
score complements the film very well. Cronenberg is possibly the Alfred Hitchcock
of the sci-fi/horror genre. No matter what film he makes he is always worth
watching.
David Cronenberg's èXistenZ' is a well designed reflection of the philosophy of
existentialism. It addresses the problems of a culture that is plugged into
technology that it can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality or between
the organic and the mechanical. The movie shocks the audience with its replacement
of mechanical technology with organic, metabolismic one. In this context the
technology is able to be part of human body. After playing the virtual reality game
of èXistenZ', the real world feels like a game and as a result, human behavior
change in order to apply violent game-urges even when the game is over. In
eXistenZ, technology has evolved from machinery to biological organisms that plug
directly into the human nervous system; an idea that reflects Marshall McLuhan's
belief who is a well known media theorist, that computers are extensions of human
consciousness. Like telephone is an extention of the ear, television is an
extention of the eye, telegram is an extention of the central nervous system high-
tech virtual reality is an extention of human consciousness. In eXistenZ,
technology is biological and thus more human than it is in our world. But as
technology becomes organic, humans become more mechanical and therefore less free,
unable to resist their game-urges. eXistenZ is a virtual realty simulation of man's
existence. Jean Baudrillard describes a mediated society in his book of Simulacra
and Simulation, which all power to act has been transformed to appear. The world
has passed into a pure simulation of itself. In eXistenZ it is obvious to see
Baudrillard's mediated society with the themes of the invasion of the body, the
loss of control and the transformation of the self into other. While you
are in the eXistenZ, consciousness slowly replaces with another identity, your role
in the game, which is a reflection each individual's real life subconscious. While
you gain the control of your hyperreal life step by step, the aura of your real
life disappers. For Baudrillard, `.simulations or simulacra, have become hyperreal,
more than real.' Our hyperreality, like Cronenberg's world of computer simulation,
`.now feels, and, for all intents and purposes is, more real than what we call the
real world.' (Baudrillard) The purpose of the game which can basically be called
'experience' is quite metaphorical. Because you can not even know what is
experience unless you experience it. As existentialists say that, life without an
exact explanation is absurd, the game of eXistenZ is absurd too. Cronenberg,
ironically reflects the absurdity of our lives. For instance, in the game, the
other roles just stand still unless you ask them a pre-programmed question. And
when you put their aimless funny looking state of being into the representation of
our lifes, the exposed absurdity really shocks. The theme of the game is
to understand what it is for? This hidden metaphorical question creates anguish
over the people who play eXistenZ. They have no doubt about their existence,
however they do not know the underlying reason of their existence. The
essence. Existentialists have held that human beings do not have a fixed
nature, or essence, as other animals and plants do; each human being makes choices
that create his or her own nature. In the formulation of the 20th-century French
philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, existence precedes essence. `Choice is therefore
central to human existence, and it is inescapable; even the refusal to choose is a
choice. Freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Because
individuals are free to choose their own path, existentialists have argued, they
must accept the risk and responsibility of following their commitment wherever it
leads.' Perhaps I should mention, èXistenZ' deals with the concept of freedom of
choice too. You achieve your final role in the game by taking right decisions. If
you don't than the game becomes irrevelant and boring. So, you begin to interrogate
the game, your existence rather than your essence. You suddenly become
schzopfrenically alianated from the game and realize your position outside the
game. Well as a last word, eXistenZ is a well designed reverse simulation of life
thus existentialism. 
Who should watch this film? Anyone who has ever taken acid, read Philip K. Dick,
thought the premise of the Matrix was better then the special effects, has an
interest in Philosophy, or likes having their sense of reality messed with. I
laughed out loud at this film, just because it was so outrageous and so spot-on.
This film is great. This film is cool. It is better than the Matrix, by a long shot
(I didn't fall asleep in Existenz, for a kick off: action/special effects films
bore me stupid, and despite a plausible philosophical gloss, that is exactly what
the Matrix is). Existenz is gross, it is disturbing, and it is funny. David
Cronenberg has done some shonky stuff (Rabid) and some works of genius too
(Videodrome is another one worth checking out, as is Stephen King adaptation The
Dead Zone). But this is one of my all-time favourites. I can't remember the ending-
which is a good thing, cos it means I can watch it again. Or perhaps I never
watched this film at all. Maybe it's an implanted memory. Or maybe it 'really'
happened to me. I don't know. At any rate, it is now seamlessly stitched into my
overall illusion of reality, and I'm glad.
David Cronenberg, much like colleague David Lynch, is an acquired taste. A director
who plays with themes like reality, perversion, sex, insanity and death, is bound
to get the most extreme reations from audiences. He proved this with films as The
Fly, Naked Lunch, Crash and eXitenZ (capital X, capital Z) and more recently,
Spider. It's best to see eXistenZ with a clear mind. Try not to read too much about
the plot, or it'll be ruined for you. What I can tell you is that Cronenberg takes
you on a trip down into the world of videogames that acts as a metaphor for any
kind of escapist behaviour. Living out fantasies is something people always dream
of, but how far can you go into it, before reality gets blurred and the fantasy
takes over and turns into a nightmare? Those are the themes touched in eXistenZ, an
exploration of identity, the human psyche, physical bodies being invaded by disease
and most importantly, reality itself. The story and directing are
excellent. Cronenberg knows his trade very well and succesfully brings to life an
artificial world, avoiding the usual pitfalls and clichés linked to stories such as
this. The film shows some pretty disgusting stuff, but is unusually low-key in the
gore department in comparison to Cronenbergs other work. The shock effects he plays
on are never over the top and the plot progression is very intelligent and
creative. It's not the most intellectual movie ever, but it will leave you thinking
about it, wondering and pretty confused. The acting gets two thumbs up
as well. Both protagonists, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law, play their parts
perfectly and cleverly portray their character's shifting moods and identities. The
dialogue may seem a little stale and clinical at times, but that is part of the
effect Cronenberg was going for, to create a disaffected and alien atmosphere that
puts you quite at unease. Supporting actors as Ian Holm, Don McKellar and an
especially creepy Willem Dafoe lift the movie even higher with their disturbingly
familiar performances. This movie takes some getting used to, but if you
can appreciate the dark tone, blood-curdeling imagery and existentially warping
story, you'll love it.
Everybody seems to compare this to The Matrix and The 13th Floor, and when I first
saw it I would have agreed -- I was expecting The Matrix and was a little
disappointed. But upon repeated viewings my respect for this movie has grown
immensely. The thing to keep in mind is that The Matrix is a great
action movie with some philosophical mumbo-jumbo thrown in. The 13th Floor is a
passable action movie with some slightly more interesting philosophical mumbo-jumbo
thrown in. Existenz is not an action movie at all, and is not (as many seem to
believe) about "reality" or any such "deep" concept. It's about the human tendency
to intentionally replace reality with an artificial (both in its origin and in its
behavior) world of make-believe. The most chilling moment in the movie
is when Allegra Geller repeats her "scripted" line. It's at that point you realize
that the people in the game have voluntarily surrendered their free will in order
to participate in a story. This is made even more frightening at the end when
D'Arcy Nader (or rather his player) comments on the possibility of spending one's
life in the game. I sympathize completely with the "realist" philosophy, that
providing interesting worlds in which people simply locate the correct predefined
path to the end goal is ultimately a recipe for a soulless existence. Living "in
the game" is not living at all, but is a tempting way to spend one's time on earth.
As Allegra comments about the real world, "there's nothing going on here." Might as
well jack into someone else's imagination, and pretend to be doing something
interesting. (Although I have to ask whether Cronenberg considers this a self-
indictment, considering that he himself offers up worlds to be experienced in 90
minute snippets.) Upon leaving the theater after first watching this
movie, I thought it was one of those movies that was watchable only to see how it
ended. But having seen it a couple more times (thank you SciFi Channel) I've
realized how much deeper it goes. Seriously, if you've only seen it once, it
deserves another viewing.
This film is the most impressing turkish film that I have ever seen. Probably
"Okul" is the first turkish horror film. I must say that I were excited while
watching the movie because of some reasons, The first reason is that the story is
impressive, I mean that at the end of the film you realised all the details about
movie, this makes the film attractive and the other reason is that no turkish man
made such a movie like that before. This shows that turkish film improves itself by
time. Although the first trial to make a horror movie, It was really successful. I
advice all of you not to miss this movie...
I've watched the movie actually several times. And what i want to say about it is
the only thing that made this movie high rank was the Burak Altay's incredible
performance, absolutely nothing but that. Not even those silly model named Deniz
Akkaya and some of these popular names at times in the movie... Burak is definitely
very talented i've seen a few jobs he made and been through. Even though this is
kind of horror movie, he's doing really good job in comedy movies and also in
dramas too. I bet most of you all saw Asmali Konak the movie and TV series, those
two would go for an example... All i'm gonna say is you better watch out for the
new works coming out from Burak then you'll see.. Keep the good work bro, much
love..
Okul is the first of its kind in Turkish cinema, and it's way better than I
expected. Those people who say it's neither scary nor funny have a point, it's not
all that great indeed. But it must be kept in mind that everyone involved with the
movie is rather amateur, so it's basically a maiden voyage. And comparing this one
to Sinan Çetin's other films such as the 1st class garbage "Propaganda", this movie
is pretty damn good. One thing that MUST be said: It deals with the
highschool students' life in Turkey VERY realistically! That's exactly how it goes!
The scenes that are meant to scare are somewhat cheap, and Hollywoodish. Most of
them even if not all. But that religion lesson scene made me laugh in tears, and
Emre Kýnay performs the best acting of this flick as a religion teacher. It's NOT a waste of your time, go and watch it! You'll find it rather
amusing especially if you know Turkey enough to relate to Turkish youngsters'
school lives.
This movie coming from Turkey where you can't find any tradition of horror movies.
First I was afraid of watching just an adaptation but after seeing it I have
changed my mind. It has original scenario.A love movie using horror thema. Most of
the players are not famous young people but their performance is proofing that a
new generation is coming. Maybe this is a sign that turkish cinema is coming back
after 20 years.
While watching this film recently, I constantly had to remind myself that it was
made in 1957..........and in the USSR! That makes it all the more remarkable. Many
of the cinematographic effects in the film seem cliched in 2002, but they were
quite original in 1957. I first saw this film in 1963, when it was first released
in the US, and I was struck by its originality then. Now just having seen it 40
years later, I have no reason to change my mind.
This is one of my three all-time favorite movies. My only quibble is that the
director, Peter Yates, had too many cuts showing the actors individually instead of
together as a scene, but the performances were so great I forgive him. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are absolutely marvelous; brilliant. The script
is great, giving a very good picture of life in the theatre during World War II
(and, therefore, what it was like in the 30s as well). Lots of great, subtle
touches, lots of broad, overplayed strokes, all of it perfectly done. Scene after
scene just blows me away, and then there's the heartbreaking climax.
My boyfriend and I went to watch The Guardian.At first I didn't want to watch it,
but I loved the movie- It was definitely the best movie I have seen in
sometime.They portrayed the USCG very well, it really showed me what they do and I
think they should really be appreciated more.Not only did it teach but it was a
really good movie. The movie shows what the really do and how hard the job is.I
think being a USCG would be challenging and very scary. It was a great movie all
around. I would suggest this movie for anyone to see.The ending broke my heart but
I know why he did it. The storyline was great I give it 2 thumbs up. I cried it was
very emotional, I would give it a 20 if I could!
A ghost story on a typical Turkish high school with nice sound and visual effects.
Taylan biraderler(taylan brothers) had made their first shots on a tv-show a couple
of years ago, as far as i know. That was kind of a Turkish X-Files, they had very
nice stories but lacked on visual effects. This time it seems they had what they
needed and used them well. This movie will make you laugh that's for sure, and as
well it might have you scared. It has a nice plot and some young, bright actors in
it. If you are a high school student in Turkey you will find so many things about
you here. There are many clues in the movie about its story and ending, some you
understand at the moment, some will make sense afterwords, the dialogs were written
very cleverly. So these make the movie one of the best Turk movies made in the last
years. Do not forget, this movie is the first of its kind in the Turkish film
industry.
Here's one of the more pleasingly scuzzy 70's blaxploitation grindhouse items; it's
a pervasively low-rent pimp opus which comes across like a sleazier version of "The
Mack." John Daniels, the studly womanizing hairdresser hero Mr. Jonathan in the
immortal "Black Shampoo," gives an excellent steely portrayal of the Baron, a
ruthless, business savvy, forever on the make all-powerful flesh peddler who much
to the dismay of his bitter, brutal Italian rivals reigns supreme over the Sunset
Strip. When not locking horns with his fellow no-count criminal pals or doing his
best to avoid being busted by the local vice cops, Daniels is leading a sweetly
average existence as your standard garden-variety suburbanite dude (complete with
caring wife and loving kids!) in some typically humdrum California small
town. The glaringly absurd premise alone promises top-rate trashy
greatness of a decidedly Grade B schlock picture variety (George Theakos deserves
kudos for his hilariously ludicrous script). Matt Cimber's commendably tactless and
tasteless direction delivers the junky goods by the slimy bucketful, thus making
this film a hugely enjoyable serving of celluloid grime. Among the assorted squalid
delights to be savored herein are plentiful gratuitous female nudity, coarse
dialogue, beautifully gaudy Me Decade threads (halter tops, felt hats, sparkling
Day-Glo jewelry, loud seersucker suits), an intensely funky R&B score by Smoke,
some hopelessly pathetic acting (the little old lady who lives next door to Daniels
is excruciatingly shrill), a memorably nasty turn by Patrick Wright as a sadistic
goon, a couple of cool action set pieces (the climactic slow motion barroom
massacre seriously cooks), more lurid travelogue footage of the Sunset Strip than
you can shake a feather boa at (said footage allegedly includes "the actual hookers
and blades of the Sunset Strip in Hollywood"), effectively dark'n'dingy
cinematography by Ken Gibb, a few sicko sexual fetish tableaux, some raw explicit
violence (a prostitute has one of her breasts cut off!), and amusing supporting
performances by familiar schlock feature perennials Richard Kennedy and George
"Buck" Flower as a pair of racist, corrupt, browbeating police detectives. Sure,
this movie ain't art, but it's certainly artless enough to qualify as a deliciously
grungy chunk of entertainingly sordid cinematic swill.
You got to see it to believe it. Shot in Hollywood on the strip in the middle of
the sleazy, anything goes 70s, this cheaply made flick must of really packed the
inner city theatres back in the day. Then again, I bet it had a one week run.
Actually, its pretty hilarious. The acting is dreadful, the direction non existent,
but the hair, clothes, rotten pre disco music and the general out and out
sleaziness of the story are mind boggling. Sleazy, its very sleazy. Highly
recomended (if you can find it)
(Possible ?? spoilers included, but nothing critical given away.) I just
watched this classic low budget movie on video, and was knocked out by the level of
energy present on screen. All the actors do themselves proud, especially John
Daniels, must see another of his films. Not only does this movie boast great
performances, but manages stylish sequences, like when the baron throws someone out
of a window and we see shards of glass falling into a swimming pool which erupts
from the impact of the fallen man, i love the way slow-motion photography was used
in 70's cinema, dreamy and hypnotic. Cool and witty black dudes spout great one
liners while slimy seedy lumps of white trash come to unpleasant ends. I love it,
my rating 10 / 10. If this ever comes out on dvd, count me in for a purchase.
I started to watch this show by accident, but I love it. The fact that main
character is in a wheelchair is something that lacking in television, especially
for kids shows. My five-year-old nephew (as most children do) would just stare at
people who were in wheelchairs or had some other type of handicap but after he
watched Pelswick it just seemed to be a normal occurrence to him. Every time he saw
a wheelchair he would simply say "Like Pelswick" and go on with what ever he was
originally doing. And YES the animation is a little crude, but if you can stand to
watch through the first season of the Simpsons then this isn't that bad. The
"Genie" is actually an Angel who is there to help Pelswick learn lessons in life.
He CAN NOT walk some else said he could walk some of the time, I've seen every
episode and he never to my recollection walked, he is a paraplegic he has no
feeling below his armpits (he mentions it in an episode). As for the humor if you
can get a copy of the "Ntalented" episode, which lampoons boy-bands, you will
instantly love this show.
Eve is an eye opener, because of the great sceneries and the tech-no music in the
backgrounds, we hear. This movie shows a good aspect on the human body being God's
creation and to considerate about it, viewers can earn better respect on the
legendary story of Adam and Eve (either if it's true or just a fairy tale,
depending on what we believe) from watching this movie. Actress/model Inger
Ebeltoft's impersonation of Eve is so good, there's no good word to describe her
performance, and I can't imagine having another actress being Eve. This movie to
me, comes in really handy for the type of therapy of stress relief. We'd never fell
so relax then before from watching this movie. This movie is a masterpiece, God
supposedly wanted this movie to be made in the first place! Mr. Razbin!
The story of a little girl who was driven once by fear and now by pain, she becomes
woman and a vengeful crime fighter. Her power is to manifest strong anime
characters onto herself. This movie fuses animation with live action as she wields
her animated sword through all that stands before her. She struggles to deal with
life, her demons, and her fears. Young Emily watched her parents fight
and argue. She watched her Dad leave her motherless. Emily soon discovered she had
the power to do something about it. Emily grew through life traveling as a loner
and at night she had the power to make a difference in the world. This
movie is a great blend of animation and real action. There are many themes and
metaphors that run deep through the movie. This movie is broke up as a 12 part
series.
Drawn by Pain is easily one of the best pieces of cinema I have ever seen. Here are
my reviews of the episodes released so far: Episode one was even better
than I expected and from everything I had heard about it, I expected quite a lot. I
am very impressed with the actors already. The father was creepy and played
perfectly. The little girl is so expressive, she uses her eyes to convey such
emotion. The animation was superb. The cinematography was amazing, each camera
angle capturing the feeling of the scene perfectly. The editing was done so well,
each scene blending seamlessly into the next. The music captured the emotions quite
well and drew you into the story. I just can't say enough about how wonderful this
episode was. It definitely whets my appetite for more! Episode 2 was
even better than the first one! Everything I said about the first episode carries
through, only you get to see even more of the character development. I can not wait
to finally see episode 3, or the rest of the series for that matter. What is
developing is an intriguing, character driven storyline with all the trappings of a
big Hollywood production, but without the pretension. So much is said, with so few
words. This series is something like you've never seen and perched to become a real
success. This episode was FREAKING AWESOME! No other words describe it!
WOW! Everything that I've said about the previous episodes holds true for this one,
and yet it was even better! I don't know how you manage to take something amazing
and make it even better! The further character development proves that this is a
completely character driven piece. The cinematography excels as it always has and
draws you into Emily's pain, fear, hate and emotional roller-coaster. I can't wait
to see Episode 4... or the rest of the series for that matter. You have truly
outdone yourself! As much as I have loved the other episodes, episode 4
is the best yet. I love the character progression. I feel like we are really coming
to know Emily, her pain, and her internal struggle. The other themes I've stated in
past reviews are continued. GREAT cinematography, the writing is superb, the actors
are right on with their portrayals and have made the characters their own, and the
animation is simply amazing! Another great job from the DbP crew!
This young filmmaker has a talent for capturing his audience quickly with unusual
camera work and sparse but intense scripts. The concept here of combining animation
with live footage is remarkably well-executed and the soundtrack is very
good. The decision to release the movie in twelve parts online puts the
onus on the director to make each episode fascinating enough for the viewer to
invest in buying each upcoming episode. I only wish all motion pictures had this
kind of commitment to keeping their audiences entertained throughout their
stories. Highly recommended.
This new movie by Jeskid is awesome! Check it out and you'll be amazed. The story
of Emily Waters, once a girl from a broken home, whose only means of escape from an
abusive father was through her sketchbook. Until one night her drawings manifested
into reality and saved her, and now using this power she fights against those who
would do evil. Both live action film and hand drawn animation blend together to
create a unique and original experience that will shake your soul and blow you
away. The music is incredible as well, it really intesifies the emotional
experience and draws you deep into the conflict. Directed by Jesse Cowell and
animated by Erica Langworthy, starring the beautiful Marissa Parness, with music by
Nico Audy-Rowland, Daniel Collins, Jeff Strathearn, Matt Sisco, and Selcuk Bor.
Support this film and support Jeskid, he is a very talented guy. Go see his film
Shades of Grey as well.
I had long wanted to watch this romantic drama (with a WWII setting) and, now that
I have, all I can say is that it's a veritable masterpiece of Russian cinema!
 Soviet films are known for their overzealous propagandist approach but,
thankfully, this one's free of such emphasis - with the interest firmly on the
central tragic romance between a promising artist and a vivacious girl, doomed by
the outbreak of war for which he gladly volunteers but from which he'll never
return. The girl (a remarkable performance from Tatyana Samojlova) is also loved by
the young man's cousin and, when she doesn't receive word from her boyfriend, gives
in to the latter and marries him. He, however, is an aspiring concert pianist
bitter about the war having curtailed his chances for success and, knowing too that
the girl's still devoted to the soldier, begins to neglect her. Finally, word
reaches the girl of her loved one's death but, by the end of the film, she has
learnt to accept this as a sacrifice to their native country and is content to live
with her memories of him. The film features some truly amazing camera-
work which makes extremely judicious use of the screen space and, by frequently
adopting tracking, tilted and high or low angle shots, renders great power to the
unfolding emotional drama. Individual sequences are equally impressive - two in
particular: the stunning scene, frenetically edited and sped-up to boot, in which
the girl saves an abandoned boy from being trampled by a truck; and the young man's
premature demise in an unfortunate incident at the front, undoubtedly one of the
best of its kind I've ever watched (with the sun moving away from him, symbolizing
the life that's seeping out of his body, as he imagines the wedding day he'll never
have!). Also notable, however, is the scene where the girl goes to look for her
parents in her home that's been hopelessly devastated during an air raid; as is her
final violent capitulation to the concert pianist - which she tries to resist by
repeatedly slapping him in the face - taking place during a later air raid and
making particularly effective use of a set of billowing curtains! Disappointingly, the R1 DVD of this outstanding film is a bare-bones affair (the
RusCiCo edition features a few supplements but, being an export, tends to be
heavily overpriced and hard to track down to boot!); Criterion released it in
conjunction with another war-themed Russian classic, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER (1959) -
which my pal at the local DVD rental outlet has told me is forthcoming... The only other film I've watched from this director is the Arctic epic THE RED
TENT (1969; albeit via the much-shorter U.S.-release version!), a star-studded
international production based on true events; given the unmistakable artistic
quality of THE CRANES ARE FLYING, I regret missing out now on his famous
documentary I AM CUBA (1964) a number of times when I was in Hollywood late last
year: apart from receiving a one-week theatrical run, it was shown more than once
on TV accompanied by a feature-length "Making Of"!!
Jesse yet again delivers, after almost 12 months of hype about his upcoming
production it finally reaches the dark world of the internet with more than a
brilliant approach to amateur film making. DBP is a original, nail-
biting commentary on a troubled child growing into an even more troubled adult. if
i had more than two thumbs, i would give more, but i think two will be
enough. Great work from all cast, especially by Marissa and Elizabeth,
the character of Emily as an adult has given me shivers so far and i'm afraid of
where she'll go next. An excellent watch
This was a modern TV classic! The story goes like this, Bob has a girlfriend named
Alicia. Bob and Alicia are in love and want to get married. Bob has a bud named
Owen who he works with. Owen is jealous of Alicia. He likes hanging around with
Bob. Now Owen hangs around with Bob AND Alicia. Bob and Owen have a secretary named
Heather. Heather is very accident prone. She is also, if you haven't guessed it, is
kind of lonely. She too hangs around with Bob and Alicia, and Owen. Sometimes
Alicia wishes Bob didn't have any friends. By the end of the first
season, it looked like Owen finally found himself a real longlasting girlfriend.
Bob and Alicia went driving on the night before their wedding, making out in a tiny
car and then getting stuck. Way out in the middle of nowhere! What happened next?
What about poor Heather? Did anyone get married?? Sorry, series ended. Not even a plea from TV Guide made FOX think twice about putting it back on the
air. It was a great show with a great cast. I loved Heather too. She looked cool in
those glasses and was hilarious. I miss this show a lot. This is like reading a
good book with the ending missing......sad.
I enjoyed this show, it was on in the uk, but not at peak time, and they seemed to
move it all over the schedules so I wasn't able to watch them all. I was surprised
when it didn't return and had no i idea why, still don't know, but i guess that's
not important. Great performances from the two leads, they were very
believable as friends. The two supporting actresses also added well to the mix. I
guess it was part of a whole load of shows that were lifestyle centred, Friends
being the obvious main one, but sex in the city came along a few years later. The characters, get take out coffee, they drink at nice bars , that sort of
thing, a little woody allenish in a way.
Jon Cryer reprises his role as a neurotic guy in Two and a Half Men, which he
perfected in this series. He longs to have a good relationship with a girl like his
coworker has developed, and the tet-a-tet between him and his partner's
girlfriend's best friend are pretty funny. Then they realize that they're attracted
to each other and start dating. In one of the funniest lines on TV EVER -- I think
in the final episode -- he and his partner are discussing that he wants to propose
to the girl. His partner prepares him for the moment by suggesting:
"What's the worst that can happen? She says no." Armed with newfound
optimism, he proposes to his date over dinner. To which she replies, "GOD, no!" I laughed so hard I cried.
`Rock star' is not on its way to any `stairway to heaven' category as one of the
best rock films of all time, but it does make you `jump' from time to time because
of its high-level energy. The film's theme is on a die-hard rock group fanatic who
actually becomes the lead singer of his favorite band. The story is based upon the
true story on what happened to the heavy metal band Judas Priest. If you think this
movie is filled with a witty screenplay and intellect direction- then you got
ànother thing coming'. However, what did `shook me all night long' was the fine
acting of Jennifer Aniston as the rock star's devoted girlfriend. I could not say
the same about the rock star himself; Mark Wahlberg was much better as a porn star
than a rock star. I did enjoy the 80's retrospect journey the movie intakes. It
reminded me of my teenage years where everything `smelled like teen spirit'. I
guess the film is worth a viewing, but for you to have a better time watching it
make sure you bring along some `girls, girls, girls.' *** Average
This is the second movie about 1985, the other one was 'The Wedding Singer'. Whilst
the 'Wedding Singer' was portraying the pop side of the 80's, 'Rock Star' is all
about metal. Mark Wahlberg plays a talented singer in a tribute band of
some famous rock act of the time and Jennifer Aniston plays his girlfriend. When
his fixation rewards him, his whole life changes in a day. The story
doesn't get too dramatic and it only scratches the surface of the life of a rock
star. Sex and drugs are very limited in this movie, but it is full of Rock'n Roll!
The music is fantastic and the concerts are directed brilliantly! The whole concert
feeling is very well captured, since they used real audiences (no cgi here). Great direction and a brilliant performance by Marky Mark, who acts like a
true metal dude! 'Rock Star' is all about fun and if you had anything to
do with the old metal scene, you are going to love this movie! 10/10
I loved this movie. It is a very simple plot and from what I understand it is based
on a true story. Growing up in the 80's with hard rock/hair metal may have
something to do with my love of this film but even aside from the music it is a
really fun movie to watch. Give it a try, you will like it unless you are the
hardest of critics and only like movies of "Citizen Kane" caliber.
After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however
after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk
cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make
this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you
dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I
recommend this movie to one and all 
After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however
after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk
cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make
this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you
dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I
recommend this movie to one and all 
Well, let me put it this way - I have always been one of the "hardcore brothers";
I've always loved rock music, and especially heavy metal!! That's why this movie is
like a gift from God! I believe this movie is one of the best movies ever (well,
except from Neverending Story and Star Wars, of course ...). It's great to hear all
the classics, like "Long live rock and roll" (DIO), "Stranglehold (Ted Nugent),
songs by Jon Bon Jovie, Deep Purple, AC/DC, Zakk Wylde and several other legendary
rock bands. Heavenly! Absolutely gorgeous! WONDERFUL!!! I hope they will make more
movies like this (otherwise it's just crap movies, like that "AC in da USA" or what
they call it, and "8 miles". Bulls***!). Well, I strongly recommend this anyway!
Everything I'm missing is a couple of Stratovarius-songs! But except from that,
it's one of the best movies ever! Ten out of ten!
A true masterpiece of the Soviet cinematography. It's a shame for the Soviet Union
that Samojlova was never given an opportunity to play in the Western movies -- but
then again, she would probably never find herself there. In "Letyat Zhuravli", she
is unforgettable. This was one of the few movies where I was crying... In addition to Samojlova, Batalov and Merkurjev, who are top rate, it was a
brilliant work of the director and the operator which made this movie an all-time
classics world-wide. Just remember the scenes of piano music and proposal under the
heavy German bombardment, or the death of Boris with a swirling sky above his head
and his last visions appeared blurred in those skies. The very simple means -- but
the great technique added to the emotional weight... Mind you, 20 years before "The
Star Wars", 41 years before "Titanic", and with a Soviet budget.
This was an interesting movie. I could have done without the bathroom scene and the
seduction scene - EWWWW! Other than that, I loved the head-banging music this movie
revolved around. Chris/Izzy's parents are AWESOME! They totally support their sons
interests and believe in him enough to support him - now that is AWESOME!! What
really surprised me was the Chris's realization at the end. It was not quite the
"hollywood" ending on his road to self discovery. The overall rise to stardom and
the fall of it was quite a roller- coaster ride.
I love this movie, first and foremost because of Mark Wahlberg is in it and
secondly because the end justifies the means. There is something about this film
that sucks you in and allows you to feel all of the emotions the characters are
feeling. Jen Aniston is great as the girlfriend in this movie. It takes a look at
the Rockstar lifestyle that so many hardcore rockers lived back in the day (perhaps
these days they have gotten just abit smarter). It takes through a rainbow of
emotions and has a lot of subtle facets to allow the light through. Like a diamond,
this movie shines. You won't waste your popcorn on this one. Semi-chick flick but
my husband enjoyed it too. There's some laughs thrown in too.
I watched this movie the other night, and I have to admit, it was quite possibly
the best film of this generation. Turns out I wasn't born until 1988, but I can
relate to this motion picture like Cary Grant can relate to having an STD, or Burt
Reynolds to being a burnout. Marky Mark did not decline in awesomeness after his
brief stint in New Kids on the Block, which I will from here on refer to as "the
best band in the world (aka BBW). Like, it's totally a morality tale about fargin'
trannies an' poop, so pay attention! I love all y'all, and continue to support
Marky Msrk because he needs us now more than ever. He's the only boyee who survived
the De-sharted.
So, you wanna be a rock star? See this movie. You don't like rock, you say? Or
you're REALLY into heavy metal? Then put on your favorite album and dream yourself
away, this movie has nothing to offer. Rarely have I ever seen a movie being able
to portrait the dream of being in a rock band as good as this. I had long hair
during the late 1980's and early nineties, and I have played guitar for the last 15
years or so. Did I like Rock Star? Oh yes. The music is good, not great, the actors
are good, and believable, even Jennifer Aniston plays her part to perfection. And
Mark Wahlberg is perfect as the wannabe rock singer. So you know what you're going
to get. A movie about dreams coming true, being stepped on, and finally figuring
out what life is really about. It's a good solid seven out of ten, no more, no
less.
This film is great with some of the best songs preformed by Bon Jovi and kiss.The
film is about a man named Chris(Mark Wahlberg)Who is the biggest fan of a band
named Steel Dragon.And then when he gets the gig for lead singer his world changes
upside down.With great acting by Jennifer Aniston this film is a must see for rock
lovers!! 4/5 stars
I was very excited to see Rock Star because I am a big fan of Mark Wahlberg's. I
was surprised to have liked it more than I originally thought I would. The script
did leave something to be desired, but the movie's performances made up for it.
There were a few moments when visions of Spinal Tap came rushing back, and I can't
help but think this movie would have been even better as a mocumentary. But, I
digress. Wahlberg continues to demonstrate his talent, as he plays with
believability an ordinary guy whose biggest dream comes true. He does it with the
wonder and innocence that make you not only believe him, but also make you really
care about his character. Jennifer Aniston, who hasn't impressed me in
movies up to this point, is surprisingly good as the girlfriend/manager. She shows
more real emotion than I've seen in her last few movies combined. But
above all, it's the music in this movie that really draws you in. Peppered with
some 80's tunes (let's face it - Bon Jovi would have any 80's music fans rocking in
their seat), the movie really rocks with the original Steel Dragon songs and
Wahlberg's performance of them. I plan to see this movie again, but
first I'm going to rush out and buy the soundtrack!
Rock Star is a "nice" movie. Everyone is nice. Even the guys who aren't supposed to
be nice, really are nice. Chris is a nice guy, who learns a lesson in life. He goes
back to his girlfriend Emily, who is also nice. It's a good movie,
despite all the niceness. Maybe I'm just used to all the angst of the X Gen music.
In some ways the film was a caricature of Rock Stars and not hard edged enough to
be believable. Mark Wahlberg's acting is quite good. Jennifer Aniston
played her role well, but it was uncomplicated. She was a nice girl. Go
see it. If you have ever been to a rock concert or seen Spinal Tap, go see it.
I seen this movie when it came out. I thought what an average movie. I have now
realized that this director was ahead of his time. This is a great movie and great
soundtrack. I have seen my share of rock films but although this is far from spinal
tap (which I did not like)> This film does take us into the life of an 80s rocker
wanting to be nothing but. This is nothing more than our inner child wanting to
grow up and to be a *ROCK STAR* Yeah I said it. Everyone wants to grow up and be on
the spot light( Weather said or not). This movie just puts you in the core of
emotions and you can almost feel the excitement of Izzy. I must admit the acting
was less par but still the music and story was enough to hold you in to it, till
the credits rolled. Worth the watch especially if you are a fan of ye Ole mighty
hair bands.
WARNING - POSSIBLE SPOILERS! 'Rock Star' is one of the solid rock movies
I have ever seen. The original idea of the script focuses on a young singer in the
80s, leading a tribute band of one of the most famous hard rock bands of the
period. He is not only playing their music to the note, but also living the life of
his idols. When his friends in the tribute band expel him, in search of some
originality, the destiny plays him a good turn, and gets hired to replace the lead
singer of the idols band. A dream came true? Well, almost. While starting to live
the life of the famous, including the drug and sex excesses of the rock scene of
the 80s, he will also have to face the problems in relationship with his supportive
girlfriend, and will be eventually need to answer questions about creativity and
having a saying in the music of the band. I liked the film, one of the
reasons being that it is one of the first times that the life and music of the hard
metal rock bands is shown in a realistic manner. Fans of the music genre will be
satisfied by the soundtrack. The overall idea is original, and the issues of how an
artist lives his life and creates his art are being rendered in a sensible and
balanced manner. Acting is quite good, with Mark Wahlberg better than in most of
the other action flics I saw him lately, and Jennifer Aniston in tune with the
nice-girl-who-knows-a-lot-about-life role. More problematic is the ending, which is
quite conventional, and may disappoint. It looks like the main character after
quiting the big and famous band has found his own creative path. However, in an
ironical twist the music he is playing in the club at the end is the worst in the
whole movie! 8/10 on my personal scale. Worth seeing - however, expect
exposure to a high dose of metal. If you do not like this kind of music, you may
chose to avoid this film.
What to say about a movie like Rock Star? A lot actually! This is the type of movie
that is almost tailer made for the critics to slam. It is also a movie I, as a
MAJOR Hard Rock fan enjoyed-no-loved actually-while all the while being very
consciously aware of its many flaws and that the movie, while a decent effort in
some respects missed the chance it had to escape into greatness and become a rock
movie classic. Oh well.... I loved this movie-and would see it again and
again-but I know that's purely based on my own personal tastes-Rock Star is a movie
that will appeal to anyone who has experienced elements of the rock or hard rock
lifestyle and wants to go down the road to nostalgia. It was a great time for metal
heads. And it's nice to have a movie that effectively captures that(long forgot by
many non-rock fans.) time effectively, as I think that Rock Star has done. That is
one of the film's strengths, the concert footage. You will feel like your right
there with them and how could any hard rock fan not love that? As far as setting
the atmosphere Rock Star gets a 10 of 10. It also gets a 10 of 10 for pure
entertainment. If you want a movie to just let yourself go and free flow into some
great memories of good times past, then this is the movie for you. It is also the
reason why I loved this movie so. But it isn't a great movie. I
understand that and were it my actual job to review movies professionally, I'd
probably have to be a bit hard on this one. The problem with Rock star is the
character development. What is wrong with the character development is
this, there isn't any. None. The movie has certain scenes-few and far between but
they ARE there-that DO touch on greatness:WARNING BRIEF SCENE SPOILERS: 3 examples-
1)when Izzy makes his debut on stage(including the fall he takes) 2)The
first "after show" party with Emily(Anniston and Izzy.) 3)Backtracking a
little-In the beginning when the original lead singer is casually dismissed(fired)-
the whole "business as usual" tone sets the stage for what's to come. It's played
very effectively. But the problem is, nothing ever does come. There is
little to no character development of anyone in this movie, peoples' persona's are
merely touched on, but never fully explored. I don't think that's the fault of the
actors/actresses,particularly Anniston who tries hard, they just are not given much
to work with. It's just that the script was weak and lacked the ability to go
beyond the "formula" feel into true movie depth. Rock star was so sugarcoated at
times(including towards the end) it was almost ridiculous. And , though, those
scenes I mentioned WERE outstanding and very believable, sadly much else in the
movie wasn't. Another reviewer mentioned the lack of buildup towards the
end and I agree but there was actually a lack of buildup about ANYTHING. WHY does
Izzy leave at the end? Because he misses his girlfriend and the band won't let him
write songs? It tests the limits of believability. And, frankly the end was just
corny. Made no sense and had no reality to it at all. Watching this,
it's almost like watching a movie where the makers of it said: OK, this happens
here and then this happens and then this etc etc etc. By the end it's no longer a
movie about a boy who's dream came true, it's just another thickly formulated love
story. And you wonder why so much detail is left out.... I hope I'm not
being to hard on Rock Star because I truly loved it-but not for the right reasons.
I would have liked to love this as a great movie about the highs and lows of rock
fame. Instead I loved it for it's 80's period feel, the clothes, the hair, the
lights, the life.... Although many others loved it to, I suspect most are people
who lived the life of a rock fan, like I did or some who play. I'd have liked to
see the movie cross over and just be respected for being a good, well told movie,
instead of a cliché. I think, one of the problems was the length. I myself, hate
over long films but this was one that really should have been longer, if a movie is
done really right, the length is not even felt-there is just to much to the story
for it to be as short as it was-that's one reason why there doesn't seem to be much
development of either the story or the human beings portrayed in the movie. So-to wind down-this is a movie you can greatly get into- but not a great
movie. See it for fun. See it for entertainment. See it to go back to that great,
great space in time when metal wasn't just a part of life, it WAS life-and for
those non rock fans-see it to get a little glimpse into a life that meant and still
means so much to so many of us.
In Moscow, the young couple Veronika (T. Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov) are
in deep love for each other. With the World War II, Boris volunteers to join the
army and is sent to the front on the day before Veronika's birthday, and they do
not have the chance to say goodbye to each other. While waiting for news from
Boris, Veronika is raped by Boris' cousin Mark (A. Shvorin) and they marry each
other. However, Veronika does not forget Boris, and keeps waiting for him. "Letyat zhuravli" is an impressive and heartbreaking romance in times of war. The
direction is excellent and uses ellipses along the story, inclusive in the capital
scene when Veronika is raped by Mark. The camera-work is amazing, with
sophisticated planes and angles, and long traveling. The scenes of Veronika in the
middle of the tanks, or in the train station with many figurants are awesome. The
magnificent cinematography is highlighted by the restored image of the DVD. T.
Samojlova has an extremely beautiful face, and a touching and sensitive
performance. The speech in the last scene makes another great example of an anti-
war movie. My vote is nine. Title (Brazil): "Quando Voam as Cegonhas"
("When Fly the Stork")
Mark Walhberg in a great role, idolises a rock star to the extent of knowing all
his songs, imitating him to perfection, and dressing like him. When the opportunity
comes for him to take over his "idol's" role in the band, he jumps at the
opportunity. However the role of a rock star may not be what it is cracked up to
be... and relationships can change .... This movie certainly struck me as having
the theme of what you attain for may not be what you think it is once you get it.
Overall a really good movie with great performances from all the cast as well as
the two leads, Mark Walhberg and Jennifer Aniston. It did make me feel sad,
especially when Emily, (Jennifer Aniston), met up with Chris in Seattle and saw the
depths to what he had sunk. If anybody ever dreamed of being a rock star or a
groupie they should watch this movie to see that the lifestyle, although glamourous
for a while, is very lonely and ultimately not what you may want.
If you like the 80's rock, you should definitely see this movie! I've only seen it
recently and completely fell in love with it! Overall, the movie is very
entertaining, provides you with a great load of rock tunes and not a single second
of the movie do I find boring! It was a great idea that some of the real-life
musicians were in this, doing what they do best. I was happy to see Zakk, as well
as Blas Elias, they all delivered solid performances. I tend to agree with a lot of
people saying that the first half of the movie was much better than the second one,
specially in the terms of the script.That could have been worked on a bit better,
but not a major biggie. One thing that did bother me a bit was Jennifer Aniston's
performance. I thought she wasn't the right person for this role,I just couldn't
see her as a rock star girlfriend.But as the movie goes on, you somehow realize
that she did a good job with this.There is a certain amount of honesty and
sincerity she delivers that just doesn't live you cold. To summarize, a
good and a funny movie, that doesn't go deep into characters but provides you with
a good fun, a sense of nostalgia and of course the mighty vocals by Jeff Scott Soto
and Mike Matijevic!
Nothing really unpredictable in this movie, but a solid flick in all respects.
Everything from acting to cinematography was solid. Not a perfectly linear plot
line, but there wasn't anything you couldn't see coming. Perhaps a tad melodramatic
at points, but again, a fairly decent movie none the less. Definitely worth
checking out. If in doubt of what film to rent over the weekend, give this a go.
Though you may not feel like running out and buying it, I found it to be quite
worth while.
I must admit I wasn't expecting much on this movie. I was surprised I truly enjoyed
it as much as I did. The script wasn't oscar material, but it wasn't horrible
either. The acting was great by Mark Wahlberg. Jennifer Aniston had a great
supporting role, and looked lovely as ever. What made this movie for me was the
music. If you do not like 80's glam metal or hair bands, then you probably wont
like this movie. Its all about being a rockstar. Some cliche's were present, but
didn't bring down the movie at all. I would recommend it to anyone who likes rock
and roll and remember to Stand up and Shout!!! 8 of 10 for great acting and awesome
music. Jason
I've been looking forward to the release of this movie since I first heard the
concept two years ago, and I was not disappointed. I won't bother summarizing the
story since everyone else has, but I will say that it was just plain entertaining
throughout. The performances were great, as was the music, and the main characters
were likeable. My only complaints are: (1) the story was definitely
lacking; the movie wrapped up very abruptly- in fact the writing became pretty lax
in the second half, as though the writers weren't sure what to do with the plot.
Since the plot wasn't nearly as important as the music and the action, this didn't
really affect the entertainment value of the film, so this is not as major a
complaint as it would seem. (2) This is really nitpicky, but the music
that the characters in the movie were listening to was sometimes dated after 1985,
when the movie was set. INXS' Devil Inside was from 1987 and AC/DC's Are You Ready
was from 1990, among other mistakes. This bothers me a bit, since they obviously
went to lengths to make a good period piece, they could have checked the copyright
date on these songs to make sure they were 1985 or earlier. Again, not a big
deal. Oh, I thought of something else that was strange. The Steel Dragon
band members were supposed to be English, but for some reason Dokken bassist Jeff
Pilson and Ozzy guitarist Zakk Wylde played band members, and they each had a
couple of speaking lines in AMERICAN accents. That was kind of lazy also, but it
was still cool to see actual musicians playing musicians, so I will forgive that as
well. I could probably nitpick all day, but I don't want to give the
impression that this wasn't a super entertaining movie. I will probably buy the DVD
when it comes out, and I will certainly buy the soundtrack CD simply for the six
Steel Dragon songs (some of which were sung by the singer from the band Steelheart,
if you remember them!). The highlight of the film was possibly a great outtake
where Mark Wahlberg is lipsynching to a rock song on stage and suddenly someone
plays "Good Vibrations" by Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. The surprised look of
Mark's face is priceless. Classic rock and roll flick! Score: 8/10 due to extreme
entertainment
ROCK STAR is a well-told Hollywood-style rendition of the tale based on fact
actually on how Ripper became Rob Halford's replacement for Judas Priest. Mark
Wahlberg poured on his likable boy-ish charm and performed with believable
admirably, something he has been known to do since the release of BOOGIE NIGHTS. Stephen Herek, no stranger to musically-themed movies, takes the audience
through the wonders of the breakneck lifestyle of an extinct species, the Hair-
Metal Rock God. Wahlberg's "Izzy" acts as the film's host plays the everyman who
gets to see his wish come true. His likable character quickly wins over the heart
of the viewer, who wants to see him succeed and gets the chance to give him the
Metal "goat horn" hand-sign several times over. The only real complaint
with the story is that the supporting cast, namely the other members of the band,
were not fleshed out, or even introduced, properly. More interaction with these
life-long Rock musicians would have amplified and solidified Izzy's new
surroundings. Naturally, ROCK STAR is filled with great music. Rabin's
score, the Steel Dragon's original work and plenty of 80's-style Metal hits makes
this soundtrack a must-have! Let's all hope that films like ROCK STAR not only give
a credibility to a style of music that helped define a generation but also spark a
very-needed revival.
ROCK STAR / (2001) *** (out of four) By Blake French: "Rock
Star" is the story of a nobody who becomes propelled into fame, only to realize
living his dream is not the way he imagined it. We have seen all this before (in
better movies), but this human story does capture the world of rock and roll with a
brutally honest and insightful edge. It garners a recommendation because of its
visualization of the atmosphere. The script, by "Crazy/Beautiful" director John
Stockwell, portrays the hard-core universe with memorable images-it doesn't explain
what it is about, it shows us. "Rock Star," originally titled
"Metal God," stars Mark Wahlberg as Chris "Izzy" Cole, a Pittsburgh office supplies
salesperson who dreams of becoming Bobby Beers, the fiery lead singer for the heavy
metal rock group, Steel Dragon. Although Chris already sings for his own tribute
rock group called Blood Pollution, instead of writing his own songs, he insists on
performing only those by Steel Dragon, and only in the exact way they perform them.
His group becomes irritated with Chris' obsessions and gives him the boot. This devastates Chris, as well as his supportive parents and faithful
girlfriend, Emily (Jennifer Aniston from TV's "Friends"). He then receives a phone
call. It's the Steel Dragon band. They have seen Chris' tapes and want him to
replace the recently fired lead singer. In an instant, Chris rockets into the
dizzying world of sudden stardom-from the biggest rock fan to the biggest rock
star. Unfortunately, it's not as rewarding as he expected. A true story
inspired the "Rock Star" concept. An Ohio supply salesman, Tim "Ripper" Owens,
really did replace Rob Halford, the lead singer in Judas Priest, after initially
singing for a tribute band. The rest of the film is probably fiction, although most
of what happens must represent the experiences of many other bands. The film
details the various ordeals of being a rock star. It explores the aspects of
touring, personality differences, the danger of drug abuse and violence, struggling
relationships, sexual freedom, dishonesty, and the extreme measures of the
producers all to please the fans and keep popularity high. I have seen
all of Mark Wahlberg's movies, and this is the first that has earned my affection.
Wahlberg, a former singer/model, has made movies like "Fear," "Boogie Nights"
"Three Kings," and most recently Tim Burton's lacking remake "Planet of the Apes."
I am starting to admire the young actor more and more. Although he has not
performed in many successful films, he has taken many chances, and done a variety
of roles. "Rock Star" is his best film to date. I can't think of many actors who
could have convincingly portrayed Chris Cole's struggles and aspirations. Wahlberg
truly makes "Rock Star" rock. Jennifer Aniston lights up the screen as
well. She creates a chemistry-rich relationship with Chris that induces audience
participation. It's tragic of what happens to their relationship. We care about
these characters a great deal. During the film concert scenes, director
Stephen Herek (who also directed "Holy Man" and the live action version of "101
Dalmatians") creates a gripping atmosphere. He captures the scenes with an intense
urgency, and a raw, unmistakable energy. The musical numbers provide the film with
the best, most involving scenes. Unfortunately Herek cannot sustain the
energy and zest throughout. At the three-quarters mark, he looses the spark as the
movie becomes dull and unpleasant. I understand where the story needs to go in
order to portray the negative side of fame, but this movie loses everything it
previously had going for it. In "Almost Famous," a much better film about rock and
roll, there is a certain amount of interest and life in even the most sorrowful
scenes. Here, it feels as if the filmmakers lose their passion. The
message comes a bit too late and suddenly in the story. The film turns into a
morality tale that wants to provide us with a sappy destination. The filmmakers
might as well stop everything, appear on screen and say: "now audience, the moral
of the story is" We understand the theme, but it's too instantaneous. The personal
discovery for Chris' must be gradual. Fortunately, all of this happens
in the last twenty-five minutes of the film, hardly enough to completely destroy an
entire eighty-five minutes of a reasonably good feature. "Rock Star" is not a great
movie-see "Almost Famous" if you want a remarkable film about rock and roll-but for
Marky Mark, it's a turning point in his career. 
Surprisingly well-acted, well-written movie about hard rockin'-but-decent young man
getting that much-hoped-for ticket to stardom: his favorite heavy metal band wants
him to replace their lead singer. Not far-fetched, the film tries keeping things in
perspective and doesn't go over-the-top; it certainly makes you think twice about
those lingering adolescent fantasies about being in the music business. But the
script, despite solid dialogue, follows a tried-and-true, formulaic pattern, and
gets bogged down by its own clichés in the final act. I enjoyed it much more than
the sugary fluffball "Almost Famous". It has a nice, bitter edge to go with its
heavy metal decadence, but a stronger finish might've made it more memorable. **1/2
from ****
I'm an action movie fan but until today I've never seen a preview or an ad for this
movie in Italy, so I went to see "The Long Kiss Goodnight" on pay-TV hoping for
nothing special. But, what a surprise! This movie is great! The only
problem I found is the presence of some holes in the plot, but the rest is the most
entertaining, intriguing and funny action movie ever made. The
transformation of Samantha/Charly from ordinary wife-teacher to cool-blooded agent
recovering from amnesia seems to be a good idea. The action scenes and the stunts
are the best I've ever seen. Samuel L. Jackson adds some of the best lines I have
ever heard and his chemistry with Geena Davis is good. And what about
Geena? She is wonderful, she plays the best action heroine ever seen and does
strong, convincing acting and fantastic stunts. So I think this movie
had weak performances at box office and bad critics because most reviewers and some
kind of public have a hard time with strong female lead roles. 9/10.
This is one of the best action films I have seen. Geena's portrayal of the tough as
nails, 'Charly'/gentle mother 'Sam', was superb and Samuel L Jackson just keeps you
laughing all the way through, with his classic one liners. Sure, there were a few
holes in the actual story, but this fast-paced flick keeps you on the edge of your
seat to the end. I felt Geena was a perfect choice for the role of
Sam/Charly and her versatility as an actress is evident for her role as the mother
in the recent movie 'Stuart Little'. Both Samuel and Geena were well supported by
David Morse, Brian Cox, sweet little Yvonne Zima and newcomers, sexy Craig Bierko,
and Melina Kanakaredes. This film accentuates the growing trend of strong female
character and the diversion away from traditional male/female stereotypes as we see
Sam/Charly (Davis) and Mitch (Jackson) hurtling from one disaster to the
next. While I and many others loved this movie, it is fair to say that
there will always be people that don't and that's fine - each, to their own. I
highly recommend this film to action fans, for its hilarious scenes and fast-paced
action.
It does not surprise me that this short (91 minutes) B/W movie that was made 50
years ago in the Soviet Union during the short period called "ottepel'" or "the
thaw", has gained so much love and admiration among the movie lovers over the
world. It is sublime and beautifully filmed. Some scenes feel like there were made
way ahead of their time. Sergei Urusevsky's camera work and creative discoveries
were included in the text books and widely imitated. The film tells the moving and
timeless story of love destroyed by merciless war but eternally alive in the memory
of a young woman. It is also the film about loyalty, memories, ability to live on
when it seems there is nothing to live for; it is about forgiveness, and about
hope. The film received (absolutely deservingly) the Grand Prix at Cannes Film
Festival and Tatiana Samoilova was chosen as a recipient of a special award at
Cannes for playing Veronika, the young girl happily in love with the best man in
the world in the beginning of the movie. After separation with her beloved who went
to the front, the loss of her family in the bomb ride, and the marriage to the man
she never loved and only wished he never existed, she turned to the shadow of
herself, she became dead inside. Her long journey to redemption, to finally
accepting death of her beloved and to learning how to live with it, is a
fascinating and heartbreaking one and it simply won't leave any viewer
indifferent. For me, the movie is very personal and dear because I was
born and grew up in the city where its characters lived and were so happy in the
beginning. I walked the same streets, squares, and bridges over the Moskva River.
Every family in the former Soviet Union had lost at least one but often more than
one family member to a combat or to the concentration camp or to the ghetto or to
hunger, cold, and illnesses during WWII and my family is not exception. My mother
and grandmother knew the horrors of war and never healing pain of losses not just
from the movies and the books. "Cranes are Flying" speaks to me clearly and
honestly and touches me very deeply. It is a masterpiece of movie making but it is
a part of my life - my background, my memory, and my past.
Terrific movie: If you did not watch yet, you must watch. Geena Davis and Samuel L.
Jackson are amazing in this movie. Great actors + good story +
incredible action scenes > "The Long Kiss Goodnight" I give it a 10,
A+, 4 stars.
 SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW The Long Kiss Goodnight is yet
another prime example of a common affliction of many modern films; it starts off on
a very interesting concept - a trained assassin whose memory was erased regains
consciousness of herself - and the initial setup is engaging but then it seems the
writers don't know very well where to go next and the whole thing trails off down
increasingly confusing and/or inane paths, leaving the disappointing taste of
something that was OK but promised to be a lot better. The baddies are remarkably
unremarkable, and even Jackson's comic sidekick turn seems more like something from
his pre-Pulp Fiction days; it looks like Harlin, as in Cutthroat Island, made every
effort so that no-one would upstage his then wife. Her character is by far the best
of the film and this fact only makes you feel even more frustrated that they
weren't able to do something better with it. However, there is still
something about this film which for me sets it apart from the run-of-the-mill
hollywood actioner and places it above average, if only just. It is something very
subtle I can't quite put my finger on; it's a disturbing, cold, dark, even sickly
edge, a nightmarish and unreal feel, a decadent air, a mean streak, which keeps
cropping up in various ways. It's in the dark reddish photography and almost
permanent night the characters dwell in, it's in Samantha's dreams in front of the
mirror, it's in her vicious eyes and smile whenever she's about to kill a man or
when she announces how she will enjoy watching her nemesis die with her daughter
listening, it's in Mitch's comeback at the wheel of a car while he is spurting so
much blood from his mouth he can hardly speak... I don't know, it's an atmosphere,
something I can't define but which gives me the creeps (a bit) and which makes this
film still oddly intriguing for me.
Almost no cinema experience can beat a good thriller with a sense of humor. Geena
Davis is a schoolteacher housewife who suffers from amnesia. She'e even on the PTA!
But then an auto accident awakens the woman she used to be, and it's HOT! Samuel L.
Jackson is hilarious as the low rent private eye who tries to help Davis find her
past, only to find out he's in way over his head. Davis has some hilarious lines
too, and the interaction between her and Jackson works surprisingly well. Look for Brian Cox, the original Hannibal Lechter, and David Moorse finally
managing to shed his St. Elsewhere TV image. The film is directed by Davis'
husband, who almost seems to have built the whole film around her, but it works. I pull out this DVD and rewatch it often. I still love the makeup scene. Is
Geena hot or what?
I was happy to find out that at least now this movie is beginning to get the
appreciation it deserves (just view those votes). Not top-class action like "Die
Hard" or "Lethal Weapon", but still something like a solid 7 out of 10: fine
script, good actors with working chemistry, and a director who knows what he wants
(sadly, this was director Harlin's last good film. "Deep Blue Sea" managed to reach
'an OK rollercoaster-ride'- status, but "Cutthroat Island, and especially, "Driven"
are well-deserved flops!) Personally I think the turn-off at the box-office might
have been the "Woman as an action star"-theme. Well, give her a chance, because
Davis does deliver a performance above par. And, after all, this film doesn't
concentrate so much on the "feminine"-side, but instead on good ol' action,
buddyism (Jackson as a sidekick is given a lot of room in here, plus his share of
action- and about a thousand killer wisecracks!) and on the plot (from Shane Black,
the writer of "Lethal Weapon" and "The Last Boy Scout". The latter of which as a
movie is on very many levels much like this one...the theme, the clever plot, also
as good and as underrated!) Overall: if one hasn't seen this one yet, don't forget
to rent it for the next quiet Saturday night!
I love this film...! I've seen it 1000 x on dvd and I cant say enough about it. It
has it all, comedy, awesome action and incredible stunts/fx. Samuel Jackson steals
the show here big time. I dont think there isnt a moment that he's in that he isnt
funny! "Everyone knows that when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you
and umption"!! The f/x are great! The bridge/truck explosion is incredible,
although the sound isnt all that great!When Samuel drives out of the truck, the
sound is off a little I think and what he says is priceless!!! For those of you who
own it on dvd, put the audio in french!!! It's halarious!!! Even emotional moments
are great when the bad guy discovers that Sam's/Charlie's daughter is his, is
great... This is a great film that no action fan can do without... I also reccomend
Cutthroat Island... Aside from all the negative publicity, it kicks!!!!
I'm a Geena Davis fan for life because of this movie. I've always loved Samuel L
Jackson. And the two make a great pair on screen. This said, I think 'TLKG' is the
best action movie I've ever seen, forget the twist endings that audiences have now
come to expect and that filmmakers now try (mostly failing) to incorporate into
their movies. 10/10
I think Shane Black is one of the all time greatest action screenwriters ever! He
gave us the awesome (at it's time)Lethal Weapon, shooting Mel Gibson to super
stardom. Then followed that up with the second best movie Bruce Willis has ever
been in (The Last Boyscout).Stumbled a bit with The Last Action Hero, but redeemed
himself with this one, The Long Kiss Goodnight. If you're a fan of
action films, this has it all...Action, Comedy, Thrills, then tops it of with more
Action, Comedy and Thrills. Geena Davies is great, Samual L Jackson is even
greater. Don't miss it ! 9/10
Rent this, I own the DVD, got it for $9.99. A steal being so under-rated. Sure,
there are better movies. Movies with fewer or no holes in the plot or action. BUt I
don't have that problem with this movie. For me if a movie stays true to itself,
honest and exploitive of its flaws (and virtues, obviously!) in the name of
entertainment, then it has fulfilled its purpose. I got me to care, because its
makers cared. The entire movie is preposterous from beginning to end, but its
makers took the whole undertaking seriously, And I did not feel manipulated into
taking the movie seriously. And that is so true, because I want to take every movie
seriously yet many, oh so many, let me down. For all of its preposterousness, this
movie is almost perfect, and completely entertaining!What a funny screenplay! It
also has become eerily relevant in light of the events on 9/11. In no way do I seek
to minimize the loss. But this movie incorporates the tradegy of the WTC collapse
before it happened in ways that we will never see had the movie been made after
those events. "...it's either gone for good, or here to stay." "wouldn't
you agree?"
When this movie came out, I had seen Geena Davis play only soft, feminine roles...
This movie was anything but soft and feminine. Great lines, great action...she and
Samuel L really clicked. Too violent for the kiddies, but if you and your
significant other are trying to agree on a movie, try this one on for size. Go
Geena! Go Geena!
The Long Kiss Goodnight has just about everything action fans want: a witty
screenplay by the guy who wrote Lethal Weapon, Samuel L. Jackson, and great action
set pieces by Renny Harlin. Seriously underrated. One of the best action
movies ever.
One of those films that I happened across through The Criterion Collection and as
usual indulged as a change of pace. That turned out to be a great decision. I was
almost mesmerised by the quality of the film, the story it told and the way it was
told. The almost minimalist feel to the film with sparse dialogue and almost
constant music just added a whole evocative level to the film. This really is a
superb film to spend some time with and enjoy.
This is movie is actually one of my all time favorites. I'm not a Renny Harlin fan
because most of his movies suck, but TLKG hits its mark time after time. TLKG is
about a woman named Samantha Cain (Davis) who suffers from amnesia. she is married
with a kid and as she qoutes "I'm a goddamn member of the PTA." and then her world
comes crumbling down as the pieces fall into place about her earlier identity.
Samuel Jackson plays a con artist cop who does PI gigs, he is dragged along by her
to solve her identity and to get paid some cash for his work. along the way we find
out Samantha is really Charlie Baltimore, a secret spy that was left for dead years
earlier. the plot is great, making this story seem real and Jackson does a great
job as second fiddle to Davis (whom always does a great acting job). the explosions
are endless, the action is intertwined with memorable scene after memorable scene.
pretty impressive visually though the kid got on my nerves at the end (watch out of
the cars!) I'm tired of little kids screwing up a film to be saved but still, this
movie is worth it as the kid adds to the film. again, this movie is really good, i
never understood why it didn't make more at the box office but if it was a man
starring in the movie I'm sure it would have grossed a hundred million. what is
good is that over the years more people are discovering this movie and giving it
good marks as the average of this film on this site has risen over the years. i
hope it goes up further as this is one great action film. and i love action films
Let me start by saying overall I enjoyed The Long Kiss Goodnight. I would give it a
7/10. The Good: 1. Acting: Samuel L Jackson is entertaining in almost any role. In
this movie he doesn't play his usual character, the type that is in control,
instead Geena Davis is in control and Sam is along for the ride. His timing on his
lines are great and he is the high point of the movie. Geena Davis also gives a
great preformance as Samantha Caine/Charlie Baltimore. She is a believable action
hero and I don't think too many other actresses could pull off the preformance
Geena Does. 2. The Action: This is a very action packed movie. Things are pretty
much always crashing or blowing up or someone is chasing someone else. The special
effects are pretty good especially for being almost 8 years old. I can see some
green screen stuff but it doesn't detract too much from the acting. The
Bad: 1. Why did it take half of the movie to set up the plot? This film needed to
be edited in the script stage so that it didn't run as long as it did. Maybe a
drama or something can run this long but people really need to be into the movie
the entire time to sustain it. I think that if you can stick out the first half you
will be pleseantly suprized the second half. 2. Geena Davis is cold weather and a
tank top but she never seems cold. 3. Some things are unrealistic. Sam Jackson
flies through a giant sign after he is blasted out of a room and then he lands in a
tree and just gets up. When you see this part you will think it's a gag. overall
fun movie 7/10
I thought this was a great action flick. A very good role for Geena Davis. She is a
very versatile actress. One of my favs next to Angelina Jolie. I actually watched
The Long Kiss Goodnight right after seeing the new Tomb Raider movie. It got me
thinking, Charlie or Lara? Which one would win in a fight??? Either way, both women
are very strong, intelligent characters that are fun to watch. Especially when
they're kicking butt. I just hope to see Geena in another film soon. Seems like
she's been out of the spotlight a bit too long. It would be especially nice to see
her in another film with Samuel L. Jackson. Now they make a great duo. Watch this
film if you haven't. You won't be disappointed.
A wonderful Christmas story on the moving theme of "Susie Homemaker finds her Inner
Amazon." No, I'm serious! Geena Davis's amnesia starts to improve when she is
knocked on the head. From this familiar beginning, we move in an unexpected
direction. Good pace, good action, fun story, lots of explosions and mayhem.
I had never heard of this film till it popped up on cable TV and I can't understand
why. Geena outdoes Arnold as an action hero in this film! Geena is an ex-CIA
assassin who is brainwashed and given an identity as a schoolteacher with a quiet
family life in a rural town. She continues that life for 8 years with a husband and
daughter. Clues start coming to her that she may have been someone else, especially
when someone tries to kill her. It seems that her former employers have discovered
that she never died and want to make sure that she does. She hires Samuel L.
Jackson, who is a former police officer. Together they form a pair that is as
entertaining as Mel Gibson & Danny Glover. When Geena finally regains her memory
she undergoes a transformation into the killing machine she once was with the song
"She's Not There" playing in the background. What follows is Geena and Samuel have
to go after the bad guys and hopefully stay alive. All through the rest of the film
Geena has to decide who she really is. The killing unfeeling machine? The
mother/schoolteacher with the quiet family life? Or a combination of both?
Especially, since the bad guys grab Geena's daughter. Great action scenes that rank
up with any of the Die Hard movies!
There is a serious scene in this movie. A scene that lets you know that his film
won't be pulling many cheap punches. It takes place in a crowded train station and
the protagonists are ambushed by assassins with automatic weapons. They make a
break for it and just manage to get out in a hail of gunfire. The main hall of the
train station is now filled with corpses of innocent people that were caught in the
crossfire. Some would call that too sad and/or grim to put into what is supposed to
be an enjoyable action flick. I call it honesty. Most action movies tend to lean
toward the "safe side" of showing violence and plot elements. This mostly means
that in spite massive shootouts innocent people tend not to die or at least we
don't see them die. The violence is all purely the good guys versus the bad guys
with mainly the bad guys dying. A bit of common sense clearly shows this to be
absurd. Renny Harlin showed a hint of this in his first (and sadly only)
hit, Die Hard 2. The villains intentionally crash a plane full of people to get
their point across. The scene was also filmed with a backup scene of a cargo plane
with only a few people on-board going down, but the grimmer and probably more
realistic scenario ended up being used. However, to fit the spirit of the first
film, Die Hard 2 was mostly a "fun action movie." Here, that grimmer and more
convincing edge is pervasive. The violence is bloody. The one liners are hilarious,
but with a certain style that more echoes natural human sarcasm than clichéd film
wisecracks at key moments of action. The plot is also packed with more malicious
intent than most action films. The villain is not just some rogue out for revenge
or a mad grab at power. It is less ridiculous, but also more frightening than that.
From recent films, the "Bourne" trilogy almost gets there with its less cheesy than
usual action film style, but this film is from 1996 and 7 years before "The Bourne
Identity" with Matt Damon made it to the big screen. Another interesting
aspect is that the main hero is actually a heroine. And this is well before the
movie version of "Tomb Raider" became a hit. What's more is that this heroine
genuinely looks like she could take down John McClane and then take his still lit
cigarette. This movie marks Geena Davis's second action-heroine role and she still
didn't manage to score a hit. While Angelina Jolie stars in "Tomb Raider" years
later and scores a hit. The reasons are beyond me. Completely. Lastly,
this movie isn't all dark edged. There are many outrageous and spectacular set
pieces that one can only see in an action film. The climatic explosion of a
chemical bomb is an absolutely spectacular display of movie pyrotechnics, with more
than one law of physics taking a convenient break. Thus, there is formula here, but
it is the Anti-Formula for the everyday Hollywood Action Movie Formula. --- 9/10 BsCDb Classification: 13+ --- violence, profanity
I have seen this film probably a dozen times since it was originally released
theatrically. Anyone who calls this movie trash or horrible just doesn't understand
action films or recognize a good one. Perhaps to some the incidents and outcomes
may seem far fetched, but in my opinion screenwriter Shane Black ( Lethal Weapon/
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) crafted one of the most well thought out action adventures you
will ever come across. Over the top or not this film flows like clockwork and the
action just keeps coming. The final action sequence is one of the best I have ever
seen in any film. The cast in this film crackles. Genna Davis gave a tremendous
performance and its a damn shame there was never a "LKG" sequel. Samuel L. Jackson
is hilarious as her sidekick Mitch a down on his luck private eye trying to help
her discover her lost past and make a few bucks. If Baffles me how anyone could not
like this film. It packs so many thrills and its so funny. The wisecracks in this
film still make me laugh just as hard 10 years later. In my mind the first Matrix
film and the Long Kiss Goodnight were easily 2 of the best and most original action
flicks of the 90's. Incidentally Shane Black made a fortune when he sold this
script. At the time it was the highest selling screenplay and its worth every
penny. It's so sad that audiences never gave this movie a chance, cause they would
have witnessed Renny Harlins best film and Genna Davis like you have never seen her
before. Long live "The Long Kiss Goodnight"!!
I am a happily married 49 year old female, who just happens to LOVE this movie to
death. Geena Davis' character is strong, smart and kick
ass...............I thought she did an excellent (thats an understatement) job in
this movie. I'm not real big on action movies, but i thought it was
sooooooooooo sexy and entertaining. She is my alter-ego.............when
she starts putting that assault rifle together in the old hotel
room.....................i got chills...............she did it like she knew what
she was doing............thats one of my MANY favorite parts in that
movie........ i think she deserved an Oscar for her acting and physical
roles........ I'm going to have 'CHARLY' tattoed on my
back..............I'm one of those girls who will NEVER BE A
VICTIM......................I'm like her...............(shhhhhhhhhhhhhh
secretly........and isn't that oh so sexy?)
I enjoyed this film immensely. I'm really into films where females kick lots of
butt, so this film already had my hopes up for some decent entertainment. My hopes
were met and exceeded less than 20 minutes into the film. The action, humor and wit
this film contained easily made it one of my favorite films of all time. It had Sam
Jackson and his undeniable screen presence, Geena Davis as I've never seen her
before, demanding your respect and flat out taking it even if you don't want to
give it. Geena plays Samantha Caine, an amnesiac desperate to remember
something about her past, but quickly realizing, the more she finds out the more
she wants to forget and eventually becomes consumed until finally Samantha is so
more and Charly is all that's left. But now, can Charly and Sam, two completely
different women, possibly exist in the same body? We have characters that pop in
and out of the film that nurture each side of Sam/Charly, like Sam Jackson, and
Craig Bierko. Craig is also irresistible as Timothy, the sexy bad guy with no
conscience. This film was perfectly casted, and perfectly acted, over
the top and wonderfully entertaining. You watch the impossible happen and applaud
when it does. SO worth your time. Watch it, you won't be sorry.
This film is a great rampage of action and comedy, it gets right in to it right
from the start, there's no boring build up. The chemistry of the leading roles adds
to the excitement and anticipation of the ending, even though my suspicions were
not satisfied. The special effects worked brilliantly and were believable! Would
have liked a different ending but it still had me reeling in emotions. The story
line unfolds well however it is a film you have to watch from start to end
carefully to pick up on all the details, to fully understand and get maximum
enjoyment. 
I would like to tell you just a few things before considering seeing this movie. If
at one point or another you thought you've seen good camera work, be prepared to be
amazed by this movie. For the record, this movie was made in 1957 in Russia, but
the technique used here is probably something that we've seen much later in the
western world...about 20 years later. The level of emotions through the film varies
quite a lot: happiness -love-war- despair-joy, but in the end you remain with
something quite unique: the joy of seeing one masterpiece of filmmaking. The young
directors from our time should study more this kind of movies and maybe they will
be able to create something similar..even though I think movies like this are very
hard to come by... If you've seen "I am Cuba" , then this movie would appeal to you
very much, but if not, be prepared for a unique experience. The Russian directors
have something in common: very small budgets, great actors, and a joy of creating
art...and yes, they are able to create more masterpieces than all the western world
together. I am not a big fan of Russia, actually I hate everything that's
communist, but the film making in that part of the world, manages to create such
feelings that are hard to describe. Enjoy it. 
I feel extremely sad for some of the people who have been reviewing this film. It
is apparent that their standards are so high that they will never be able to enjoy
a film just for enjoyment sake. Or, perhaps, their enjoyment is derived from the
act of picking films apart; looking for any reason at all to dislike them? The Long Kiss Goodnight is an action film, in every sense of the word. Sure,
there are holes in the plot big enough to drive a semi through, but none of them
are enough to stop the flow of the film itself. I have never been a big Geena Davis
fan, but I was impressed with how she was able to create two very different
characters, Samantha Cain and Charlie Baltimore. In my opinion, it wasn't even
necessary to have changed her physical appearance to differentiate between the
two...her acting was more than enough to do the trick. More than
anything else, though, this film was Craig Bierko's. In another's hands, the
character of Timothy could've been just another interchangeable villain. His
decision to play him with a more casual approach was just the right counterpoint to
all of the action scenes. It isn't often that you find an actor who can express
himself so well with just his facial expressions...point in case: the scene in the
freezer with Charlie and her daughter. Where most films would've cluttered the
moment of "revelation" with unnecessary dialogue, Bierko's eyes told the whole
story. The basic plot? Thin, to be truthful. A seemingly average
housewife who suffers from amnesia slowly discovers that she had been an assassin.
As her memory returns, so do the people who want the assassin dead. Is she really
Samantha, the cookie baking housewife, or Charlie, the cold blooded assassin? Or
maybe a little bit of both? For me, The Long Kiss Goodnight was an enjoyable
journey to find out.
"The Long Kiss Goodnight" is an enjoyable and very cool action thriller, and a
career breakthrough for Geena Davis. The plot is very familiar to that of The
Bourne Identity but so what. The fight scenes are a real treat for the eyes and the
plotline is strong enough to keep you engaged for the 2 hours. It's
directed with a slick sense of style and avoids most action cliches. Geena Davis is
great as an action chick and gets past her usual "good wife" role. Samuel L.
Jackson is good as usual as the supporting player. The film's baddie is overly
cheesy though and you can tell what's going to happen to him. It breaks
away from the usual run-of-the-mill actioners such as Commando and On Deadly Ground
and is definetly one of the best actioners in years. Good fun and good popcorn
entertainment. 7.4/10.
I hadn't planned on leaving a review, but seeing some of the other dreadful reviews
for this movie, I had to say something. I'm not going to give away the
ending or anything, but I do give away some important plot points in this review,
so you should be aware of that. The short (non-spoiler) version of my review -
Samuel L. Jackson and Geena Davis both kick butt in this movie, and it's a lot of
fun. Watch it. This movie is one of my favorites of all time. Geena
Davis is perfect as the action heroine, torn between her existing life as a
housewife and mother, and the memories that are resurfacing of her former life as a
CIA Assassin. Her performance is superb as she plays both facets of this relatively
complex character perfectly. Samuel L. Jackson's performance is, as
always, also excellent, as the Private Investigator that Geena Davis' character
hired to look into her forgotten past. He does a great job of playing the unwitting
sidekick to Geena Davis' tough character. Some of the lines he utters in this movie
are the best he's ever used in any movie he's been in. Seriously, if you
haven't seen it, do. It's a fantastic story with lots of unexpected twists and
turns, and it's extremely well directed and acted.
This is a film that in no way reflects the real world. Nothing in this film makes
any real world sense or has any real world logic. It operates entirely in its own
little world and your ability to accept it or not will determine your love or hate
for this film. I love the film. Somewhere at the very
beginning I bought into the completely unreal premise of the hit woman regaining
her memory as the past comes back to haunt her. There was a moment early on where I
remember accepting that this was going to be one of those movies where the heroine
was going to know nothing until it was needed, despite all logic that it wouldn't
happen that way. "Oh its one of those films" I said to myself and was hooked as the
film took off on a wild two hour chase. This is an action film with
brain and brawn as things follow there own internal logic and you actually have to
pay attention to follow some of the twists and turns. I like this a great deal and
am pleasantly surprised when I bump into people who feel the same way too. People
either love it or hate it, if they've ever heard of it at all. If you
like action films this is a film to definitely try. You may not like it, but it
certainly worth the effort to find out And as always, leave reality at
the door.
A small-town schoolteacher (Geena Davis) slowly begins to realize that she has
suffered amnesia and really use to be a secret government assassin! Soon, there are
men after her and a small-time private detective (Samuel L. Jackson). This was action-packed, with some great special effects and really funny one-
liners (especially from Jackson). Although the action may get a little silly at
times, who cares? After all, aren't movies meant to be a good time? Craig Bierko is fun as a ruthless villain. The movie itself was an all-around
good time. Just don't expect to have to think too much about it because then, if
you take it too seriously, then the movie actually won't be fun but stupid
instead. This movie doesn't deserve to be called stupid or any other bad
name.
Not a box office success; no-one really knows why. It may have failed simply
because of its title. It looks as though you need a two-word tough-guy title to
attract a sufficient proportion of the idiot crowd - "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon",
"Hard Weapon", "Die Lethal", etc. - talking about "the long kiss goodnight" will
get you nowhere. But for once Renny Harlin has made a GOOD action movie. A large
part of the reason for this lies in the fact that the central character, Samantha,
earns our affection and interest early on. As she becomes Charly again, we're torn:
we certainly want Charly to thwart the bad guys, and all that; but we don't want
her to lose touch with Samantha in order to do so - even though we like Charly,
too. Geena Davis bestows all of her considerable charm on both halves of the
central character. Samuel L. Jackson plays second fiddle for a change. It turns out
he's good at it. That was a compliment. Intelligent, far superior to
anything in the "Die Hard" series - if I were more cynical I'd add, "it's not
surprising that it didn't do well", but I don't really feel that way; it IS
surprising that it didn't do well.
Definitely a movie for people who ask only to be entertained and who do not over-
think their movies. Lots of action, lots of great dialogue (e.g. fun to
quote), a little intrigue, and stuff blowing up all over the place. Samuel L
Jackson and Geena Davis had great chemistry. Violent, but not gory. The fact that
the female part was the competent action lead is a pleasant turn-about. Have seen the movie more than a dozen times and still enjoy it enough to put it
back in my favorite films rotation every 3 or 4 months. I initially rented the
movie because Samuel L Jackson was in the film, but was caught up in the events
surrounding Samantha's quest to regain her memory and have never looked back. All you cerebral folks out there -- suspend disbelief for once, take
yourself a little less seriously -- you might actually enjoy yourselves!
This is by far my favorite action movie. But what makes it work is not the
elaborate Renny Harlin explosions and shoot-em-ups. It's the Shane Black script and
its deft delivery by Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson. The chemistry
between the two principals merited a sequel. Thank God it was never made. Too much
danger of marring the original. 'The Long Kiss' checkerboards from
quotable scene to action scene to quotable scene and back again. Never a dull
moment. This has to be Jackson's funniest role ever, and the amazing
thing is that he is playing one of the most normal characters of his career. No
quirky Tarantino hit-man, super-cool Shaft, or borderline psycho soldier. In TLKG,
Jackson is the everyman we identify with. The poor schmuck gets dragged along on
this crazy woman's odyssey to uncover the dangerous secret of her past. Though the story claims that Davis's character, Samantha Caine is suffering from
amnesia, the writer and director treat her condition as if it were a multiple
personality disorder. Samantha Caine is not just a new identity taken by
the amnesiac Charly Baltimore -- she is a separate, fully-developed personality.
The traumas suffered by Samantha in the first half-hour of the movie help the
submerged dissociate personality of Charly to emerge again. The
materials of her past life excavated by Jackson's detective Mitch Henessey
facilitate Charly's resurfacing. Good timing, too, considering the target Samantha
makes of herself. But Charly has to fight herself to remain the dominant
personality. One gathers from bits of dialogue that the warrior personality
(Charly) developed after her father died and she was recruited by the "Chapter". In the eight years Charly was buried in the psyche, though, her Samantha
identity developed into the dominant personality. (She's even funnier that Charly.)
This was probably due to becoming a mother, because it's the reunion with her
daughter that breaks Charly's struggle to suppress Samantha, leading to their
apparent integration by movie's end. It's impossible to choose a "best
quote" from this film: "Now you're a sharpshooter?" "I saved
your ass. It was great!" "Continue dying. Out." "I sock 'em
in the jaw and yell 'Pop goes the weasel'". And a couple of dozen more,
many too raunchy to quote here. Geena Davis looks great, and comes off
as an action hero without glossing over the fact she's turning forty. (Listen to
Charley's history, do the math). Fantastic soundtrack, too. Santana,
Muddy Waters, Elvis, LaBelle, Marvin Gaye. I give 'The Long Kiss
Goodnight' a 9, only because I don't believe in a perfect 10. Seen it a dozen
times, and it still stays fresh. Nice twisted holiday flick to place on your shelf
next to 'It's A Wonderful Life.'
Amazing, amazing, amazing. What more can be said? Jacobi is the best Hamlet ever to
grace the stage and captures every inch of the character. Every nuance and element
of Hamlet is depicted and depicted well. Some people have complained about his age,
but you honestly cannot tell when watching the film. If anything, he looks
drastically younger than 40. I only wish a more worthy Ophelia could have been
found. Her acting is passable but she just doesn't look the part. The only real
exceptional performances come from Jacobi and Stewart, who is a great Claudius. The
rest of the cast is good, but Jacobi is what truly elevates this teleplay.
I have watched every version of this play that I can think of, including several on
the stage, and Sir Derek Jacobi is absolutely the best Hamlet I have ever seen! He has the most wonderful voice for stage acting, and his expressive face
will take you on a roller coaster of emotions throughout this play. The way in
which he delivers his lines takes you on a journey through madness. He (as
Hamlet)can in an instant be loving, soft and gentle and in another instant be
raging against the hell that is his life. You believe that he is in pain, you
believe that he is angry, you believe that he is not a little mad. You believe he
IS Hamlet. Of course, some of the thanks obviously goes to
Shakespeare, :) but without an excellent actor to get the words from the page to
the stage, it doesn't really matter how well written a play is. If you
like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. If you don't like
Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. You will come away with a new
appreciation for Shakespeare if you do. The nuanced performance that Sir Derek
gives will leave you breathless.
The plot of this movie is set against the most terrible war in history of mankind:
the violent clash between Adolf Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia, from
1941-'45. With the western areas of their country thoroughly devastated,
and 20 to 30 million Russian people killed, the vibes of this conflict can be felt
in Russia up to the present day. Let alone back in 1957, when memories were still
very fresh and painful. This very black setting strongly contrasts with
the fine and coherent style of 'Letjat zhuravli's' beautiful shots. Its simple
story deals with human behaviour in times of war: bravery, love, patriotism,
weakness, cowardice and corruption. All beautifully tied together by a toy-
squirrel. Add to this the truly magnificent acting, and it's easy to
understand why this movie is so famous. Really, one of the very best ever made. 
1. I've seen Branaghs Hamlet: Branagh is too old, speaks frequently with a high
pitched voice (unwillingly funny!) - not a convincing Hamlet, and his directors
qualities - poor ! (see also much ado about nothing from Branagh - the funny parts
of the dialogues have mostly been cut out not speaking of the directors mistakes in
the dialogue cuts!) 2. I've seen Hamlet 2000: I think the scenario is an
interesting idea - but such lousy actors - all of them 3. Orson Welles Hamlet is OK
- but this BBC Hamlet is the best! Derec Jacobi is convincing - seems a bit of a
lunatic - very suitable! and Patric Stewart - wonderful, and Claire Bloom is a very
attractive queen. You believe those actors what they are saying - I think this is
the best compliment.
I have seen this play many times, from Olivier to Branagh, and this remains the one
version that always stands out in my memory. Many actors have captured aspects of
this character, but for me, it is always Derek Jacobi's performance they are
compared to and all others just come up a bit short.
Part of the BBC filming of all of Shakespeare's classic plays, this version of
Hamlet does nothing to dispel my particular impression that it is one of
Shakespeare's most over-rated plays and Hamlet himself a not particularly moving
and tragic character. I feel no sympathy for him, and I didn't after watching
this. Even when you have great actors like the great Derek Jacobi in the
role of the Dane, and Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Jonathan Hyde as Rosencrantz,
it cannot disguise the lack of passion in the storyline. And when a good actor like
Jacobi injects passion into it, he renders the entire role incomprehensible. I just
could not connect his physicalisation of the character to what he was saying, and
this killed it for me. That said, he does get the "To be, or not to be" speech
right, as his actions with a dagger make clear the character's suicidal intentions
at that point in the play. The supporting roles, to me better written
and consequently better played, are enjoyable, notably Lalla Ward's loopy Ophelia
and Stewart's well-detailed interpretation of Claudius. At four and a
half hours, it is very long and best watched in bite-sized chunks. Check it out if
you're interested but be prepared for a long watch.
I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have
seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something
about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered
to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch
it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it.
Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part.
The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I
think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it,
soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best
version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb
version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown. I heard of the
Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the
Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I
was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's
Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb. Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched
one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled
by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a
revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an
actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing.
Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet
was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh
version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to
see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained
Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence. And now I'm going
to watch it all over again....
Let's face it, there is no perfect production of Hamlet, it's simply far too long
and varied and cerebral to get completely perfect across the board, especially what
with the challenges of Elizabethan English and Shakespeare's abstruse dialogue. In
any staging of it, there are bound to be certain moments, scenes, or intonations
that one disagrees with. I've seen a lot of filmed Hamlet productions: Olivier,
Gibson, Branagh, Scott, and now this BBC film with Jacobi. In terms of faithful,
full-length productions, this one ranks up there with the very best. Most Hamlet productions are drastically cut, because to perform the entire play
takes a stage-time of four to five hours. This production appears to be complete --
that is, ALL of the original Shakespeare dialogue is intact -- and so it's
essential for scholars and Shakespeare-lovers. And though the lines seemed rushed
on rare occasion (for those less completely familiar with the text), for the most
part the script is well-acted, well-spoken, and well-performed. Subtitles are
available and very helpful, although upon occasion they lag slightly behind. Jacobi does a quite admirable job with theatre's longest and most
impossible role. I actually cried when Hamlet dies, and I don't think I've done
that before. Patrick Stewart (as Claudius) and Claire Bloom (as Gertrude) are
excellent, as are Lalla Ward (Ophelia) and David Robb (Laertes), and the rest of
the very on-point cast. Sets are minimal, so we can thankfully concentrate on the
play without distraction or attention paid to non-essentials. At 3 hours
and 45 minutes, this full-length Hamlet is a long haul to sit through, but again,
if you want the real deal, it's 100% worth it, even if one needs to take an
intermission for oneself. I highly recommend this production to all Shakespeare
lovers and scholars.
If you wish to see Shakespeare's masterpiece in its entirety, I suggest you find
this BBC version. Indeed it is overlong at four and a half hours but Jacoby's
performance as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart's as Claudius are well worth the
effort. It never ceases to amaze me how clear "Hamlet" is when you see
it in its length and order as set down by the Bard. Every film version of "Hamlet"
has tinkered with its structure. Olivier concentrated on Hamlet's indecision,
Gibson on his passions. Jacoby is able to pull all of these aspects of Hamlet's
character together with the aid of Shakespeare's full script. Why does
Hamlet not kill Claudius immediately? Hamlet says "I am very proud, revengeful,
ambitious..." Hamlet is extremely upset, not only for his father's death (and
suspected murder), or his mother's marriage to his uncle, but also, and mostly,
because Claudius has usurped the throne belonging to Hamlet. He is furious at his
mother for marrying Claudius (marriages between royal kin is not unknown; done for
political reasons) but that her marriage solidified Claudius' claim to the throne
before he could return from Wittenburg to claim it for himself. He is, therefore,
impotent to do anything about it. And this is true even after he hears his father's
ghost cry vengeance. He cannot simply kill the King or he will lose the throne in
doing so. He must "out" the King's secret and here is the tragedy! At the moment
Hamlet is successful in displaying Claudius' guilt in public, he has opportunity to
kill him and does not. WHY? He wants it ALL! He wants revenge, the throne AND the
damnation of Claudius' soul in hell. Hamlet OVERREACHES himself in classic tragic
form. His own HUBRIS is his undoing. He kills Polonius thinking it is Claudius and
the rest of the play spirals down to the final deaths of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern,
Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet himself.
Absolutely the most thoughtful, spiritually deep, intense Hamlet ever done -- no
other version comes close. Jacobi has the best understanding of the role of all the
actors that have played it. Patrick Stewart's Claudius is ferocious and still
sympathetic -- I particularly like the two doofuses playing Rosencranz and
Guildenstern. Very feckless and yet sinister. Some might gripe about the need for a
strong Ophelia -- she's not a strong person, that's the point, and Lalla Ward hits
the proper nuances. Amazing. Simply Amazing -- every one of the more than two dozen
times I've watched it.
I saw this version of Hamlet on television many years ago, and have seen every
other version since, whether television or movie. However, this is the one that
remains the truest depiction of the story for me. Most excellent Derek Jacobi made
Hamlet *real* for me. Before I saw this version, Shakespeare was simply gibberish
to me and I never tried to understand the Elizabethan English. Having seen Jacobi's
Hamlet several times not only increased my knowledge of literature, but also that
of my family. I promptly checked the play out of Library and read it, and poured
over the accompanying recording. Jacobi's rendition attracted me to a deeper
knowledge. And yet, I have been searing for a video of it for years and years to no
avail. It gets a very high rating from viewers. Why, then, has it not been released
on video? It's the only Hamlet that I'd invest in...
I have seen all the film interpretations of Hamlet, from Sir Lawrence Olivier to
Mel Gibson (gasp). Derek Jacobi captures the true essence of the character, from
the beginning to the brutal climax. Superb acting all around. This one should not
be missed.
This production of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is by far the best that I have seen.
Although it may not have the production value of some of the more recent
adaptations, it does have the most important element: Sir Derek Jacobi as
Hamlet. Jacobi's portrayal of the disturbed Prince is multi-layered and
riveting. His displays of emotion swing from hatred to sorrow, love to vengefulness
and everywhere else on the map, but without seeming forced or over-the-top. In
fact, some of the more powerful sequences occur when he underplays them, with
stillness, soft speech and thoughtful expression. As to whether or not he
interprets Hamlet as mad or sane...well, you should decide for yourselves; I
changed my mind more than once. At one point it seems he has thought himself sane
and merely playing at madness, but suspects that he is actually mad after all...a
revelation to himself, captured beautifully. Having performed the part of Hamlet on
stage more times than any other actor in history, Jacobi's affinity for the role
then comes as little surprise. As for the production itself, it is
presented as a kind of "filmed-copy" of the stage play, with little special effects
or fancy camera work, minimal sets and no musical accompaniment to speak of. This
production relies on the acting prowess of the cast, and the words of Shakespeare,
to evoke the emotion and interest of its audience. And it works. The other players
are top-notch as well, particularly Patrick Stewart's "Claudius" and Claire Bloom's
"Gertrude." Together the cast present a seamless ensemble. The last (but
far from least) element that makes this production stand out is the play itself.
Here it is presented in its entirety, a rarity on film. But, oddly enough, I never
noticed the time. I was too busy getting caught up in the story. I suspect that you
will, too.
Love and war did happen on the other side of the iron curtain and by looking losely
at it love was just as strong as in the West and war was often more poignant
(should I say more realistic ?). This film is as much about war and love
as it is about the Soviet thaw of Mr K's era. It also reminds us than the best war
movies were not necessarily made in the 1990's with rivers of hemoglobin and
millions of USD spent on special effects and marketed actors. This movie
is a classic of Soviet cinema and a outstanding picture of one of the greatest
human tragedies : war. 
I've seen various Hamlets, and I've taught the play. As I watch Jacobi, I'm tempted
to think that he's every bit as intelligent as Hamlet himself, so alive is he to
every nuance of this character's wit. He deepens, rather than solves, every puzzle
regarding Hamlet's character. He illuminates line after line, word after word,
shining light into this sparkling mind. At the same time, however, we cringe at the
horror Hamlet feels at his betrayal--far more than with any other actor--because
Jacobi feels the pain more profoundly than anyone else. And we shudder at Hamlet's
own betrayals, because Jacobi is not afraid of the baseness to which Hamlet can
descend. In short, Jacobi gives us Hamlet in full, and Hamlet in full is the
greatest character in literature. That's why I'm satisfied that Jacobi's Hamlet is
the finest performance I've seen by an actor.
Caught this film on TCM in the early A.M. It was amazing. Starting out
slow but ominously.... Scott is a shady character who preys on women. In this case,
two women who happen to be due an inheritance in Southern California. The sets of the beach and neighborhoods of the 1940's are original and
intriguing. The title may have been more creative, but the theme and nefarious
shadows of human nature are intriguingly exposed, almost in a Hitchcockian
version. Scott reminded me of the character Uncle Charley in "Shadow of
a Doubt", one of Hitch's reputed favorite films. The audience learns,we truly do
not know what lurks in the dark side of the human mind.This film is a displaced gem
and well-worth purchasing. 10/10.
This is a great little movie, full of interesting characters and situations. While
not in the same class as some of the better-known movies of its time, it is still
extremely watchable and memorable. The scene where Zachary Scott, sitting on a bus,
casually steals the airman pin from the lapel of a coat thrown over the seat next
to him, is terrific. It defines his character beautifully -- a guy who's so low,
he'll purloin something of inestimable value to a war veteran, to use as a prop in
his various charades. He lies easily as the situation calls for, and captivates the
women in the Fenchurch household with his irresistible charm and that killer
smile. I couldn't help wondering if this movie was made to capitalize on
the success of Mildred Pierce. Scott and Bruce Bennett were teamed again, and Faye
Emerson bears some resemblance to Joan Crawford, with her facial bone structure and
large eyes. Also, the Mona Freeman character is not unlike the odious Veda in
Mildred Pierce. I agree with a previous comment that the ending to the
movie was too pat, with the convenient tumble over a cliff for "Ronnie Mason",
Zachary Scott's character. Also, in one of the final scenes, we see bratty Mona
Freeman reunited with the boyfriend she had previously scorned in favor of the
older, smoother Zachary Scott. I think the script should've called for her to be
chastened for her behavior and for her cruelty toward her sister, instead of
treating it as just a typical adolescent episode. But these are minor flaws in an
otherwise enjoyable and well-made movie.
Between the ages of 30 and 51, when he died of a brain tumour, Zachary Scott made
70 films. He was introduced in 1944 in Jean Negulesco's 'The Mask of Dimitrios',
where he played Dimitrios. The next year, 1945, he made three films, of which this
is one. He is best remembered by cineastes as the star of Jean Renoir's 'The
Southerner', one of the 1945 films, where he had a sympathetic role. However, he
often played creepy characters, and in this film he is a sociopathic killer of
women for money. So what happens here? He lives in a house with three women, so
watch out! Faye Emerson, who also appeared in 'Dimitrios', plays the older of two
daughters in the house. She falls in love with Scott and they become secretly
engaged. Then her 'cute kid' younger sister (played effectively by Mona Freeman,
who resembles Bonita Granville both in looks and in behaviour) returns from
boarding school and reveals casually in conversation with Scott that she has
inherited a tidy sum, so Scott turns his sights on her instead, with all the torrid
jealousies seething in the household which that was bound to arouse. Things get
tense, and then they get tenser. Meanwhile, plans for murder are going forward in
the mind of the calculating Scott. But it turns out that he is not the only one
with such intentions. He is also being searched for as a result of his last kill,
with which the film has opened, so that we know his back story. James Wong Howe
gives effective noirish cinematography to this tale, which was directed by
Frenchman Robert Florey who had moved to Hollywood some time earlier. The film is
an effective psychopath-in-the-house mystery which can cause a bit of wear of the
edges of some seats, for those of such an inclination.
Robert Florey and James Wong Howe gave this a frightening, Expressionistic look.
Scenes are shot at weird angles -- especially scenes involving figurative and
literal lady-killer Zachary Scott. His sociopathic behavior presages another
superb, medium-budget movie, "The Stepfather," by more than two decades. The entire cast is excellent, though (though no fault of her own) it's hard
to think of Joyce Compton as anyone but the singer in "The Awful Truth.") Scott,
Bennett, Emerson, DeCamp (especially, and though playing an older woman looking
gorgeous) -- they couldn't have been topped. Setting a creepy lodger-in-
the-house-of women story against a background of psychiatrists is a risky trick
that pays off beautifully. Nothing corny at all.beautifully. Nothing corny at
all. The resolution is a little pat, unfortunately. Not Emerson's
getting together with Bennett. That makes sense. But Scott is dispatched too
quickly. I seem him more as a Mr. Ripley character, who could have escaped
everything -- the botulism, the murder rap, the jealous sisters -- and disappeared
into the great world beyond this story. That would not have impeded the essentially
happy ending of the secretary and her boss finally getting together.
Zachary Scott does what he does best, i.e., plays a worm, in "Danger Signal," a
1945 B movie also starring Faye Emerson, Mona Freeman, and Rosemary DeCamp. Scott
plays a writer who kills women after he gets their money. On the lam from his last
murder, he rents a room in the home owned by the Fenchurch family, Hilda (Emerson)
and her mother (Mary Servoss). Scott throws himself at Emerson, and she's dazzled.
Mid-romance, her younger sister Anne (Freeman) comes home from a medical treatment.
When she mentions that she was Uncle Wade's favorite and he left her $25,000 (big
bucks by 1945 standards), Scott loses interest in poor Hilda and makes a play for
Anne. Anne looks like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm until she starts sneaking around
with Scott - overnight, she ages 10 years and becomes downright nasty to her
sister. Finally getting the message that her tenant is no good, Hilda calls in a
psychiatrist (Rosemary DeCamp) to psyche him out and advise her. Psychological dramas were all the rage during and after World War II, and Scott
does an excellent job as a smooth sociopath. This was his forte - as a weak-willed
sheriff in "Flamingo Road," he exhibited no real presence. As for two-timing, we
saw him do that in "Mildred Pierce," where he proved himself particularly good at
it. Emerson is a bookish stenographer with her hair pushed off her face and her big
glasses, but after hours, she's lovely, and gives a strong performance. DeCamp was
always an underrated actress - here, she sports a soft German accent and is
delightful. This is a highly entertaining film though a very routine
story. The acting truly elevates it.
This film was full of suspense and was well directed, the black and white effect
made it a great mystery. Fay Emerson,(Hilda Fenchurch) who was married twice to the
famous musician Skitch Henderson and also the son of Elliott Roosevelt, (FDR's Son)
fell madly in love with Zachary Scott( Ronnie Mason/Marsh). Ronnie wins the hearts
of all the ladies in the picture, even Mona Freeman(Anne Fenchurch) and proposes
marriage whenever he can. Rosemary DeCamp (Dr. Jane Silla)(famous radio and tv
actress in the 30's and 40's played mostly small town MOM'S) warned the ladies
about Ronnie Mason's sick mind, and the abusive childhood he had when growing up,
which caused his love/hate relationship with women. Fay Emerson and Zachary Scott
would have been greater stars with more rewarding roles, but their lives were short
lived in real life. This film is beyond critizing, it is a trully great 1945 film
classic for many generations to view and enjoy!
this is film is probably one of the best i've seen so far. i would put it only
second to All About Lily Chou-chou because it kind of gives me the same vibes....'9
souls' is about 9 prisoners who have just escaped prison to go and find some
counterfeit money stored in a time capsule at Mount Fuji Primary School. they later
find out that there wasn't much there and set off on their own ways. the first half
of the movie is just a time for the characters to be introduced and for the main
points to be stated. it is a comedic yet serious part of the journey. the second
half, moved me to tears. as the movie progresses, each character goes and tries to
fulfill their dreams, but unfortunately ending somewhat badly. in the end only 2 of
the 9 escapees are left. the way that each character left the scene was very sad
and you will probably feel tears in your eyes. a beautiful film directed
fantastically. this is a movie for people who have enjoyed Toshiaki Toyoda's other
films such as 'Blue Spring'.
I watched "9 souls" in Athens' 12th International Film Festival (September 2006),
where Toshiaki Toyoda, the films's director was also present and answered many
questions of the audience. This road film is about 9 fugitives, all very different
characters from each other. They decide to stay together travelling with their red
van across Japan. Every time the van stops, we see these 9 fugitives trying to
escape from their past in order to build up a new life or to fulfil a dream.
However, no matter how hard they try, it seems impossible and their violent past
comes after them and leads them to their final destruction. Though a
very pessimistic film, it is not a dark film. On the contrary, it is full of
beautiful pictures, surreal elements and elegant humor. Toyoda's heroes cannot
escape their "prison" and they face a divine(?) punishment for their "crimes". They
are small pieces of a beautiful painting, where the tower of Tokyo depicted as a
huge knife turned upside down prevails!
A great film. Every moment masterfully conducted by Toyoda and his crew. The actors
give credible performances all around.The visuals are haunting,beautiful and
sometimes hauntingly beautiful shots of the Japanese country and city
landscapes.The sounds,courtesy of Japanese band 'Dig', are never overly edgy as one
would expect from band-made soundtracks. It's strangely atmospheric and well suited
to the scenes they're on. All in all, they worked everything out
perfectly....Well, if they were to give any justice to the story, perfection is the
only thing anyone could have accepted. The real greatness of 9 Souls is
the compelling story. The prison break movie maybe something of a lost genre these
days, and road trip movie losing it's appeal due to the way the world is getting
smaller. But this story easily mixes something fresh to those two genres. 9 convicts are given freedom and possibly the opportunity to regain their
places in society. will society accept them? will they be truly free of their dark
pasts? and can they stick together long enough to stay alive and find out? Each convict has an interesting history. Their crimes are as varied as
their apparent fates. A sense of brotherhood among them keeps the story high on
drama and supplies it with hilariously comedic situations. And due to the nature of
their backgrounds, violence is always something waiting to happen. After
all that, all i can say is go give it a watch.
If you're looking for a typical war movie, this is not it, so a note to all the
testosterone-pumped carnage-craving war buffs out there, don't bother. Although the
film is about Russian characters in WWII, don't expect to see any Nazis, cannons,
blood, gore, etc. It's not a film about people who cause a war or who fight a war.
It's a film about ordinary people who war happens to and the choices they make in
dealing with it. Acting, cinematography, writing: all perfect 10s here.
You'll certainly appreciate it if you're Russian like me, but even if not, you'll
probably love it. If you speak no Russian, look for the RUSCICO (Russian Cinema
Council) DVD version. It's got subtitles in about 14 different languages, but the
English dubbing on this one I'd say is just as good. It's of course not as good as
the original Russian track (some stuff is lost in translation), but just as good as
the English subtitles. So go check it out, especially if you're studying film in
any aspect.
Highly recommended to all those who appreciate watching movies. Great acting,
perfectly surreal awkward humor, requisite prison sh-t, accurate depiction of the
male condition. Music is also spot-on. I think the artist is "Dip" but not sure.
The short loop of the title credit song on the DVD menu is well-timed, and sounds
like Slint. (one thing to know is that IMDb maintains a ridiculous policy of a
MINIMUM comment length based on, not CHARACTERS, not WORDS, but rather LINES.
Measuring post quality and quantity based on LINES in the bold era of UNICODE and
flexible, web-based typography, is like smoking poles.) ! Your comment does not
contain enough lines - the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Please
see the guidelines. Attempts to pad the comment with junk words can result in your
account being blocked from future submissions.
When a bomber, a patricide, a pornographer, and a mad biker, together with various
other forms of social scum, have had enough of their sh** infested cell, they spot
a rat and look for the hole. Escaping from the sewage the group of 9 souls, take
advantage of their new found freedom and head for civilization. What soon follows
is not surprising. Complete mayhem and terror follow in their wake. It seems that
each has some unfinished business to take care of. Loosely based on The
Great Escape, 9 SOULS is by far in the top 5 best films I've seen this year.
Running at right around 2 hours 9 SOULS will deliver a story so powerful it'll
literally leave you breathless. The beautiful, yet subtle, use of the rolling
country sides adds the realism that is expected from this story. The vision of
director Toshiaki Toyoda (Blue Spring, Porno Star), is completely mind boggling as
he implements a sense of pity towards the characters. As quickly as each character
grasps their dream, it's as quick as it's torn from them. Now, all responsibility
of the success of this film should not fall solely on the shoulders of the
director, yet props must go to the actors as well. This film was full of excellent
acting from top to bottom. Ryuhei Matsuda (the son of Miyuki Matsuda of Audition)
delivers a stellar performance, and seems to bring some of his mothers eeriness to
the screen. I must give props to Artsmagic DVD as well. This is the 6th
film of theirs I've seen now, and they seem to get better and better each DVD. The
sound quality is perfect and the picture; clean and crisp. It's very annoying
trying to watch a film that is too dark in transfer, so the discs from theses cats
are nice. Bottom line is this film will soon receive masterpiece status
by viewers' world wide. Keep an eye out in 2005 for 9 SOULS; it's really amazing
film to watch.
To be totally honest I wasn't expecting much at all going into 9 Souls even after
reading heap upon heap of praise plied upon it but to say I was surprised would be
a major understatement, in short I was totally blown away. The basic
plot is as simple as they come, nine prison inmates ranging from a drug pusher all
the way up to multiple murderer's escape from prison and go in search of a secret
stash presumed to be forged money hidden by a tenth inmate who cracked and was
dragged away by guards shortly before their escape but it's the direction that
director Toshiaki Toyoda takes this simple story that is so brilliant and original
perfectly blending drama, comedy and violence creating a truly one of kind movie
that deserve's to be seen not only fans of Asian cinema but cinema in
general. Superbly acted, emotional, funny, violent and at times very
surreal this is a movie has it all.
Finally! Third time lucky. This film has been always been on my mind, but my first
viewing I forgot about it and only caught the second half of the film. Then only a
couple months later I had the my second chance of watching of it, so I decided I
would record it. Only to discover that my timer went off late and again I missed
the first half of the flick. I wasn't going to allow that to happen again. So, when
it came on TV again, I thought bugger it I'll wait until it comes on, then I will
record it. And it was a good choice. I would have just watched the film, but they
always put on weeknights around midnight. After discovering a hole in
their crowded cell, nine prisoners escape their confinement to track down the key
of the universe, which a fellow prisoner known as the Counterfeit King said he had
hidden. They think that this key could be an opening for a hidden loot of
counterfeit bills. On this journey they naturally see this as an opportunity to
pick up their lives before they were gaoled. Although things don't turn out the way
that they intended to, with most of the criminals plans going astray. "9 Souls" is an perky spiritual journey from Japanese director Toshiaki Toyada,
which flung it's viewers into a film of two totally different halves. The first
half of the story plays out more like a psychical comedy with the criminals bonds
and the situations they find themselves being the selling point, but all that makes
way to a moralistic and consequence drama-packed second half, where the real
trouble begins with some quite nasty and bloody moments replacing the goofball tone
it started off with. While, the first half is quite amusing with its on the road,
screwball doodling and offbeat banter. But it's really the genuinely haunting
latter half with it's peculiar turn of events that hit you so hard with some
surprising touches that make you really sympathise for these very human characters.
Even though they are not truly innocent from their crimes, you just become
entrenched by these flesh-out characters in the first half that when you see them
spiral into their downfall, you know it's an effective drama when you become shell-
shocked in the dramatic change. The nine characters get enough screen time to truly
understand their personal story and what weakness would eventually bring them down.
The way the plot works out is that Michiru and Torakichi are the lead characters
and we mostly see it from their perspectives. The escapism tale is an
unquestionably engaging character study that's clear in it's goal and puts to you
many questions on society and the path you choice to take to escape life and free
yourself from these restraints. While, the symbolic story is full of
clarity and vividly told. The visual element doesn't go by unnoticed, because
there's just a dreamy and trance-like vibe that channels itself into the unique
atmosphere. What HIGHLY contributed to that factor and gave the film a lift was the
sweepingly, moody instrumental rock soundtrack. The mellow atmospheric gel it was
able to create in many scenes left me rather breathless with the everlasting
emotions it was able to provoke. Simply beautiful and downright powerful control on
that front. The pacing for such an long film ( 2 hours ) seems to breeze by and
editing is swiftly done, because we are just so wrapped up in it all. The hypnotic
photography is crisp in detail. While, the performances by the cast as a odd bunch
of criminals are that of high quality with each one providing enough personality
and features to separate themselves. I found "9 Souls" to be a pleasing
and quite an amazing surreal film that stirs up the emotions and then it smacks you
with an almighty wallop when it changes direction. Highly recommended.
What I got was something better. Just like many movies I've commented on
as of recently, I'd been looking forward to this one for a while. Especially after
I saw one of Toshiaki Toyoda's other films, "Blue Spring" which is easily in my top
20 favorite films. I loved the trailer for "9 Souls", and I thought it sounded very
good. I didn't hear anything bad about it. Now I know why. This movie
starts up as sort of a comedy, then during the last half of the film, it quickly
becomes something else. It becomes more dramatic as each of the characters face
their own tragedies. Each character gets just enough screen time, and you care
about what happens to each of them. Even though there are 9 characters we have to
learn, and care about, within just two hours, Toshiaki Toyoda pulls it off
brilliantly. After I saw "Blue Spring" I was hoping the soundtrack would
be at least a little bit as good, as it was in that film. I got my wish, because
the soundtrack to "9 Souls" was also incredible. The music used in each scene, more
specifically the more dramatic ones, is just simply wonderful. I loved every second
of it. I wasn't sure whether or not I wanted to see another Toshiaki
Toyoda film, "Pornostar", but after I saw this, I'm going to. Definitely. Also,
because I read the plot for it, and I think it sounds really good. I'm looking
forward to it. On the R1 DVD of "9 Souls", there are two interviews with Toyoda. He
says he's completed another film, and he wants to start writing the screenplay for
his next. I can't wait for both. I highly recommend this film. You must
see it. Now.
The third film I got to watch at the philly film fest was this outstanding drama
from Japan. After breaking out of prison nine escaped convicts plan to find the
"key to the universe" that a tenth convict who didn't break out told them about.
Along the way we get to know each of these men fairly well. Each has their own
dreams. For much of the movie it seems to be mostly a comedy, but a shift takes
place that the film ends up a tragedy. All of the actors give great performances. I
can't say much more without spoiling the film, but suffice it to say that you end
up feeling for some of these individuals. At 2 hours, this film is a tad to long,
but good none the less. I have no qualms recommending it with the warning that it
does have a bit unsettling violence for the tender-hearted. Toshiaki Toyoda hit a
home-run this time out, and it makes me want to search out his prior films as well
as look forward eagerly to his future ones. My Grade: A
When the noble Hanabusa clan is decimated by the usurping Samanosuke clan, loyal
retainer Kogenta (Jun Fujimaki) escapes with his lord's eight year old son,
Tadafumi, and his daughter, Kozasa. They are sheltered by the priestess Shinobu
(Otome Tsukimiya), who serves the Hanabusa clan's god, Majin, a vengeful spirit
imprisoned in the giant stature carved into the side of a local mountain. Ten years
later, Kogenta and Tadafumi (Yoshihiko Aoyama) seek vengeance against Lord
Samanosuke (Yutaro Gomi), but are captured in the attempt, and sentenced to die.
Priestess Shinobu, desperately attempting to save her master, threatens Samanosuke
with the god's displeasure, only to be slashed to death for her efforts.
Samanosuke, a vain, cruel, narrow man, orders Majin's statue to be destroyed, in
order to crush any last vestiges of hope among the remaining Hanabusa loyalists.
But the god Majin, who hitherto has been implacably silent, has other
ideas... Daimajin is an enthralling, timeless, deeply moving fairy tale.
Lavishly produced on a respectable budget, it is a film about values: the values of
nobility, of justice, of decency, of loyalty, of self sacrifice, and of love. It is
about hierarchy, and rule, and of the consequences of failing to live up to the
responsibility that rule entails. These are things that are not talked about much
in our demotic times, except by scribbling toads like William Bennet, but are
nonetheless relevant, and Daimajin shows us why. Daimajin is a perfect
example of why Japanese cinema is so glorious. The values listed above have
palpable relevance for those involved in this film, as they do for many a Japanese
filmmaker. There is no lip service, no condescension, no irony here. Instead, there
is an authentic effort to conjure a world where these values can once again have
life, and to show what happens when they fall into abeyance. Just compare Daimajin,
or the Lone Wolf and Cub series, or any Kurosawa film to the egregious Tarantino's
nihilistic Kill Bill b*llshit, to see what I mean. In a film whose
contributing talent is so uniformly excellent, I would merely like to point out
master Akira Ifikuba's majestic score, the talent and beauty of actors Jun
Fujimaki, Yoshihiko Aoyama, and Miwi Takada; and the stunning portrayal by Otome
Tsukimiya. Her death scene is one of the most moving and meaningful that I have
ever witnessed.
Evil warlord puts a town through pain and suffering. Not long before they call upon
giant stone samurai Daimaijin for help. Daimaijin soon comes and really gets the
warlord with all his viscious might. The revenge climax is really funny as Daimajin
squashes guys under his feet and crushes guys with his fist and even drives a spike
though a man's heart.
This movie was made by Daiei Studios, known for its Gamera movies. It is about a
samurai lord who was murdered by one of his own men. He claims his throne, forcing
his former's two children to flee into the woods, where they hide near a huge stone
statue for 10 years. In those time that passed, the new samurai lord has proved to
be very brutal and ruthless towards the village people and the valley. Therefore,
it seems that the good people's only hope is the stone statue, which is where a
demon god sleeps; they want the god to help them. This samurai movie
brings to us traditional Japanese aspects including sword-fights, geisha and
worshipers. It is a superb and powerful story of survival and hope, with the
protagonists attempting to triumph over pure evil. It is full of excitement,
particularly the parts where the children struggles to remain in hiding as the evil
warlord is out to get them. In addition, it has beautiful cinematography, with
luscious landscapes of the village and countryside-instantly reminds you of the
ancient times in Japan. As with most samurai movies like "The Seven
Samuari" and "The Last Samuarai," this movie is no less than pure, sometimes
graphic, action. There are several disturbing scenes in the film. Therefore, it is
not the casual sci-fi film. Yet, it is strong and powerful, and delivers a message
that a good-natured human can overcome any adversaries, as depicted in this film,
even the young innocent girl can calm the wrath of the demon god. The scenes of the
demon god, known as Daimajin, trampling on its enemies and anything that stands in
his way will instantly remind you of a Godzilla or Gamera film. Overall, a powerful
and serious, yet hopeful film. So, be careful with your samurai sword.
You wouldn't want to rattle Daimajin's cages. Grade A
Like another poster mentioned Ch. 56 (a local Boston TV station) showed this
multiple times over the years on Saturday afternoons. They paired it with the first
sequel "Return of the Ginat Majin". Now I haven't seen it since
then...but it never left me. Aside from the atrocious dubbing and faded color this
was a pretty good fantasy. Technically it isn't horror...until the statue comes to
life at the end. It's just about a village ruled over by an evil man. There's a
giant stone statue there that the villagers keep praying to to help them...to no
avail. But things go too far, the statute comes to life and destroys the bad
guys...but then it starts going after the good guys too! Well-done with some cool
special effects at the end (LOVED how he got rid of the main bad guy). Also there
was an enchanted forest worked in which was kind of interesting too. No
masterpiece but an unusual combo fantasy/horror film. Worth catching--but not if
it's the dubbed print.
1956 was the 20th Congress of the Communist Party and the Soviet Premier Krushchev
made a speech denouncing Stalin and the Stalinist purges and the gulag labor
systems, revealing information that was previously forbidden, publicly revealing
horrible new truths, which opened the door for a new Soviet Cinema led by Mikhail
Kalatozov, once Stalin's head of film production. This film features a Red Army
that is NOT victorious, in fact they are encircled, in a retreat mode, with many
people dying, including the hero, in a film set after 06-02-41, the German invasion
of Russia when Germany introduced the Barbarossa Plan, a blitzkrieg invasion
intended to bring about a quick victory and the ultimate enslavement of the Slavs,
and very nearly succeeded, actually getting within 20 miles of Moscow in what was a
Red Army wipe out, a devastation of human losses, 15 to 20 million Russians died,
or 20% of the entire population. Historically, this was a moment of great trauma
and suffering, a psychological shock to the Russian people, but the Red Army held
and prolonged the war 4 more years until they were ultimately victorious. During the war, Stalin used the war genre in films for obvious morale boosting,
introducing female heroines who were ultra-patriotic and strong and idealistic,
suggesting that if females could be so successful and patriotic, then Russia could
expect at least as much from their soldiers. Stalin eliminated the mass hero of the
proletariat and replaced it with an individual, bold leader who was successful at
killing many of the enemy, an obvious reference to Stalin himself, who was always
portrayed in film as a bold, wise and victorious leader. But Kalatozov changed this
depiction, as THE CRANES ARE FLYING was made after Stalin's death, causing a
political thaw and creating a worldwide sensation, winning the Cannes Film Festival
Palm D'Or, as well as the Best Director and Best Actress (Tatyana Samoilova),
reawakening the West to Soviet Cinema for the first time since Eisenstein's IVAN
THE TERRIBLE in the 40's. This film featured brilliant, breathtaking,
and extremely mobile camera work from his extraordinary cinematographer Sergei
Uresevsky, using spectacular crane and tracking shots, images of wartime,
battlefields, Moscow and crowded streets that are extremely vivid and real. Another
brilliant scene features the lead heroine, Veronica, who hasn't heard from her
lover, Boris, in the 4 years at war, so he is presumed dead, but she continues to
love him, expressed in a scene where she runs towards a bridge with a train
following behind her, a moment when the viewer was wondering if she might throw
herself in front of that train, instead she saves a 3 yr old boy named Boris who
was about to be hit by a car. Another scene captures the death of Boris on the
battlefield, who dies a senseless death, and his thoughts spin and whirl in a
beautiful montage of trees, sky, leaves, all spinning in a kaleidoscope of his own
thoughts and dreams, including an imaginary wedding with Veronica. This film
features the famous line, "You can dream when the war is over." In the final
sequence, when the war is over, the soldiers are returning in a mass scene on the
streets, Veronica learns Boris died, all are happy and excited with the soldier's
return, but Veronica is in despair, passing out flowers to soldiers and strangers
on the street in an extreme gesture of generosity and selflessness revealing
"cranes white and gray floating in the sky." The film was released in
1957 in Russia, and according to some reviews, "the silence in the theater was
profound, the wall between art and living life had fallen...and tears unlocked the
doors." 
The many other comments about the film say it all - just like to add that we showed
it last week to around 30 at our Community Cinema, and it got an overall average
score of 8.6. We'd 100% recommend it, then, for today's audiences, especially if
they can see it on a real cinema screen, and can talk about it with others
afterwards, as our audience did. The sheer power of the acting
performances by the whole troupe was incredible and quite spellbinding. Of course,
Finney and Courtenay were truly the stars. but everybody was thoroughly well cast.
For our afternoon audience, the majority of whom are "senior citizens", the fact
that the plot could be followed with such ease because of the clarity of speech and
the wonderful non-techy use of camera and sound was a great influence How delightful, many said, to see a really great film that's British: still not
dated twenty years on: not full filled with blood & guts: not confusing because of
bob-about-all-over-the-place camera shots, and back and forth through time story
lines: no seedy sex scenes. Such views were even uttered by some who were younger.
Nice combination of the giant monster and samurai genres. The giant monster Majin,
god of the mountain, is an aloof and forbidding figure that comes across very much
like the Old-Testament God, raining destruction and punishment on those who
desecrate his holy ground - but it's interesting to note that what finally awakens
him is not the suffering of the people but a pointed and personal insult. It's
beautifully photographed, with solid acting, great miniatures, and a wonderful
score by the great Akira Ifukube. Majin is not a 400+ foot monster like Godzilla -
he's 2 1/2 times normal size, so the evil samurai he stomps into the ground get a
good look into his contemptuous eyes as he bears down on their fortress and smashes
it to smithereens. Not much in terms of extras, but it's nice to see this forgotten
minor classic rescued and restored to the digital format.
For those of you who've wondered what an art-house monster movie might be like,
wonder no more. The DAIMAJIN trilogy, circa 1966, was just such a series. More
period samurai epics than anything else, these three movies just also happen to
feature one of the most (literally) monstrous deux et machinas ever. There's not a
single facet of these gems that is unpolished, from the scenario(s) to the
performances to the filmmaker's craftsmanship. Even the special effects are handled
with well-above-average skill, and are integrated (in most instances) almost
seamlessly into the movie(s). If you're a GOJIRA fan or a fan of samurai movies or
one of us who just likes a good movie regardless of genre, I highly recommend the
DAIMAJIN trilogy.
Ruthless evil warlord Samanosuke (superbly played to the hateful hilt by Yutaro
Gomi) cruelly mistreats the peaceful residents of a small village. The giant stone
statue Majin eventually comes to life to destroy Samanosuke and his wicked minions.
Director Kimiyoshi Yasudo and screenwriter Tetsuro Yoshida give the compelling
story all the power and simplicity of an ancient age-old legendary folktale:
there's a very strong sense of an ancient time and faraway remote place (it's
specifically set in feudal Japan), the good guys are noble and appealing while the
villains are truly nasty and detestable, the occasional stirring swordfights are
staged with considerable skill and gusto, the special effects are fine and
impressive, the serious tone and steady pace never falter for a minute, and Majin's
last reel rampage of savage destruction is extremely lively, exciting, and more
than a little scary. Moreover, the fantastic elements of the narrative are given
substantial credibility by being firmly grounded in a throughly believable dark,
harsh and gritty world. This film earns bonus points for depicting Majin as more of
a brutal and frightening force of angry vengeance instead of a pure spirit of
absolute good. Veteran composer Akira Ifukube supplies a typically rich, robust and
rousing score. Fujio Morita's sharp, moody cinematography likewise hits the bull's
eye. The capable cast all give admirably sound and sincere performances, with
especially praiseworthy work by Jun Fujimaki as the valiant, protective Kogenta and
Tatsuo Endo as mean henchman Gunjuro. Highly recommended.
With its rerelease by ADV Films, I've had a chance to watch "The Giant Majin" for
the first time without the deep cuts and unkind words of a late night Horror
Chiller Theaters. Guess what? It's a pretty damn good movie! The sets
are authentic, the acting in subdued and believable, and the giant Majin is
stately, powerful, and unstopable. I loved the subtle fantasy touches (the
enchanted wood, luck charm, etc), and the potrayal of the god as a little less than
'good'. This movie is begging for a remake in the new century!
This film is absolute cinematic genius. It has a well brought together cast who
give an almost magical performance. The effects are nothing but stunning and the
story will keep you hanging off your chair right the way through the movie. Jack
Long plays the part of abbot white exceptionally well, he provides an immensely
thrilling portrayal of absolute evil. If your a kung fu fan or just an action movie
enthusiast this film is an excellent choice for anyone who is lucky enough to find
a copy. For any big kung fu fans this movie provides a compelling insight into the
world of shaolin. This film is definitely 10/10 quality and should be considered as
one of the greatest eastern movies of all time.
This is one of the best martial art(Kung-fu) movies of all time. if u love martial
art movies this is a not to miss. From flying nuns to training monks this movie has
top kungfu styles and a good story line. Its about a priest from the wu dang clan
trying to eliminate all the shaoulin fighters to be claim the title of being the
best in martial arts. after killing key members of the shaoulin temple the faith of
the shoulin is remained in the hand of two boys secretly training under a shaoulin
monk. The white abbot or the priest from the wu dang clan develops new techniques
that turn him into iron. well this a not to miss classic. It involves Ninjas,
shaoulin and nuns fighters. it a great classic
I've just revisited this fondly remembered bit of cinematic madness from my early
days, and must urge you to beg steal or borrow it. The story begins with
a duel between a righteous Shaolin priest and our villain Abbot White, needless to
say, Abbot White kicks Buddhist ass, and wages his campaign against Shaolin
unhindered with the aid of his new ninja allies (a golden clad one who fights with
a gold ring, a black clad one who fights with a spear, and my favourite; one who
fights with a pair of knives who can disappear and reappear as a flying carpet).
The rest of the story concerns the training of the disciples of the Shaolin monks
killed by Abbot white, one of whom is Alexander Lo Rei. Whilst we are treated to
the punishing training sequences the two young avengers must go through to learn
the Shaolin Finger Jab technique needed to defeat Abbot White's invincible armour
technique, we see some of the ways our villain keeps in shape...mostly using Taoist
magic to extract the blood from naked ladies. We all know how this is going to end,
but it's the psychedelic trip in between that we're here for. In conclusion, this
is a good example of what Taiwan was doing when Hong Kong was getting sick of
martial arts movies, and that is making more and more outrageous martial arts
movies. This movie is very well choreographed, has some nudity, some gore and
enough balls to the wall gimickry to keep even the most jaded viewer entertained.
Visit your local Beewise today! 
Alexander Lou, star of classics such as 'The Super Ninja' and 'Mafia vs Ninja'
headlines here in this entertaining martial arts fest. The plot involves
the evil Abbott White (who boasts some humongous and frankly somewhat scary looking
white eyebrows) enlisting the aid of a ninja clan in order to overthrow the Shaolin
Temple. This goal he achieves and furthermore wipes out most of it's
members, although needless to say, one or two do manage to survive and rather
predictably go on to exact eventual revenge upon the miscreant Abbott. ....Ok so the plot isn't exactly pushing the envelope in terms of creativity but
does anyone watching a film with a title like 'Wu Tang vs Ninja' aka 'The Ninja
Hunter' really care much for such an inconsequential factor as a plot? Of course
not! - It's the fights that matter in these films and by gum - you get your moneys
worth here! There's some superbly choreographed martial arts on display from
everyone involved in this and rarely a minute seems to goes by without a fight
breaking out for some reason. If your at all into martial arts movies
then this is a must see!
Ninja Hunter (AKA Wu Tang vs Ninja) is pure entertainment from start to finish due
to its outrageous characters, nonsensical plot and lack of any pretensions
whatsoever. The makers of this film have given us a truly OTT masterpiece which has
to be seen to be believed. The plot centres around Wu Tang villain,
Abbot White, who wants to destroy the Shaolin monks and become supreme martial
artist. In order to do so, he teams up with a clan of Ninjas, led by three masters
gold lamé ninja, white mustachioed ninja and black ninja and succeeds in
destroying the Shaolin temple and most of its inhabitants. However, there are some
survivors. It is their job to pass on the knowledge of the Shaolin finger jab to a
new generation, who must defeat the ninjas and Abbott White if peace and order is
to be restored. Unfortunately, Abbott White is a difficult foe to beat,
since he is able to make himself virtually indestructible by sucking the life force
out of hot naked chicks (an excuse for some welcome gratuitous nudity!). Other treats in store for viewers include loads of very impressive fighting
(despite some of it being speeded up), some really amazing outfits (the
aforementioned gold lamé ninja, Abbott White's Yin Yang suits, and even some
assassins wearing Swastika tunics), a ninja turning into a flying carpet, plus some
cheesy gore for good measure. And I nearly forgot to mention the really impressive
eyebrows on display in this movie surely a good reason not to pass up on this
gem.
Without doubt, GRAND CHAMPION has the most impressive cast of "AAA" level stars and
musicians ever gathered together for a fun, "G" rated family adventure. This is a
MUST BUY for every video collection! Director BARRY TUBB skillfully combines the
drama of the rodeo / 4H competition for the "GRAND CHAMPION" cow with a touching
and funny story of perseverance against difficult challenges. Joey Lauren Adams
delivers her typically solid performance as the well-intentioned mother, but the
star of the show is 12-year-old EMMA ROBERTS, whose on-camera presence is a glowing
as that of her famous aunt, JULIA. You can expect a lot from this young Roberts-
protégé' as is already proving itself in her new, hit Nickelodeon series,
"UNFABULOUS."
The story told by The Cranes are Flying is not, admittedly, all that original.
Young lovers are separated by war; bad things happen to both. We've seen it many
times before. Nonetheless, we haven't seen it filmed this well, with
bold shots that take liberties to emphasize separation, or destruction, or
hopelessness. All the more remarkable coming from the Soviet Union, and reason to
conclude that Tarkovsky is not the last word in modern-era Soviet cinema. I was reading Chekhov's "Three Sisters" the other day, and chanced upon
what may be the meaning of the title of this film. In Act 2, Masha objects to the
notion that we must live our lives without meaning or understanding: "MASHA: Surely mankind must believe in something, or at least seek for the truth,
otherwise life is just emptiness, emptiness. To live and not to know why the cranes
are flying, why children are born, why there are stars in the sky. Either you must
know why it is you live, or everything is trivial - mere pointless nonsense." Likewise, Veronika has a hard time believing that the war, and her and
others' sufferings, have been pointless. Better to assign a meaning, to live as if
one's life is significant, and not to give in to despair. It is perhaps this
thinking that prompts her to her final act in the film. BTW as a minor
correction to one other comment here--there may be a pattern of V's in the film,
though I hadn't noticed them myself. But the first letter of Veronika's name is not
a further instance of this; in the Cyrillic alphabet, her name begins with a letter
which looks like an English "B".
First I am a teenager. OK, and I have to say this movie was pretty good. I think
any kid ten and under will like it, but people my age an up might be a little, um,
a, well, we'd describe the movie as LAME! But I liked it. It may be that I still
act like a kid, or I visit a cattle farm every weekend, but this movie was cute. I
did like how the actors were like kids, not little blonde cutesy pies, wearing
three layers of clothes, a trendy hat, and about a thousand assecories (like most
shows today, to name a few, Drake & Josh, Lizzie Mc Guire, well any kid show.) And
the setting was perfect, but there was a flaw. The family was in debt, right? Why
in the world did their internal house look like something out of a "western"
versace store? That was one flaw. The cameos are great, there's about
five hundred of them, and the only explainable one is Julia Roberts being the main
little girl's aunt. How in the world did they get everyone else? This movie seemed
to be on a tight type budget. I liked this movie, it was a fun one to
watch, and I thought some parts were far fetched (Like a cow selling for $750,000?
Ha! my butt a cow sells for that much!) But otherwise it was good, I liked it, and
I could watch it again. But I'd never buy it, there's not even special features on
the DVD! What's up with that? But do rent it, especially if you have little kids
running around the house.
I had the privilege of being one of the Still photographers on the set of "Grand
Champion" and enjoyed every minute of the 42 days I worked on the movie. I have
been in the Photography business for 25 years and have worked on 16 movies and I
can't think of a time when I enjoyed providing my craft more. The Kids were
wonderful to work with and little Emma Roberts has so much energy she's a real
trip. She even grabbed one of my camera during the stockshow scene rehearsal and
started shooting. Some of her images were used for PR. I could have made more money
working for a production with a bigger budget but I doubt I would have had the fun
and been around so many great actors and the great people of West Texas as I was.
I have watched Grand Champion all the way through at least twice now. I enjoyed the
movie's story, the characters and the actors were not bad. It is refreshing to see
a G rated movie. This is a feel good movie. The story is mostly from the view of
the children. The interactions between the kids and the adults makes the story
interesting. I recommend this movie if you are looking for a family film. If you
liked the Little Rascals, you will probably enjoy this. I viewed this movie on
cable. Either on Encore or Showtime family. This is not a movie that I would have
gone to see at the theatre. But, I only go to the theatre for the effects of the
big screen, so most comedies, romantic films, or dramas I do not go for big screen-
I wait for TV/cable edition. Get your kids together, pop some popcorn and enjoy!
We all enjoyed the movie. It is a very charming family film with many fun cameos.
It was fun to see Austin musicians, Charlie Robison, Joe Ely and Robert Earl Keen
in the film as well as turns by famous actors Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis. Emma
Roberts is especially cute in the film however all the children are good. The west
Texas scenery is great as is the soundtrack full of Texas artists. The last half
seemed a bit far fetched to me, however, my son was interested throughout the film
which is not so often with him. Something in the storyline was captivating for
children. Having shown calves as a child, I really liked the ending. That is
definitely not the way it really works unless you have heifers.
It was easy to get lost in the simplicity and light hearted humor of this year's
best family film...Grand Champion. The story of a 12 year old boy (Buddy) that with
the help of his sister, Mom and best friend is determined to raise a Grand Champion
steer. It is a whimsical journey to the big competition. After Hokey Pokey is
crowned, Grand Champion, he is auctioned for $775,000. to pay for the kids college
education. Buddy finds out that the next time he sees Hokey....it would be on a
bun! The kids conspire to steal the prize winning steer,vowing to save him from the
BBQ. This is where the fun begins...Julia Roberts, Larry Mahan, George Strait,
Natalie Maines, Steven Bland, Tommy Guy, Tuff Hedeman, and so many more stars
create the backdrop for all the antics. You wont believe who actually won the steer
at the auction!!! (he looks good in a mustache) The soundtrack is rich with tunes
from George Strait, Natalie Maines, Willie Nelson and more. Where else can you
experience Movie stars, Country & Western stars and Rodeo stars....only in
Texas...only in Grand Champion. It is masterfully crafted "simple"
little film that may be the best movie you see this year. The movie opens in select
cities on Friday, August 27th. 2004. Another great film from Rope the
Moon and Michaelson Productions is IN A WHISPER. Keep an eye out on the cable
networks for this one!
This is the kind of movie that I grew up on. It is great family fun, that the kids
love and the parents enjoy as well. I wish more films like this were made. It's a
great story about a little boy who raises a Bull with his mother and sister, and
shows it all the way up to the National Grand Championship, where he wins! Then
he's scared that someone's going to barbecue his bull, so he kidnaps it and heads
home with it. I was really excited when I first saw this film in the theater and
was surprised to see George Strait, Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis in this little
film. The music was great with all kinds of huge country names like Willie Nelson
and the Dixie Chicks. Anyone who doesn't enjoy this movie, doesn't have any
children or never was a kid them self.
Everybody interested in Texas needs to have this DVD. It's just a good movie about
real Texas with great scenes. It took a bunch of Texans to do this right. Hollywood
never would have gotten it. There are so many subtle things that Tubb put in the
movie and may not have even thought about, but it makes the show. Guest
cameos are not seen as cameos at all. Each star fits in perfectly and does not
distract from the film. Many of the guests spots blend so perfect that when the
credits roll you will go back through the movie to find the character. Strait's
roll is dead on, it could not have been done any better in real life. The second half of the movie is completely different from the first, it get's a
little "hokey", but that's alright. Somehow the storyline works. The "hokey" stuff
is like an after school special but it looks believable and natural. I
have never heard anyone use the Sonny Pruitt line before, other than locals that I
grew up with. That was the icing on the cake for me. Definitely a
collectible, right up there with Pure Country, Sugarland Express, Jr. Bonner,
Texasville, The Last Picture Show, Giant, and of course Hud. Gig'em
Aggies '86
My mom and I went to the Ft Worth Premiere mainly to see George Strait, but ended
up getting the chance to see the movie premier at Bass Hall. What a wonderful,
beautiful film which not only depicts the beautiful Texas landscape, but also had a
great feel-good storyline. It was well written, directed and produced and my mom
and I loved it from start to finish!. Thank you Jay for giving us the opportunity
to be a part of the premiere of this wonderful movie. It was a night we will never
forget. As if seeing the movie was not enough, we also were fortunate enough to be
sitting 4 rows in front of my favorite singer, George Strait!! Thank you, Thank
you, Thank you!! Keep up the great work and again, thank you! Debbie
McClendon & Maureen Daugherty Ft. Worth, TX
I loved this movie. My daughter is 3 1/2 and a country girl at heart. There are not
any movies for young children. I loved this one because the worst thing in it was
when one of the boys said "stupid". I applaud them for stepping out and making a
true family movie. I rented it the first time we saw it and know looking to buy to
add to our collection. My daughter can not stop talking about it. It goes along
with our lifestyle. We live in East Texas. I hope to see more family films like
this one. She even named one of our calves "Hokey Pokey Keen"!!! I can not say
enough about this movie. I look forward to many more films like this one.
Not all movies are Oscar worthy but let's face it, sometimes these types of movies
are more fun to watch and leave a longer and lasting impression. This one left me
smiling and happy and I couldn't wait to hug my own son. Anyone who has had a pet
(no matter what type) knows what it feels like to lose one. I believe most people
would identify with Buddy almost losing his best friend who he raised from birth.
Bruce Willis was great as the tycoon turned nice guy and Joey Lauren Adams was
convincing as a good mother. The little boy who played Buddy had a cherub face and
his sister and friend Edgar played terrific backup roles. Liked the movie a lot and
it was something the whole family could enjoy. Thanks!
Having long disdained network television programming, I remember the first time I
caught an episode of "Police Squad!". It was totally by accident. It was during the
show's initial network run on ABC in early 1982. I am a chronic channel surfer and
was flipping the dial one evening when suddenly appeared "Police Squad!"'s opening
credit sequence on my TV screen. I immediately recognized it as a sendup of the
opening credits of "M-Squad" starring Lee Marvin, one of my all-time favorite cop
shows. I stopped surfing. Then of course came headquarters getting shot up,
followed by the immortal Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln. By now I was saying to
myself "What the heck is THIS??". Then came "special guest star" Georg Stanford
Brown getting flattened by a plummeting safe. I was hooked from that moment. The
episode was "Ring of Fear/A Dangerous Assignment", with its comic references to "On
The Waterfront", and "Muhammed Ali", but most memorable of course were all the
sight gags and non sequiturs. Leslie Nielsen and Alan North in their loose parody
of Lee Marvin and Paul Newlan of "M Squad" were an absolute riot. "Finally", I said
to myself, "A network television program truly worth watching!!!". Wouldn't you
know it would be canceled just a few weeks later. Leave it to the networks -- I
should have known. Anyway, I just bought the DVD collection of all six episodes and
they are just as funny today as they were 27 years ago. The "Naked Gun" movies were
terrific as well, but I really missed Alan North (he was so good as Ed Hocken),
Peter Lupus as Nordberg (what were they thinking casting OJ in that part?), and
especially William Duell's "Johnny" the shoeshine guy. Great stuff.
My children, DD 7 and DS 10, enjoyed the movie so much they were squirming in their
seats. It was good, old fashioned, Rated G, family fun. This movie was made for
kids.... someone really understands them. It was fun to see Julia
Roberts, Brice Willis, Garth Brooks and the other stars make their cameo
appearances. As someone who lives in the city the fictional "Big Texas"
was modeled after, I can say that they did an honest and accurate portrayal. The
kids looked like kids, not like superstars. I hope everyone supports
this movie to send the message to Hollywood that we need more movies like this. Go
see it, then spread the word!
Went to the Preview Engagement of "Grand Champion" today (Dallas/Fort Worth,
Austin, Snyder and a couple of other Texas cities). There are so few movies
suitable for young children...but this one is, and it's great. Though the plot is a
little "Hokey" (also the name of the steer in the movie), it is a wonderful story
for children. And I enjoyed it, too. The film pretty well represents
West Texas ranch family life, although a little exaggerated. Director/Author Barry
Tubb ought to get it right since he grew up in that environment. He called the film
his "love letter to Texas." Joey Lauren Adams plays the single mom of
Buddy (Jacob Fisher) and Sister 'Blow' (Emma Roberts). Watch Emma Roberts (Julia
Roberts' niece); she's very good and I think she will be in more films. There are
also cameo appearances from Julia Roberts, Bruce Willis, musicians George Strait,
Charlie Robison, Robert Earl Keen, Joe Ely and rodeo legends Larry Mahan and Tuff
Hedeman. If you have young children or just want to see a feel-good
movie, check out "Grand Champion" when it comes to your city (supposedly later this
month). Y'all will enjoy it and it WILL make you feel good. I guess
since I'm from West Texas, I might be a little biased...nah, I'm impartial. The
film is excellent!
Grand Champion is a bit old fashion at first glance. Andrew Morton at the Fort
Worth Star Telegram said it best "If Walt Disney had hailed from Texas, he would
have made Grand Champion" The movie does not have the video and special
effects but it has heart and soul. The kids are great and the array of stars is
incredible. I bet Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts are proud to be in a movie that
their kids can actually see:) (G rated) This is a masterfully crafted
"simple" little film made in Texas by Texas Barry Tubb. Take your kids, take your
kids friends, take Grandma too....they will all enjoy it and you will too.
This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem
partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue
it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A
father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the
throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories.
Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome
prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed
it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and
made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were
great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the
movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again.
This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem
partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue
it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A
father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the
throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories.
Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome
prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed
it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and
made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were
great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the
movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again.
I have a 4yr old daughter, and before this movie she was all about the Disney
princesses, now she watched this movie and all she can talk about is Princess
Genevieve, and all her sisters. I definitely recommend this movie for all young
girls. This movie is one of the best from the Barbie collection. It shows all the
good values that any mother would love to encourage on there little girls. With the
great songs and dance moves, it gets my daughter up and trying to mimic the moves.
The extras are also good, one even works on how good your memory is. I would
definitely have say it is a must see for kids and grown-ups alike.
I feel that this movie is different from so many others in that it shows a family
of girls who actually care about each other. They may have faults, but bitterness
and put-downs have no place with these girls. Try to find that on TV or in the
usual movies. It is a breath of fresh air to see girls being feminine--wearing
beautiful, feminine dresses and shoes. Contrast that with the apparel in stores
today, i.e. raggedy and faded jeans and jackets, etc. The story line has an evil
thread running through but that is what makes it more realistic and interesting. I
know that it is animated, but it still gives you a feeling that families can stick
together and come out okay. I would recommend this movie for boys and girls alike.
I thought this movie was perfect for little girls. It was about a magical place
where Genevieve and all her sisters could do what they wanted to do the most
anytime they'd like. Most little girls would like this story, even though there is
the thought of death in it. Although no one dies, the king almost does, but little
girls would not understand it, so it adds up to make a perfect story. All the
events add up, creating a great plot that can have a meaning if you dig deep
enough. This story is perfect for little girls, and since it is a barbie movie, the
kids can have more fun with it, especially if they have barbies of their own.
Anyone can have fun with it, though, because it is so cute and understandable.
Overall, I think this movie is a good movie for everyone, especially little girls,
and will give anyone a smile at least once during it.
This movie was very cute and totally little girl appropriate. My nieces have
watched it non-stop since they've gotten it, and as a result I've seen it nearly 4
times all the way through. I can't get enough of it. The CGI images are great to
watch, the humor is good, and the ballet portrayals are excellent. Although the
story line has a few holes, no little girl will pick up on them, and as an adult,
the movie is so charming that one hardly even notices. Just keep in mind that it is
a Barbie movie, and, though cheesy at times, in my experience, this one lives up to
the high standard which the other Barbie princess movies have set for it. I would
recommend this to anyone who has a little girl who has always wanted to be a
princess. It teaches a good lesson as well. Everyone is special and different in
their own way, and everyone can make a difference.
This is a nicely-done story with pretty music, lots of dancing, lots of big
sister/little sister interaction (almost all of it positive), and lots of wishes
granted. There are funny moments that older children and adults will enjoy, such as
when King Randolph exclaims, "They're just SHOES! Aren't they?" And tender moments
such as when Princess Genevieve comforts her youngest sister, Lacey, after a
blunder. The animation is perhaps not as good as Disney, but it still is
very good. The facial expressions are nuanced, particularly for Genevieve, King
Randolph, Duchess Rowena and her servant, Derek the cobbler, and little Princess
Lacey. My only quibble on the animation is in the dance sequences where the dancing
princesses become absolute carbon copies of each other without the slightest
deviation -- even the three youngest copy the dance steps perfectly. I would have
liked to see a little more individualism in the dancing, considering that these
girls are not professional ballerinas or chorus dancers. The resolution
of the story is handled cleverly to get rid of a villainess without actually
hurting her. There is some violence done to guards in the story, and the
villainess's monkey is mean to other animals in the story. My 4-year-old
daughter loves this movie and has watched it repeatedly, and I have found it to be
quite acceptable for her to watch.
Nothing like this was seen on TV at that time and probably never will again. From
the first image of that police light blinding you and from there you heard the
words: "Police Squad - in color", you were schocked to see that this in no way was
an ordinary sitcom. Also to kill off a "Guest Star" and then never refer
to him again, where had you ever seen that before. Then the actual show started and
if you did not pay attention, you would miss several jokes in the background. Don't
pay too much attention to one thing or you would be sorry. This was the show that
video recorders were made for, way before Married with Children or The Simpsons. The stories did in no way make sense and the dialog was sometimes so weird
that you had to think about it for 5 minutes before realising that it was a
joke. The characters Frank Drebin and Ed Hocken came right out of
Dragnet and they were absolutely straight (no funny accents or expressions) but
instead there were puns and twisted sentences played absolutely deadpan. Only once
as I can remember, were there a segment played for silly laughs - a scene involving
a trip to a dentist, suction and a whole lot of saliva. There were some
tedious moments - like the informer Johnny and an appearance by some celebrity.
That was strictly a one-joke moment but they had to use it in all six episodes. Oh,
well. Everything can't be perfect. The important thing is that the rest of the time
you were knee deep in tears of laughter. Leslie Nielsen was fortunate
that this revived his career when they put the Frank Drebin character in 3 features
but it must have been an Achilles heel as well. Can you remember seeing him in
anything except Naked Gun type work since? And don't count the awful Mr. Magoo
reworked for live action. He probably made a lot of money, though.
I missed the full four hour version when it was originally released in theaters
because it played one week. I had to settle for seeing the shorter two and a half
hour version a year or so later and was left stunned by what I saw. I left the
theater thinking I had witnessed a masterpiece and wondering what the full version
was like. The full version is mostly good but it has sequences that are
so incredibly dull that the whole movie is pulled down and almost sinks beneath the
waves. The problem is entirely in the editing which should be labeled as
the final word on excess. There are times when things go on and on and on and
nothing happens. Shots of people in a city that go on much too long with no purpose
in the narrative. We get beautiful vistas and visions of such beauty that they
bring tears to your eyes but they are used too frequently as a place holder instead
of as punctuation or to set a place. Much of the longer version seems to be on
screen simply because it looked good. I've attempted to actually sit
down and watch Heavens Gate with out resorting to the Fast Forward button but
somewhere along the way I find I can't stand it any more. I wish MGM
would take pity on us and release the shorter version to DVD as well as the huge
dinosaur. Perhaps as a two pack so that we could see which is the better version,
and whether Cimino was mad or not. And while they were at it why not
include the once rumored Johnson County War edit that ran 90 minutes. Supposedly
United Artists tinkered with a further cut in the hopes of getting some of their
money back. Whether it was ever done or still exists is up in the air, but it would
be interesting to see.
Though this film destroyed Director and Screenwriter Michael Cimino's career and
bankrupted United Artists, it still stands as one of the top movies of all time.
There are plenty of reasons to prematurely dismiss this movie for sure. Among them:
its length, its technical problems, its colossal mistreatment of animals on set --
the list goes on and on. And yet, for all of this, it remains a film that captures
something. It is a classic example of naturalistic storytelling on par with
Strindberg -- its moments lasting as long as they might in reality, having not been
dumbed down for good cinematic timing. It feels real in its moments of anger, love,
and war (and hopelessness). This film should be seen by any person who appreciates
film and storytelling.
I actually liked this movie even though this movie seems to be so hated and i think
it's even better then The Deer Hunter, which was overrated. Both this movie and
Year Of The Dragon are very underrated although i could see why someone would not
like this movie. At three and a half hours the movie just goes on too long and the
second half of the movie is much better than the first half. Kris Kristofferson and
Christopher Walken are fighting over Isabelle Huppert but she can't make up her
mind about which one to be with. Sam Waterston is the villain who has a list of 125
people to be killed who is says are anarchists and thieves. There is a great cast
that also has Jeff Bridges, Brad Dourif and a young Mickey Rourke.
If this film had been directed by DW Griffith or Stanley Kubrick, it would be
recognized for what it is: a cinematic masterpiece, told with depth and subtlety
and passion, a film with no equal in the visual realm. It is unremittingly stunning
and also very brutal in its depiction of our great heritage of greed and
annihilation. And of course, what the reviewers could not abide is it doesn't tell
a simple narrative dick-and-jane tale like 99% of hollywood output. Its characters
are complex and confused by their passions and thoughts, fears and emotions. They
even appear to be thinking, something your average movie reviewers do not
understand and cannot abide, so they destroyed it. See the original uncut wide-
screen version. It is stunning.
This great film never showed up in my town, so actually I didn't have any
opportunity to watch it until the late 80'es when I caught it on German television.
I was expecting something of a disaster, and found instead a well-acted grand
western with superb location work. The tiny tube couldn't really damage it and
there's almost not a dull moment in this 4-hour film, so I hope to see it once
again on the big screen. What a spectacle that would be! Don't miss it, if you ever
have the chance. Unfortunately the harsh treatment of "Heaven's Gate" at its
opening ruined Michael Cimino's career and he moved from the passable ("Year of the
Dragon") to the boringly ludicrous ("The Sicilian") and the screechingly dumb
("Desperate Hours").
So many of us who are devoted to the "art" of the motion picture will disregard or
forget that movies are also business ventures. Most of the time, they are far too
costly to produce to be anything else. In light of this, it often seems a miracle
to me that really great ones do get made every now and then. Once in a while, the
film-makers will go so far over budget in producing a film that the businessmen
responsible for funding the enterprise will be badly hurt financially and will of
course become very angry about this. I'd like to know precisely how it happens that
this has often led to both the big studios and some major critics "gunning" for the
picture when it is at last released. Terrible expectations are generated and often
what people expect to see clouds their perception of what they are viewing. You can see this phenomenon at work in the imperfect, but magnificent '62
re-make 0f "Mutiny on the Bounty", and you can definitely see it in the reaction to
"Heaven's Gate". Cimino took too long and cost United Artists way too much money in
making this picture. The company was fatally wounded by his excesses and, no doubt,
powerful people were out to see his reputation forever ruined when this strange,
mammoth epic was finally released. There are always many film-goers who dislike
long, weighty pictures. The storytelling in this film is not accomplished with
great economy or a brisk pace. Like Stanley Kubrick, Cimino often chooses not to
spell out the particular statement he is making with a given scene. Rather, he
draws it out in such a way as to make the viewer feel like they are living in the
moment, providing time for his own imagination to participate deeply in what is
being presented. A lot of folks don't react all that favorably to this approach.
They want the story to move quickly and clearly and they easily become impatient
and confused by this sort of film. These factors doubtless contributed to the box-
office failure of "Heaven's Gate". By nature, a film editor, I am deeply
frustrated by two problems with this film. Here and there, a scene is clearly too
long and could easily have been trimmed without harming its effectiveness. Then we
come to the massive, drawn-out battle scenes at the end of the picture. Where these
are concerned, the clarity of the storytelling is indeed damaged. If you liked the
film up to the point where these occur, your understanding of what is supposed to
be happening is likely to become unclear and this is indeed a frustration. Not
having seen all the rough footage, I can not tell if actual re-shoots would have
been needed, or whether some critical plot elements might have been made clearer by
careful re-editing of some moments. Given the time and money that were poured into
this picture, more care and thought should have been given to this problem. There are other problems, some occasional weak acting, some dialog that
doesn't ring true, but these are really minor concerns. The reason I am so troubled
by the problems stated above is that, like so many these days, I too feel that in
all "Heaven's Gate" is so splendid to behold and so magnificently deals with major
historic, political and sociological issues that it is just short of a masterpiece.
Despite its shortcomings, it is so dramatically and visually powerful that it
stands head and shoulders above most other Hollywood films I have ever seen. I'd
like to re-mix a lot of the sound. I'd like to re-direct and re-edit the scene
where Ella is killed, but the greatness of this picture is such that these
considerations really do become trivial when compared with the value of the total
production. I should add that it should always be seen on a giant wide screen to
achieve the glorious effect that it is so capable of delivering.
I only saw this film once a quarter of a century ago, yet it's impact has never
left me and I can still remember even now my reactions to it.I was mesmerised by
the breadth and the sheer beauty of so much of the photography. I was astounded
that an American studio could produce such a European film with it's slow pace and
its unfocused plot. The lack of any strong characters felt like a flaw but I raged
at the completely unnecessary ending on the yacht which seemed as though it was
bolted on to give some kind of plot cohesion and which was entirely at odds with
the style of the rest of the picture.It was also refreshing to see a western which
made no pretence about the brutality and exploitation that so often was the
unfortunate detritus of the American Dream.The western scenes and sets also had an
authenticity which was entirely new to me and which prefigured the recent Deadwood
series.The film was massively cut for the American audience and its my very real
wish that in these days of Director's Cuts that Michael Cimino is given the
opportunity of a fresh edit in the light of reflection - a cut which could turn
this ill fated movie into the masterpiece it had the potential to become. I have
now seen the original first cut and the network of relationships makes so much more
sense,although Christopher Walken is responsible mainly for carrying this off. If
only De Niro and not Kris Kristofferson had Played the main lead!There was still a
massive preoccupation with creating the reality and atmosphere to the detriment of
a good script. Nevertheless, the camera work was so cleverly handled that at times
you could almost believe you were inside the action yourself.And there were many
special moments. Everybody arguing in the hall in different languages trying to
overcome their national differences and seek some unity of action in face of the
impending disaster gave a real insight into the difficulties facing the welding
together of the USA: especially when the threat came from a combination of the old
elite and money.Nate's faltering approach to Ella when she first visited his cabin
stood in stark contrast to the violence that was to follow and was another one. I
had a special showing with a large group of mates to see the new cut and we all
enjoyed it whilst having varying reservations.This revisionist and much closer to
the truth version of events was probably too much for Americans to take when the
film was first released but we all felt it had enormous merit and that its place in
cinema history was also due for major revision
I'ts like going around in a museum. You can appreciate the great talent of the main
composer, Michael Cimino & this fabulous art desinger of light ..Vilmos Zsigmond.
As I said I'ts like being in heaven discovering all the creation this man can
applied to a single frame. Imagine when you can look at a moving picture of this
artist. I can say: this film is one of the best.
By the time it opened, "Heaven's Gate" had become, to its detriment, more a
cultural phenomenon than a motion picture. At a time when concern about excessive
budgets and directorial arrogance were growing, it was a convenient target, as it
was a far-over-budget work by the latest "auteur" to hit Hollywood, who had not yet
established the track record that would have given him the benefit of the doubt
among critics and the industry alike. As someone pointed out at the time, no one
was going to jump on Warren Beatty's even-more costly and dark "Reds," because
Beatty was "one of us," while Michael Cimino had not achieved that status. But "Heaven's Gate" was also affected by a cultural change taking place at that
time, the political move rightwards and toward a more unquestioning patriotism and
enshrinement of the myth of the West (and the Western). A few years earlier,
Cimino's demythologizing of the frontier might have seemed timely, fresh, and a
necessary corrective. But by 1980, in the wake of the Reagan Revolution, it was
thought of as nearly un-American. Which is a shame, because the film,
seen from the vantage point of several decades away, is a fascinating and thought-
provoking look at that particular time and place as a world where life was, in
Hobbes's words, "nasty, brutish, and short." Kristofferson plays James Averill, an
upper-class Easterner who, in search of adventure, becomes a sheriff in Wyoming,
where he finds himself having to lead a resistance by the settlers and squatters
against an attack by a mercenary death-squad hired by wealthy landowners, including
Averill's lifelong best friend. In a more innocent time, Averill and his rag-tag
"army" of poor farmers would emerge triumphant; but this is anything but a
traditional Western, and when the U.S. Cavalry joins the fight here, it isn't on
the side of the "good guys." Much like "The Deer Hunter," Cimino's
previous film, "Heaven's Gate" spends a great deal of time building up the details
of the lives of its principals, giving the film an at-times leisurely pace that
nevertheless leads to a gripping conclusion. With excellent acting, a fine musical
score, and the visual texture that makes one believe one is actually seeing the
"Old West" through new eyes, "Heaven's Gate" is a film that rewards repeat
viewings. I only wish that MGM would put out a new DVD, with an improved transfer
and a commentary by Cimino. Nonetheless, the current version is satisfactory enough
to let viewers see what critics in 1980, possibly blinded by the film's cultural
subtexts, managed to miss...that "Heaven's Gate" is a great film.
i watched the longer version and could not take my eyes off the screen. 219 minutes
passed and yet it seemed like only an hour had gone by. the characters were very
believable and entertaining, and the photography was excellent. the story pulled me
in and held my attention. i will definitely watch this again and again. this true
story telling at it's best... not Hollywoods usual cheap thrills and skin deep
glitz. i've seen a quite a lot of reviews on this movie. most seem to pan the film
or give it faint praise. basically, it's a great film that received unfairly harsh
reviews. watch it for yourself with an open mind. if you like westerns, historic
period pieces, albeit historically inaccurate you'll enjoy the movie. Superb!!!
10/10
Two years after the success of 'Airplane', Jim Abrahams and Jerry & David Zucker
created this brilliant sitcom starring the great Leslie Nielsen as plain clothed
detective 'Frank Drebin'. Also in the cast was Alan North as 'Captain Ed Hocken',
Ed Williams as 'Ted Olsen' and William Duell as 'Johnny The Shoe Shine Boy'.
'Police Squad!' featured unashamedly corny jokes and clever visual gags playing in
the background. Each episode would conclude with a mock freeze frame in which the
characters in frame stand completely still. One of the best 'freeze frame'
sequences saw one of the characters pouring coffee into a cup while standing still,
causing the cup to overflow! Guest stars were killed off in the opening titles, one
included Georg Stanford Brown being crushed by a falling safe! Despite gaining
positive reviews and much critical acclaim, 'Squad!' only lasted for six episodes
before being cancelled. This didn't mean the end though, five years later the show
was transferred to the big screen for the first in the trilogy of the 'Naked Gun'
films.
"The Deer Hunter's" success with critics and publics alike led United Artists to
give Cimino carte-blanche on "Heaven's Gate," an epic Western about the 1892
Johnson County Wars The elliptical story, about the persecution of
lowly European-born farmers by Wyoming's cattle-barons, was a muddled mixture of
class-conflict, sumptuous pageant and underwritten, stereotypical characters
However, Cimino's fetish for authenticity and his sweeping sense of scale ensured
that the film running at nearly four hours was rarely tedious Its
undeserved status as a cause célébre, with critics divided as to whether it was a
masterpiece or a fiasco, derived from its inflated budget Blamed for the studio's
financial problems, Cimino became a scapegoat for Hollywood's general decline, and
the film, edited into an incomprehensible short version after its initial release,
was a commercial disaster
I've been a fan of Heaven's Gate since its first release. I've seen it at least
half-a-dozen times and have long thought of it as a masterpiece. So, it was with
excitement and a sense of anticipation that I took myself off to see the restored
director's cut. To my surprise, I was disappointed on seeing it again
and have since revised my estimation of the film. Heaven's Gate touches upon
greatness in parts, but overall, lacks the thematic and narrative consistency and
the passionate urgency characteristic of a truly great film. Firstly,
two technical problems: The sound quality is diffuse throughout the film, verging
on inaudibility at times. Some of this, perhaps, is intentional - a way to mimic
the chaos and confusion of history as it is unfolding. But at key points, one is
unable to register what it is the characters are saying. The
cinematography is similarly diffuse. The images lack sharpness and particularity of
detail. The result is a certain graininess and lack of pictorial sharpness which
succeeds in blurring foreground and background. Structurally, the
narrative is off-key throughout, as if Cimino can't quite make up his mind as to
the effect he is after. He wanted an epic, for sure. But a pastoral or dramatic
epic? The film sits uneasily and unconvincingly between styles, and perhaps even
genres. At times it reminded me of Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven' or even
'Elvira Madigan' in its languid pace and elegant scene painting. At other times it
threatens to turn into a robust 'western' more akin to 'The Wild Bunch'. In fact
the latter film offers an instructive reference point for an assessment of
'Heaven's Gate' as it shares the same period concern and employs a similar tone of
ambivalent nostalgia for a darker yet more heroic America. This
structural and thematic uncertainty isn't helped by the poor-quality script which
often sounds forced and jarring to the ear. The result is an inauthentic sense of
period speech. The near-greatness of Heaven's Gate resides in its set
pieces. The roller skating sequence, in particular, is astoundingly beautiful, one
of the most evocative scenes ever put to film. Another set piece which
works very well in terms of unifying theme, mood, and setting occurs when
Kristofferson and Huppert go riding in the new rig to the lake and she washes
herself while he naps in the shade. The languid pacing, evocative music and
monumental scenery combine in this scene to convincingly portray the love story
which might just lie at the heart of the film - and which could have been its
saving grace if pursued more convincingly. Some critics have complained
about the length of the film. This in itself doesn't bother me. A good film can't
be long enough. The restored minutes are critical in restoring the motivation and
characterization absent from the cut version, and they are full of pictorial
interest. Perhaps the chief glory of Heaven's Gate lies in the achingly
evocative soundtrack. The repeated waltz motif and its different scorings
throughout(full band, guitar, solo fiddle etc,)lends a haunting quality to the
foreground action and establishes a thematic consistency lacking in the narrative
itself. Despite its obvious flaws, most notably the absence of a
compelling narrative, there is a sense of grandeur about the film. One leaves the
cinema with a rueful sense of missed greatness and a wish that Cimino could revisit
the film -with the wisdom of time and hindsight, to put right what is so badly
amiss.
I was expecting this movie to be a stinker but I wanted to see for myself, but I
was surprised how good of a movie this was. I know longer movies often don't do
well at the box office but why this was pulled and not allowed to be viewed by the
public is beyond me. It maintained my interest throughout and the scenery and
photography is breathtaking at times. The plot was good and the morality play was a
good one. I liked the realism which was along the lines of "Unforgiven". I had to
rent this movie to see it but it was definitely worth it.
I first saw this film when released in 1980. From other sources, I've learnt that
the only release of the 219-minute cut was in New York City, after which it was
severely cut to 149 minutes. So, I guess I saw the shorter version first which, at
the time, I thought, was a very interesting anti-Western, if a trifle
confusing... So, it was with even more interest that I finally obtained
a DVD of the full-length version. I'm glad I did because this second viewing has
confirmed for me that the movie is a true classic, and the critical vitriol poured
on Michael Cimino was unwarranted, to say the very least. Yes, it's a
long movie, but so have been many others. For example: Once upon a time in America
(1984) at 227 minutes; Cleopatra (1963) at 320 minutes; The Ten Commandments (1956)
at 220 minutes; Spartacus {restored version} (1960) at 198 minutes; Gone with the
Wind (1939) at 222 minutes and others. So, it can't be the fact of running time
that made so many froth at the mouth way back, when Heaven's Gate came on the
scene. But note this: all of those above movies have everything to do
with reinforcing myths about history and heroes. Not so Heaven's Gate:
in this narrative, the American West is shown in all its grim and unrelenting
harshness, injustice, and poverty. And that's probably the first reason why so many
disliked this film: it laid out the circumstances of the Johnson County War of 1892
in Wyoming, showing how the Wyoming Stock Growers Association hired 50 assassins to
hunt down and murder a large group of European immigrants accused of cattle
rustling; and all with the assistance and conniving of authorities, right up to the
President of the United States. For an essay on that war, with the background and
what happened, there is a link at Wikipedia under Johnson County War. Very few like to be reminded of the really dirty periods in their country's
history, and which fly in the face of what the country is supposed to be. Had it
been a documentary, it would have been barely palatable for most; as entertainment,
it was almost bound to fail commercially and be torn to shreds by the shrill and
infamous. Leaving aside the socio-political diatribe, for a moment, that
Cimino launched herein, what about the narrative the story of the three main
characters? Well, it probably wasn't unusual for men of that time to fall for a
local prostitute, just as it's probably not unusual now. It's a fairly standard
love triangle whereby Ella must choose between the two men, and ultimately decides
upon the younger man, Nathan, who, although not above resorting to cold-blooded
murder when it suits him, shows more spirit and commitment than the older James (or
Jim, as most people in the film say). For some, that part of the story threads too
slowly, perhaps; in the context of the wider narrative about the war, however, it
is, I think, entirely appropriate. And that war is depicted graphically,
viciously and cruelly with scenes of carnage that are exquisitely staged and edited
flawlessly although in the final massacre between the Association and the
immigrants, I'm certain that some scenes of wagons blowing apart are repeated. A
minor point and perhaps brought about when the 219-minute cut was restored? Any way
you look at it, though, it hits you in the face with the noise, dust, chaos and
confusion of war... Which brings me to another criticism by others: the
noise and dust is such that it's often difficult to hear the dialog and even see
clearly what is happening. I'll admit that I found that to be a trifle annoying at
first, even backtracking to replay parts to try to catch the image or the words
until I realized that really wasn't necessary if you accept the director's intent:
life is chaotic, it is difficult to hear and see in crowded situations and, in war,
it's the sine qua non of this mise-en-scene. In short, it's as though you truly are
present in and within the scenes... And what of the title? From
Shakespeare, it refers to a figurative nearness to God and so, if you equate God
with the natural world, the stunning scenery that pervades the movie and it is
stunning, hauntingly equal to that of David Lean's Doctor Zhivago (1965) is a
useful metaphor. I tend to think, however, that Cimino had something more to say,
namely the idea that the brave immigrants the God-fearing salt of the earth
were denied entry to heaven on earth and the freedom to build a life for themselves
in the land that espouses to be freedom's champion. Was that Cimino's
intent to gut the myth of the American West? To show how, in America, only the
rich get rich while the poor are massacred, one way or another, throughout history?
Is that anything new? Not really, as we all know. Where it really hurt, however, is
in showing how America was not and, by implication, is not the land of the free and
the home of the brave. Instead, after absorbing this narrative, we are left with an
impression that the underpinnings of America have more to do with a land of
dispossessed slaves and a home for knaves...
Until today, I thought there only three people, including me, who considered
Heaven's Gate (1980)to be a masterpiece and perhaps the last great western, (since
the 1970), after, Little Big Man (1970), Jeremiah Johnson (1972), The Outlaw Josey
Wales (1976) and The Long Riders (1980). I was stunned and pleased to
see that 22.5% of those voting at IMDB rate this movie a 10, as do I. A recent
book, the Worst Movies of All Time, includes Heaven's Gate. Through it's production
and release it was vilified, as no movie since Cleopatra, almost twenty years
before. At one time it was considered the most expensive over-budget movie of all
time, surpassing even Cleopatra. It was blamed for the downfall of its studio,
United Artists, until everyone finally saw all the studios were falling. Michael
Cimino, fresh from his glory with the Deer Hunter was hated and despised for his
success and movie making excess, but clearly, that was petty jealousy at its
worst. Cimino ended up fashioning one of the great expositions of the
American experience. This film is not to be missed but any serious student of
American filmmaking.
I seriously don´t know why this movie got such a hostile reception when it was
first released. Sure, it´s overlong and somewhat gratuitous in its depictions of
sexuality and violence but so are lots of well regarded movies. I seriously don´t
think that the people who hated "Heaven´s Gate" really understood it. "Heaven´s
Gate" in its uncut form, much like "The Deer Hunter" shows the gross differences of
living an insecure and dangerous life (like the immigrants and Averil in Wyoming)
and living in comfort and privilege (like the settled "Americans" in Wyoming and
Averil in the prologue and epilogue). Living a hard life is painful but it can also
be invigorating as opposed to the dull life Averil leads in the epilogue. Also, as
Michael Cimino took great pains to make the picture historically accurate , it is
fascinating as a document of (and maybe indictment of) American life in Old West
Wyoming. The dialogue is often genuinely clever and emotional. Combined with great
music and cinematography, the movie works like a truly poetic work of art. Granted,
"Heaven´s Gate", with its refusal to patronize the viewer, is not for all tastes.
However, Hollywood turns out so much commercial dreck each year which is so much
easier to dismiss as mindless eye candy (even when an example of it becomes a
blockbuster) that "Gate" and Cimino really do deserve more respect. All people
should see the uncut version at least once and then they should make up their own
mind. 
'Heaven's Gate' is not a masterpiece, which apparently was what it needed to be
upon first release to justify its great cost, and, more importantly, the continued
uneasy reliance of Hollywood on the Auteur model of film-making. Yet 'Heaven's
Gate', seen today at last on DVD in a cut of 229 minutes, is a superb film. It is a
touch lethargic in pace. But at least it is paced. Quite apart from the
incompetence of construction that marks many films today, there have been many
films which, deliberate in form, have been severely damaged by being hacked down
with no care for rhythm so the films become shapeless and confusing. Beyond this,
the criticisms leveled at the film have become in retrospect quite lame. If the
good guys and bad guys are too obviously pronounced for a serious film, and yes Sam
Waterston's mustachioed, fur-clad villain is comic-opera (and not in the multi-
leveled manner of Bill The Butcher from 'Gangs of New York'), and yes, the
townsfolk do seem a touch 'Fiddler On The Roof' on occasions, then a few dozen
serious films made since then, including 'Titanic' and the graceless 'Cold
Mountain' (which bears certain similarities and is a notable failure in convincing
qualities compared to this film) can be castigated for exactly the same reason. Also despite accusations, the film has a plot, quite a well-essayed plot at
that. It simply does not bow to standard-form 'epic' quality, by providing Titan
heroes, rafts of sub-plots and confusion. It experiments with telling in a manner
more like much smaller, modest films, by carefully-caught moments of character
interaction, and well-textured pageant-like explosions of communal action, as with
the opening at Harvard and, most specially, the wonderful scene where the Johnson
County folk, following the lead of a brilliantly physical fiddler, make celebration
on roller-skates. 'The Deer Hunter' was a critical and commercial
success but abandoned the first half's inspired, mosaic-like accumulation of
detail, and I think in a manner similar to criticism of Robert Penn Warren's novel
'All The King's Men' and its dictionary of Jacobean stunts, if Cimino had not had
such a strong grasp of the conventions of Hollywood epics, he might have made a
special rare work of art based in honest visualisation of people within their
milieu. In contrast, 'Heaven's Gate' succeeds in screwing its narrative momentum
and tension upwards in a slowly expanding arc, until the finale explodes, whilst
not abandoning the mosaic approach. The central romantic triangle, for
instance, resists standard inflections; a decent, intelligent, but psychically
defeated man, James Averill (Kris Kristofferson) competes with a hot-shot but
identity-challenged young gunman Nate Champion (Christopher Walken) for the hand of
a young Madame, Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert); there is no self-conscious bed-
hopping, no slaps in the face, recriminations, or typical sad-sack moments, but
more a sad and distanced decision by Ella to choose the younger man whom she loves
less because he is ready to make the commitment. Ella emerges as the film's true
hero (Huppert's performance, though initially awkward, is really quite excellent,
balancing a dewy emotionalism with a hard-hammered spirit), attempting first to
rescue Nate and then mustering the resistance party of immigrants into an
enterprising defence. Subsequently, Averill is stung into action as friends die.
Indeed, in the process of overcoming so many traps of cliché and style, 'Heaven's
Gate' successfully and willfully throws off the defeated outsider-heroes grace note
of so many '70s Westerns and portrays an eventual, vigorous, cheer-the-heroes
rallying to a compromised but still relished victory. The social
conflict of so many '70s Westerns at last hardens into a fully-fledged war; where
capital attempts a crushing final victory over the miscreants who stand in their
way, suddenly they find a massed and more-powerful people's army, led by the man
who played the thoroughly-destroyed Billy the Kid a decade before. This is what led
the film to be described as the first Marxist Western, but really it simply
deflowers a theme of the genre extant well before the '60s. Such various and
classic old-school works as William Wyler's 'The Westerner', and even 'Shane', tell
awfully similar stories. It is simply here that the romantic myth of the gunslinger
has been replaced by the romantic myth of the people's revolt. In a spectacular,
exiting, but realistic and thus chaotic finale, the marauding Cattlemen's
encampment is attacked, ringed by dust clouds punctuated by fallen horses, writhing
bodies, and gunfire. Averill puts his classical education to work finally by
stealing a Roman trick and bringing the Cattlemen to the brink of annihilation
before they are rescued by the Cavalry (another distinctly seditious touch, but
surely not so offensive after 'Little Big Man's unrelenting depiction of Native
American massacres). Really, it's hard to think of a more heroically American
vision of grassroots resistance. The film's only real dead spot stands as an
unnecessary coda indicating Averill's eventual relapse, a rather potted piece of
tragedy. Despite then certain failings and a slow mid-section,
'Heaven's Gate' is a supreme piece of work, a genuine attempt to create a
contemporary Western and a new kind of epic. If one has to still join the chorus
that reckons Cimino was absurd in his behaviour on set and expenditure, it is
regretfully. When, today, flops like 'The Adventures of Pluto Nash' and 'K-19 - The
Widowmaker' see nearly a hundred million dollars sink down the drain, and yet a tag
of infamy still hangs on this film, one ponders what exactly its grim death
signified. The attempt at original style, the bawdy sexuality, the very hard-won
sense of detail, the breathtaking rigor of the film-making and what is being
filmed, all throw into contrast what is sorely lacking in so much contemporary
Hollywood product.
I saw Heaven's Gate on its opening week nearly twenty years ago. Tickets were sold
in advance based on the great anticipation of seeing Cimino's long in the making
follow up to his 1978 masterpiece "The Deerhunter." The reviews came in and critics
trashed the film with vehemence. An influential New York film critic led the way
and most critics followed suit, and the 3hr. 40-min. film was pulled from
distribution. United Artists had Cimino shorten the film by about an hour and it
was re-released many months later to equally horrible reviews and to dismal
business. The film at that time cost about 40 million dollars (now considered low
budget) making it one of the most expensive in history and Cimino had free rein on
the project with endless retakes despite it being only his third film. "The
Deerhunter" had also received a negative backlash based on a perceived political
ideology, which was not popular. I mention all this to present a possible bias
building up against Cimino. At the time I thought the film was very good and when I
saw the shorter version it was still very good only less so. The film showed up
again in a museum in the early 1990's. They were supposed to show the long version
but they could not find an existing print. Nevertheless, seeing the film years
later I now thought Heaven's Gate was a masterpiece. Finally, the long version
started to appear in a few select cities, I got to see it recently and it was well
worth the wait. Heaven's Gate begins with the graduation ceremony at Harvard
University. Two of the graduates are Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt and we some
of the flaws in their characters early on. Despite the mandate Joseph Cotton gives
in his speech to the graduating class to use their education to enlighten and
improve their country, many of the graduates behave as if they are part of an elite
country club. The film flashes ahead 20 years to Johnson County in Wyoming. A
cattle company called "the Stockholders Association" has hired poor people to shoot
125 poor immigrants claiming they are cattle thieves. Kristofferson sides with the
immigrants while John Hurt is part of the Association. Although Hurt is totally
against this insane action he is too ineffectual a character to do anything about
it. A massacre takes place but the immigrants do well in defending themselves. A
United States Cavalry comes to the rescue of the Association to allegedly arrest
them after most of the damage has been done when in fact they sanctioned the mass
killing. Kristofferson also suffers a great personal loss and the film ends with
him years later as part of the elite class of his Harvard days married, bored, on a
yacht, living but dead on the inside. This is a very complex film which
is brilliant in every department such as it's themes, structure, direction,
cinematography, writing, music, editing, set designs, and acting. Kristofferson,
Walken, Hurt, Huppert, Dourif, Bridges, Waterston, and Cotton are all excellent
portraying very complex characters. Some of the major complaints I read about this
film state that is ugly to look at, incoherent, too long, that the characters make
no sense and that the words are often unintelligible. In its defense, Heaven's Gate
has the look of photographs of that period just as "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" did. Some
of the scenes are smoky looking to suggest the industrial revolution or sometimes
horses, wagons, people are passing by from all sides creating a sense of reality.
(The critic who called it one of the ugliest movies ever made likes to use his
thumbs a lot.) But in spite of all that, the composition of each frame and the
cinematography are impeccable. The film makes a great deal of sense if you pay
attention to it. Everything is not spelled out for the viewer and one has to
observe closely to understand the motivations of the characters or its themes. As
to its length, it is a beautifully structured piece, at times moving, poetic,
exhilarating, or devastating with virtually one great scene following another. At
times some of the words are unintelligible especially in some of the scenes
bustling with activity. But one could understand such a cinematic film as this
through its use of film language, the glances between characters or their actions.
One day soon this film should be re-released in its full length so that people and
critics could give it a second chance. Do not let Michael Cimino become another
Orson Welles- under appreciated in his lifetime and not able to make the kinds of
great films he is capable of making.
Thursday June 15, 9:30pm The Egyptian Saturday June 17, 11:00am The
Egyptian "He spent most of his life in pursuit of a good time, and he
caught it." - Eric Idle Harry Nilsson left Brooklyn, "feeling like
Holden Caulfield. I was fifteen." Eventually, he ended up working as an usher at
the LA Paramount and within a few years fell back asswards into one of the greatest
songwriting careers in the history of American music. 'Who Is Harry Nilsson (And
Why Is Everybody Talking' About Him?)' chronicles the legendary life of " the best
songwriter of our generation." Writer/Director John Scheinfeld produces a 'who's
who' of musical royalty, from Brian Wilson and Al Kooper to Paul Williams, Randy
Newman and Ray Cooper, "His voice was a medical instrument. It would heal you."
Assorted archives include his 1969 appearance on 'Playboy After Dark' and Nilsson's
BBC special. The John Lennon, brandy Alexander, Smothers Brothers at the Troubadour
comeback-show heckling debacle is one memorable recounting among so many they seem
to virtually squeeze Nilsson's enchanting music out of this comprehensive and
bitter-sweet bio-doc. "He was a wonderful perpetrator." " I
woke up three days later, getting a massage in Phoenix."
I saw this movie in Santa Monica on Aug. 23 and it has stayed with me. I want to
thank the filmmakers for digging into the details of Harry's enigmatic, eccentric,
life. And also for showing the flaws and failings of Nilsson the man. Thanks for
showing the good and bad, the ups and downs, and for uncovering that amazing BBC
footage. The film is also a great showcase of a vast amount of Nilsson's music,
really well placed throughout the film. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes
good documentaries, especially if you are interested in Harry Nilsson or the music
scene of the early 70's. Some reviewer at the Ain't It Cool website wrote that this
was the best movie movie they saw at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, and I believe
it. The film is informative, funny, sad, touching, and full of awesome music. It
succeeds on all levels. Really, really good.
I remember watching Police Squad! when it first came on ABC in 1982 and I thought
it was a very funny show, thanks to the many sight gags, non sequitors and scripts
filled with word play. In one episode, there was a line where a man named Once was
shot twice. But unfortunately, ABC canceled the show after only six
episodes. I felt it deserved a much longer run but a network executive thought the
show demanded too much attention of the viewer because of all the sight gags in
each episode. One that I remember was in the opening where the episode's title was
different from the one shown on the screen. Leslie Nielsen's portrayal
of Frank Drebin was deadpan, yet very funny and his role was in the narrative style
of Jack Webb of Dragnet. Alan North did well and Peter Lupus, in one of his few
roles since Mission: Impossible wasn't bad as Norberg, But the one character that
stood out was Johnny the Shoeshine Boy, played by William Duell. After giving
advice to Drebin, there were cameos from Dick Clark, Dr. Joyce Brothers and then
Dodger manager Tommy LaSorda. Even though Police Squad! had a short
life on ABC, the Zucker Brothers didn't give up on the concept which turned out
even more successful in the Naked Gun movie franchise. I'll close with a regular
closing gag. Freeze the ending right here.
This tough-to-see little picture played at the Mods & Rockers 2007 festival. It is
a wonderful and loving look at Harry Nilsson, using many famous faces who sit for
interviews, rarely seen TV performances and behind-the-scenes footage of Nilsson at
work. There's even a few shots from "Son Of Dracula". This movie is the final and
fitting tribute to one of the finest voices, the most clever songwriter and the
funniest man in popular music. It's a crime that this man's name is not as well
known as some of the songs he wrote and/or performed. His friends tell incredibly
funny stories about this talented hulk with a subconscious wish for self-
destruction. As a bonus, you even get Eric Idle performing the song with wrote for
Nilsson's final album during the closing credits. It's funny, it's sad. It's not in
general release. If this picture plays anywhere near where you live, see it!
I was lucky enough to have seen this film at it's Seattle Film Fest screening, and
was blown away by how great it was. This is without a doubt one of the best music
documentaries I've ever seen, (and I've seen a lot!) This is a loving look back at
the life and times, music and relationships of one of music's true legends. Harry
Nilsson deserves to be up there with the likes of Gershwin, Cole Porter, and all
the other great song writers of 20th century standards. He was considered a peer by
all four members of the Beatles, who all called him a 5th Beatle, and one the same
wavelength as themselves. Harry refused to tour, so many today don't
remember him, and those born after his heyday, are unaware of who he was. This is
tragic. Everyone should have the opportunity to be exposed to this wonderful
talent. This film is a step in the right direction, to finally give the man his
due. Unfortunately, the film has yet to have wide distribution, or even a DVD so
for the time being, good luck in getting to see it. If you are someone
with the power to put together a DVD distribution deal, PLEASE contact the film
makers. This film needs to be available. Hey VH-1, how about screening it on air,
then maybe putting it out on DVD? Harry Nilsson deserves nothing less.
Biodoc on the enigmatic singer/songwriter who, according to friends' accounts,
spent the last 15 years of his relatively short life seemingly on a mission of
self-destruction. He died at 52, overweight and dissipated, of heart disease, after
a protracted rampage of virtually non-stop overindulgence in alcohol, cigarettes,
marijuana and cocaine, raucous partying, and flagrant misuse of his vocal
instrument (he confided to a friend that he shouted out his lyrics at one
performance with such force that spattered blood was left on the microphone). All of this despite the fact that he was: (1) widely considered to have
perhaps the most gifted pop singing ability of his generation; (2) successful,
after years of effort, in terms of industry acclaim - a Grammy, an Oscar, a decent
recording contract with a top label, and at least two stellar albums - 'Nilsson
Schmilsson' (originals), and 'A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night'
(standards); and (3) very happily married (for the third time), with a lovely young
family that he seemed to adore. The film's strengths begin with the
completeness of its account of Nilsson's life, including fine use of archival film
footage and many stills of Nilsson; the editors do an especially good job of
bringing movement to the stills. We learn of his close ties to John Lennon and,
later, Ringo Starr (Lennon often said that Nilsson was his favorite American
musician). Even more impressive are the talking heads, often a
documentary's weakest aspect. Here we get people like Perry Botkin, Jr., Ray
Cooper, Mickey Dolenz, Terry Gilliam, Mark Hudson, Eric Idle, Rick Jarrard, Randy
Newman, Van Dyke Parks, Jimmy Webb and Robin Williams, all telling amazing stories
about Nilsson many uproariously funny, others deeply pathetic - and everyone
conveying their deep affection for him. Equally informative and moving are
interview segments with Nilsson's wives Annie and Una, his son Zach, and cousin
Doug Hoefer. Best set of heads I can recall in a biodoc. The most
glaring deficiency of the film is that it crowds out Nilsson's music. Even the
performance of his greatest hit, "Without You," is cut short after about 8 bars.
Arrrrgh!! There is no excuse for this, not given that the movie runs a full two
hours as it is. Lose a few head shots and we could have heard at least that song
through, and perhaps one or two more, like "One," or his Oscar winning cover of
"Everybody's Talking.'" The filmmakers are simply too intent on plumbing Nilsson's
psychological mystique and not attentive enough to his music. My grades: 7.5/10
(low B+) (Seen at the NWFC's Reel Music series, 01/07/07)
Saw this film during the Mod & Rockers fest in August. I was so inspired and
touched. Harry had an amazing life and one of the best and distinct voices ever
recorded. For those of you who don't know about Harry Nilsson do a little research
and you'll see that Harry has probably found his way into your life in one way or
another - maybe it was his 70s special "The Point" or "Everybody's Talking" from
Midnight Cowboy. For me it started with "people let me tell you bout my best
friend" - the theme song from "The Courtship of Eddie's Father." Watching this film
you can really feel the love and admiration from Harry's true friends and peers.
Don't shed a tear for Harry - he had a ball... Brett
I saw this superb documentary at the Santa Barbara Int'l Film Festival. It is
extremely absorbing and very well crafted, drawing you into the life and career of
Harry Nilsson, one of the most overlooked musical talents of the 1960's and 70's.
While I was familiar with his better known compositions ("One is the Loneliest
Number", "Without You"), I learned about this man's brilliant writing and beautiful
singing. If you love music, you'll find plenty to draw you in to his world, which
unfortunately spiraled out of control as his success increased and his past haunted
him. However sad, he nonetheless was completely devoted to his family and you will
find yourself so glad to have met this man. The profile is effectively told through
Nilsson's own words and those of his friends and colleagues (a virtual Who's Who of
Rock)who loved and respected him. Don't miss this!
Sony Pictures Classics, I'm looking at you! Sony's got the rights to Harry records
-- you need to distribute the film and you'll get radically increased sales of his
back catalog! Anyhow, this is a great study of a fascinating musician, woefully
underknown, full of great stories, greater music, and it could have been 3 hours
longer and I'd have loved it even more. Saw it at the American Cinemateque Mods &
Rockers Festival at the Aero Theatre in Santa Monica, where it played to a packed
house. They were turning people away at the door! I went to many of the Mods &
Rockers festival films, and let me assure you that no other film came even close to
selling out, let alone turning people away. See it in the theatre, buy the DVD, and
make sure some slow-on-the-uptake company [*cough SONY cough*] picks it up ASAP!
More exciting than the Wesley Snipes film, and with better characters, too. The
last vampire hunter must save Los Angeles from a coven of vampires out to conquer
the city, aided by a tabloid journalist. Lost of fun... and the names of the
characters are great!
Hard Justice is an excellent action movie! The whole movie is really nothing but
shooting and fighting but it does have a very good vampire plot! For the people who
say they don't make shoot em ups and fighting films like they use to. Well, this
one is really hard-core! Don 'The Dragon' Wilson is excellent and his character is
really cool in the movie. Nicholas Guest was very good as well and he arguably
steals the show! He really performs as a fantastic villain! Melanie Smith was also
good. I think that this very fine looking actress is very underrated. Michael
Cavanaugh was good. It was really cool to see Vince Murdocco in this film! As for
the action, it is truly awesome with all of the gun fights and the super cool
fighting scenes. The fighting in this picture is really some of the greatest I have
seen! There is so much that happens in the 86 minute run time. For the action fans
you will be blown away by all of the fire power and superb fighting that this film
has to offer! Night Hunter is a movie that isn't easy to locate and if you are at a
video store and you see it for sale buy it up because this movie is big keeper and
plus the box is cool! There is a ton of action that has to be seen to be believed!
Look and see if you can find some good deals on Ebay, Half.com, Amazon.com's Z-
Shops and Market Place Sellers! In My opinion Night Hunter is one of the greatest
fighting films that I have ever watched and the characters are so neat. If you like
Don 'The Dragon' Wilson and want to see Nicholas Guest in a great performance then
I strongly recommend that any action movie fan who loves shoot em ups, fighting
movies, and vampire films and has been disappointed by other movies that has the
look of a true non stop action flick but fails to deliver it to get and buy Night
Hunter today!
Yes, indeed we have a winner- a winner in best dumb-action-movie! The
only reason I chose to vote a 10 for this movie is because it's so incredibly bad-
made that it actually becomes funny. "Night Hunter" is basically about
Jack Cutter, a Vampire hunter (Vampire hunters have been in his generation for
centuries, apparently), and his mission, being that he has to kill the last
remaining Vampires. This movie contains one of the cheesiest scenes I
have ever seen in my life. Not to mention the really bad gun-shooting scenes. When
people are shot in this movie, blood splatters- thick as ketchup all over the
place, this makes the movie seem so cheap and lame that you just lose interest. A
constant shaking of the camera is what annoys me the most during the fight-scenes.
This is, I suppose, done to create an "action-effect", though in my opinion it
gives no effect whatsoever. Its completely ridiculous! All stunt-scenes
are done extremely badly. E.g a scene where the dead Vampire-leader gets thrown off
a roof. When the corpse hits the ground, it bounces like a wobbly rubber-doll. A
scene where Jack sniffs the ground, getting a vision was so lame it got me laughing
hysterically. Lame music, cheesy scenes, bad acting and plain dumb
filming techniques are obviously the functions that make this movie such a
malfunction. To state that this is a good movie would be the same as stating that
nuclear bombs are good for humans. Clearly those of you who say that this is one of
the best action-movies, haven't seen many in your life. This is
basically a B-class vampire-action-movie that deserves 0/10 but which I'll give
10/10, just for its ability (being the lousiest action-movie I have ever seen)of
making me laugh and because I just can't live without it.
Night hunter is a sold B style action movie. Get a life and grow up people. Don
"the Dragon" Wilson is a kick boxer, (hall of fame) and not an actor. If your
looking for an Oscar, it's not here brother. Looking for kick ass action movie with
lower then low budget, this is it.The plot line may have been a little thin, but
what B movie isn't. I understand everybody is a critic and how one man's junk is
another man's treasure. Get real people, judging every movie like it is an Oscar
contender, just silly. Awesome fight scenes, mixed with a new twist on vampire
moves. See it if your a fan, rent something else if your a hater.
A criminally short lived show that went on to spawn three movie spin-offs (Naked
Gun 1, 2 & 3), this is fast-paced, in your face, rapid fire comedy that has more
hits than misses. Leslie Nielsen plays Detective Lieutenant Sergeant
Frank Drebin, an incompetent Detective who bumbles and fumbles his way through
cases, with the capable assistant of his boss, Capt. Ed Hocken. The
story lines are spurious, at best, but it's deliberate, as the goodness here lies
not in the storytelling, but in the weaving of a constant flurry of jokes along
with some genuinely weird and wonderful characters. The jokes
themselves come in many forms, be it wordplay, slapstick, puns or background gags,
most of them hitting the spot, though some fall a little flat. It's inevitable with
this 'gag every few seconds' approach that some will fail, but the ratio is good.
 The characters are a delight. From the guest star of the week dying in
the opening seconds of every episode, the laboratory scientist who appears to be
conducting cruel and unusual experiments on children to the shoe-shine who is some
form of oracle, the writing is witty and sharp as a cutlass. Though not
especially successful at the time, it rapidly developed a cult following, many
blaming the shows' relative lack of success on being way ahead of its time and too
sophisticated for the target audience, chief amongst them none other than Matt 'The
Simpsons' Groening: and he should know. Dated by todays standards, if
you can see through that aspect, you're in for a treat.
Night Hunter starts in '1968' as a young Jack Cutter (Chris Aguilar) is
unexpectedly handed the family tradition of becoming a Vampire hunter when a fellow
Vampire hunter Sid O'Mack (Sid Haim) betrays his family & hands them over to the
Vampire's, to aid Jack on his quest he is given a book that contains the name of
every Vampire alive, or dead whichever way you look at it... Jump to 'June 1995' &
Los Angeles where the now adult Cutter (Don 'The Dragon' Wilson, also credited as
co-producer) has but four names left in the book including, Argento (Vince
Murdocco) & Carmella (Sophia Crawford) together they are the last of the American
Vampires. As they all dine in a restaurant Cutter crashes the party & kills them,
job done right? Wrong as King of the Vampires Bruno Fischer (Nicholas Guest) calls
in the last four remaining Vampires from around the world, the French Tournier
(Maria Ford), the Asian Hashimoto (Ron Yuan), Ulmer (David 'Shark Fralick) &
Sangster (Vincent Klyn) to track Cutter down & kill him. Meanwhile Detective's
Hooper (Marcus Aurelius) & Browning (Cash Casey) don't have a clue & a nosey
reporter named Raimy Baker (Melanie Smith) becomes involved in the battle between
Cutter & the Vampire's on which the very fate of Earth rests! Directed
by Rick Jacobson I thought Night Hunter was quite a fun way to pass 85 odd minutes.
The script by William C. Martell mixes martial arts & horror with a fair degree of
success, it moves along at a nice pace & is at least never boring & thankfully
doesn't seem to take itself too seriously. The character names that reference other
horror film director's/actors are a little tacky though. Some may be surprised at
how closely Night Hunter resembles Blade (1998) yet was made a couple of years
prior, the lone moody long coat wearing Vampire hunter who happens to be an expert
in martial arts, the scene set in a nightclub & the innocent woman drawn into the
world of Vampire's. Night Hunter doesn't really stick to traditional Vampire film
law, for instance sunlight only irritates their eye's, they can only breed on a
solar eclipse (why?), stakes through the heart & garlic is no good as the way to
kill a Vampire in Night Hunter is to break it's neck. I could have done with a bit
more horror & a bit more blood as it leans more towards the martial arts side of
things. The dialogue is suitably cheesy & the character's are just about likable
enough in a silly way. Director Jacobson does his best to ruin the film,
the actions scenes are OK but lack a certain something & for some bizarre reason
whenever an action sequence takes place he shakes his camera constantly, it's like
the camera is placed upon a washing machine full cycle! Hey Rick, mate, it's not
clever or stylish it's irritating & annoying. The gore is disappointing with a few
gory gunshot wounds & a few splashes of blood, breaking Vampire's necks don't
involve much blood unfortunately. With a budget that probably didn't
amount to much Night Hunter is competently made throughout. The acting was bad most
of the time & what's with 'The Dragon' thing in Don 'The Dragon' Wilson's name? Has
he legally changed his name? Does he sign cheques Don 'The Dragon' Wilson?! Does he
get mail addressed to him in that name? I think I might do something like this,
from now on I want to be known as Paul 'The Killer Klown' Andrews... Night Hunter is one of those crap films that transcends it's limitations &
awfulness to become pure golden entertainment. If you like your films fun then
Night Hunter might be for you, if your looking for big-budget thrills in a similar
vein (! Vampire's, veins & blood get it?) then Blade & it's sequels would probably
be a better choice. What the hell, I liked it so sue me.
Check out the first 20 minutes even though the suspense hasn't yet kicked in. We
get a pretty good look at super-secret Los Alamos just a few years after the big
bomb test that helped end WWII. Except for the tight security, it looks
unthreatening enough. Note how it's a TV repairman, an obvious regular guy, who
takes us through security. Once through, it's like any-town-USA, nice homes, quiet
streets, kids going to school, and a family TV on the blink. Later on we see little
Tommy and little Peggy frolicking along streets lined with impressive looking
facilities separated by locked gates. The movie appears to be saying, "Okay, we're
tough, only because we have to be. But, basically, we're still just folks." Now, I expect that was a comforting message to Cold War audiences still not
used to government's "dooms-day" research. It's a clear effort at popular
reassurance. The one darker note is when Tommy's mother (Clarke) worries about her
son's mental state. He doesn't say, "When I grow up"; instead, it's, "If I grow
up". That note of doubt not only reflects a Los Alamos reality, but also a national
one that in 1952 had just seen footage of the apocalyptic H-bomb. Note too, how
professionally FBI agents are portrayed, a standard feature of McCarthy era fare.
When brute force is needed, it's not they, but private citizen Gene Barry who
thrashes out the informationan early version, I suppose, of modern era
"rendition". Once the kidnapping occurs, the suspense doesn't let up.
The intrigue is nicely handled with colorful LA locations that keep us guessing.
The climactic scenes around the cliff dwellings may not be plausible as a hiding
place, but the view of northern New Mexico is great. Then too, the ancient stone
apartments amount to one of the more exotic backdrops of the decade. Note also the
extensive use of the police helicopter just coming into use as a law enforcement
tool. Among an otherwise subdued cast, Nancy Gates remains a sparkling presence as
teacher Ellen Haskell. Never Hollywood glamorous, she was still a fine unsung
actress and winning personality. I also expect this was one of director Hopper's
more successful movie efforts, and though people have since gotten used to the
nuclear threat, the movie remains a revealing and riveting document of its time.
Here is a much lesser known 50's sci-fi with a little different twist. An atomic
researchers son is kidnapped and held for a ransom of the the Father's atomic
secrets. This is a tightly knit atomic sci-fi thriller with great
production values and above average acting, even from the kid. The Atomic City
actually has a movie feel to it unlike a lot of other 50's sci-fi of this time
which which came off more like an episode of a TV show. The Atomic City
was also actually nominated for an Academy Award for Best Screenplay - how many
other 50's sci-fi can tout an Academy Award Nomination? Great pacing,
tight direction and some superb location filming in the 'real' Atomic City of Los
Alamos, New Mexico make this one worth hunting down. The collectors print in
circulation is an above average transfer and makes for a great double feature with
the Atomic Man!! Recommended.
Just watched this movie and it's not bad; there are a few tense moments and not a
lot of long dialog strings. Comes off as fairly intelligent; fastpaced almost like
'documentary style'. This movie will evoke some nostalgia and a bit of cold war
paranoia with cars,street scenes,and life in the 50's. The acting is fairly solid
and at 85 minutes run time it goes by at a good pace. An atomic era film buff
shouldn't miss this one.
Don't get me wrong this was fun to watch. It has some nice animation with exception
of an odd looking Bugs, and some nice music. And the standout scene was definitely
Elmer, Bugs and Daffy's dance on the floor, that was such a nice and fun touch. As
a matter of fact, the whole cartoon is nice to watch, but all in all it is not what
I call exceptional like Carrotblanca. There are some very nice gags, but they have
been used before I feel, and there wasn't much that I would deem hilarious. And
Daffy joining forces with Elmer? Somehow seeing as he was a target of the hunter,
didn't it seem odd that he would be friends with him. Though I will admit it was
nice having Daffy there. The voice acting was above average too, but somehow I
missed Mel Blanc. All in all, unexceptional but very nice cartoon. 7/10
Bethany Cox
Though this is a good, enjoyable cartoon, they did much better ones later on, like
Carrotblanca. This is almost like the first Star Trek feature, which would have
been welcomed with open arms and glee no matter what, just for existing. This is
really a patchwork of old bits with some nice touches, but nothing special. Reminds
me a bit of the hunting trilogy in spots and the ending is priceless. Available and
certainly well worth watching just for the novelty and the good bits. Recommended.
Black Scorpion is Roger Cormen's Batman. Which is cool and there is a lot of cool
stuff in this movie. Like the Breathtaker being a cross between Doctor Doom and
Darth Vader, that's kind of cool. The mind control gas in the inhalers was worthy
of the Mad Hatter. The Cormen B-movie style is all over this puppy which is not
always a good thing. There are plenty of stunts and hot babes to make any action
fan happy. This movie, the good out weighs the bad. But if you aren't one for comic
book movies, then I would advise not watching Black Scorpion, however if you like
comic book like movies and don't care if it was ever a comic before. Then check out
BLACK SCORPION, as for me I give it 8 STARS.
I'm a sucker for a decent superhero movie. (I'm not counting super bug budget, no
storyline Batman's either) A couple of my favorites are The Phantom and
a budget movie called The Demolitionist. The Black Scorpion can be added to that
collection. If you've seen the Demolitionist then get this movie. It's
basically a copy of that heroine. (It even stars the same guy in both movies) If you haven't, then let me explain...a cop's father is murdered and she
seeks vengeance. She laces up the black outfit (a sexy catwomanish, skimpy outfit
that looks absolutely great on Joan Severance) and goes out to kick some
booty. It's a fun, action packed movie, mind you, you may not wish the
kids to see it...without screening it first to see if you approve of the pretty
graphic sex scene Severance has in it. Which in my opinion, was a bonus (alright,
give it an extra star <grin>)
Black Scorpion is a fun flick about a groovy female super heroine who wears leather
tights and drives a car that can morph into her snazzy armored Scorpion Mobile. She
battles the evil Breathtaker and all of this is an excellent recipe for a good time
IMHO. I loved the bit about her having to say "Yo" to get the car's computer to
take orders! Breathtaker is so evil he wants to give the entire city asthma! It's
all so over the top and that's the beauty of it! The scene where Black Scorpion
"attacks" her partner steals the show. You'll know it when you see it. This DVD
also has a fun interview with Joan Severance. She's a doll. Black Scorpion is a fun
DVD. Loved it!
This movie will not be considered for an academy award, but if you enjoy a movie
that doesn't take itself seriously and just wants the viewer to enjoy for ninety
mins it is not a disappointment. You'll enjoy a send up of Darth Vader for the
villain (the breather), a female Batman for the heroine (but much cuter with much
less costume), and a running joke that involves cigarettes and the police captain
that's very funny. Not by any means a great cinematic achievement. But if you enjoy
campy fun it was worth a viewing. God help me, I liked it.
The inspiration for the "Naked Gun" movies casts Leslie Nielsen - who had only
recently started doing comedy* - as the incompetent but heroic Frank Drebin, always
having to solve an absurd case. Like "Airplane!" and the movies based on the
series, the humor relies on Mel Brooks-style spot gags and silly comments (namely
the "yes it is" remarks), along with the fact that Nielsen remains very serious
despite the nonsense around him. And of course, the final frame, in which something
keeps moving. It's too bad that the show only had six episodes. At least
it spawned the movies. You can't go wrong with Leslie Nielsen in these sorts of
roles. I suspect that they all had fun filming it. Really funny. *Before
"Airplane!", Leslie Nielsen had starred in movies like "Forbidden Planet", "Harlow"
and "The Poseidon Adventure". As late as 1987 he co-starred in "Nuts" alongside
Barbra Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss. But since the first "Naked Gun" movie it's
been all comedy all the time.
This movie was better than I expected. I don't think it deserved an R rating,
though. I've seen PG-13 films with worse language and violence. I found this movie
entertaining and I enjoyed it. If you're a person who dissects everything, you
might find a lot wrong with it, but if you take it for its face value, I think
you'll find it entertaining.
Most of other reactions by subscribers to this service were very apt, although that
some found it slow or ambiguous puzzled me. Rather than ambiguous, it was complex
and multi-layered in its meanings. One can see it as anti-war, because of the
opening and closing scenes, and the folly of pretended grandeur, as how wonderful
the cavalry men looked as they prepared for the great charge at Eylau, contrasted
with its so horrible and disturbing conclusion, when we see the bloody uniforms,
the boyish dead, etc--but chiefly, I see the film as about a moral man in an
immoral society. At the end Chabert chooses retreat from the corrupt post-
Napoleonic French world and opts for the simple pleasures provided by Derville (who
himself is saved by his recognition of Chabert's basic decency and the morality of
his choice of renunciation)--white bread, cheese, some wine and tobacco--over the
riches he leaves to his wife, and her and society's dishonor. In her case, we can
see the film as also feminist, in the position of women at that time, in which the
only weapons Mme Chabert has are her charm, beauty, wiles and, ultimately, money.
This is an unfortunately unrecognized classic. The look is superb, the
design, costumes etc are flawless, the post battle scenes and the cavalry charge
are both chilling and exciting. The characters are vivid and really
human. Ardent is right and Fabrice Luchini as the lawyer Derville steals the movie
with his clever pedantic rodent-like performance, delighting in the ups and downs
of others' misfortunes. Depardieu is good but perhaps too large a presence for this
role. Where the film really excels is the story and also its changes
from Balzac's novella. Those changes are editorial in that Balzac has lots of
discussion on society and this film breaths with characters. Nevertheless Yves
Angelo has retained the key ingredient, not just the missing man trying to regain
his place in society but every character has to find their place in society: the
Comte Ferraud is trying to buy a peerage, his wife (Ardent) comes from a lowly
birth and when she was married to Colonel Chabert they achieved their position in
the turbulence of post-revolutionary France. Everyone has something to lose in
terms of status and that makes for a good drama as their objectives are in conflict
with each other. It also feels very modern: money is critical to buy
status to reach power, but someone can go down as quickly as they go up. Derville
enjoys the strategy, he has seen the worst of people he says to Chabert when he
takes the case. This speech's original place is at the end of the novella as Balzac
sums up the human comedy with huge irony.
Colonel Chabert is one of the best adaptations from novel to screen I have seen in
the movies. It combines the realism of French cinema with excellent
characterisation, from Depardieu's lost Chabert to Fabrice Luchini's proud Lawyer
to Fanny Ardant's complex widow. The movie has wonderful dimension, as you might
expect from a top cinematographer such as Yves Angelo. The characters keep this
movie in gear and although a bit slow in the beginning, picks up pace and is a fine
movie by the time it reaches the finish.
First, let me confess that I have not read this particular Balzac novel, so maybe I
am directing my cavils unfairly at director and editor. Still my experience with
Balzac in other stories is that he writes as a realist, not an obscurantist. This
is most certainly a film worth one's while, but one is left sorely puzzled at the
end. Was the Colonel a fraud, used by the lawyer for his own ends (or for whose
beyond himself); or was the Colonel not a fraud, but used as aforesaid by the
lawyer; or did the lawyer truly try to serve the honest Colonel? The director
and/or the editor appear to me to have deliberately obscured these questions, which
doesn't seem like Balzac, the realist. At the same time the film does an excellent
job of delineating the characters, if not their motives, and the cast and
production is superb. That opening battlefield scene is bound to haunt one's
dreams. Still, one wonders at the all too common penchant among contemporary film
makers to favor ambiguity above all else. Weren't the problems and motives of all
these characters complicated enough for Yves Angelo?
I recently read the story to see how these two match up, and if you can believe it,
this film improves upon Balzac. The story is moved around, I think, to drive home
the idea that Colonel Chabert is a man who has suffered much and yet he comes home,
not a hero, but as an outcast. As someone mentioned, I was initially
confused if Chabert was akin to The Return of Martin Guerre. No. It is firmly
established by Balzac that Chabert is the real deal. What's interesting, though, is
not is he, isn't he, but how his wife, and society, treats him. I think
this is a timeless story of men who go off to fight for their country and when they
come home time has left them behind. Chabert is a tragic figure made all the more
poignant by the amazing Gerard Depardieu. I don't care that he's been in 1 million
films, he's captivating. Fanny Ardant has a horrible character to play.
Once a prostitute, Rose has used her feminine wiles to climb the social ladder. Are
her emotions true for Compte Ferraud? I think they are and perhaps couple that with
her social standing at the time, and you start to feel some empathy for her. Fabrice Lucini is slowly worming his way into my heart. He's exceptional
here as Derville. I think if you can get your hands on this gem of a
film, you won't be sorry. French cinema at its finest.
I guess this is the first time I have seen a Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle movie. I
really liked him in his (title) role as a butcher boy. The way he moves is very
funny in my opinion, for example how he handles his knife and the way he rolls a
cigarette. I think he is a good actor; his facial expressions really suit the role
he plays, for example how he winks at the audience in the end. But one might add
that that was probably not too difficult. Anyway I think he would have deserved a
longer career. As you probably know it was ruined by greedy journalists who made
money by printing false accusations that said he was involved in a scandal. The plot is not very important. In the first half, Fatty and Alum are
employees at a store and rivals for Almondine's affection. After a heavy food
fight, Almondine is sent to a girls' school by her father, the store owner. (This
is the beginning of the second half). Both Fatty and Alum enter the school in drag,
and the fight for Almondine continues. (Some of the characters' names are different
in the version that I have seen. It seems that for some reason they replaced the
original title cards with new ones.) There are a lot of corny gags like
food fights and pratfalls, but they are done well in my opinion. And there are some
gags I really liked, for example how they make the dog run the pepper mill (or is
it a coffee mill?), or the scene when Fatty dons a coat although it is obviously
not necessary, or when Miss Teachem, the head of the girls' school, spanks Fatty,
and he spanks her back. Buster Keaton is also funny in this, his first,
movie; a good addition to the cast. In the first half he is a customer at the
store, in the second half he supports Alum in his fight for Almondine. I liked his
acrobatics, for example when Fatty pushes him from one room of the school to
another, he doesn't show a simple pratfall but lands on his hands and his head and
does a little pirouette. Watch out for one scene in the food fight: Alum throws a
flour bag at him, but it misses and hits the store owner instead. That makes Buster
laugh, which must be a rarity since he normally always shows a neutral expression
(which - as you probably also know already - got him the nickname 'The Great Stone
Face'). (One more note: Al St. John, who plays Alum, was 'Fatty' Arbuckle's nephew,
and later became famous for the role of 'Fuzzy' that he played in lots of
westerns.) I don't like this one as much as I like, for example, 'One
Week' and 'The Balloonatic' (films that Buster made later, without 'Fatty'). And it
didn't make me laugh out loud often - but it made me smile a lot, so I have given
it eight points.
This Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle comedy is best remembered for featuring a young Buster
Keaton, fresh from splitting with his family's roughhouse Vaudeville act, in his
film debut. Buster gets quite a substantial part in this film and it's quite a
funny one overall. "The Butcher Boy" has lots of laughs and is an example of pure
old-fashioned slapstick done well, though it would seem to come from the brief era
of two-reel comedies when filmmakers still imagined in one-reel segments as a
matter of course. The first half of the film takes place in a general
store, with Arbuckle as the the butcher boy of the title. It's an excuse to mine
the many possibilities for fast physical humor that a general store provides, and
Arbuckle really shows himself to be a 300-pound acrobat, demonstrating subtlety,
skill, and grace in his performance of what might have been unremarkable slapstick
routines that raise them to a different level. A running gag has him flipping a
large butcher knife casually so that it spins accurately into it's proper position
stuck into the cutting board, and I'm still stunned that Arbuckle really seems to
do it each time. There's also a really nice gag that sees him leaning on his scale
and confused as to why his cuts of meat weigh so much. Buster Keaton is
a boy who comes into to buy some molasses, and performs deftly in a foot-stuck-to-
floor routine that follows. Apart from the odd and almost unsettling half-smile,
his idiosyncratic attitude and body language make him recognizable immediately as
the Buster we know. He even has his eventually-trademarked flattened hat -- here
destroyed for the first time when filled, of course, with molasses. The
second half of the film moves into more situation-based comedy and Arbuckle and his
rival Al St. John dress in drag to infiltrate Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school.
A lot of the humor also comes from the generally surreal and mysteriously laugh-
inducing sight of these two odd fellows wearing drag and trying to "be girls."
buster is in this segment too, but mostly stands there in the occasional cutaway,
helping St. John. The ending of "The Butcher Boy" becomes a little
emptily frenetic, but on the whole and beyond its historical curiosity interest,
it's a well-done comedy that gets just the knockabout laughs it is going for.
This film certainly wasn't very sophisticated. No, the humor was in fact pretty
dumb now that I think about it. But, also while I think of it, I did laugh--proving
decent comedy doesn't need to be very deep. Fatty Arbuckle is the
definite star of this short, despite Buster Keaton's appearing in the film as well.
He is the butcher in an old-time grocery store. A lot of silly stuff occurred in
the store and I think I laughed the most at the coffee grinder sequence--you'll
just have to see it yourself. Anyway, later, Fatty's girlfriend is
forced to go to a girls' school and because he can't stand to part, he dresses in
drag and infiltrates the school. Arbuckle is one ugly woman! So, for silly and
unsophisticated fun, see this film. It won't change your life and is a very slight
picture, but it's also fun.
Well, I've just seen Buster Keaton's film debut in Fatty Arbuckle's The Butcher Boy
and-despite the crude way everything just seems to happen for almost no logical
reason-I found plenty to laugh at. Like when Buster orders molasses from butcher
boy Fatty, Fatty makes Buster come back to pay, Buster says he put it in the bucket
that has the molasses, Fatty dumps molasses in Buster's hat and takes money, Buster
takes hat back on head as it gets stuck, Fatty attempts to remove it while molasses
fall to floor, Buster's feet are now stuck on floor and so on. That probably didn't
read funny but on screen it was hilarious as were some more slapstick involving
flour being thrown and a later sequence that takes place in Fatty's girlfriend's
boarding school with Fatty dressed in drag and Buster helping Fatty's rival also in
drag. Like I said, many scenes don't make a lick of sense but the visuals,
especially those involving Arbuckle and Keaton, are laugh inducing even today.
Recommended viewing for Keaton completists.
When I was young, I was a big fan of the Naked Gun movies but just recently I
watched the show Police Sqaud! and I think its great! Leslie Nielson's awesome,
Alan North is cool, and who the heck is Rex Hamilton? But anyways, it's one goofy
show. One of my favorite parts of this show when they do the freeze
frame scene during the end credits. I think my favorite one is when Norberg (not
O.J.) walks in during the scene and he tries to fit in with the freeze frame.
Classic! The only problem to me is the cigarette gag gets very old (when
Drebin shows a cigarette to someone and asks, "Cigarette?" and the person replies,
"Yes. I know.") I think they used it too many times by whatever. Good
acting, good gags, great show! 7/10
FIVE STAR FINAL was one of the best films of the early 1930s. It starred Edward G.
Robinson and was a very gritty story about a sleazy newspaper and their willingness
to do anything...ANYTHING to sell newspapers. In particular, an old story of an
innocent woman is plastered across the pages and helps to destroy her now happy
life--many years after she was inadvertently involved in a scandal. The reason I
loved the film so much was that it was unflinching and pulled no punches--showing
just how low the publishers can be to sell papers. Here in TWO AGAINST
THE WORLD, it is a remake of FIVE STAR FINAL--with a few changes. Instead of
Robinson, this film stars Humphrey Bogart and he is the head of programming at a
radio station, not a newspaper. Otherwise, the story is essentially the same--
except that it's a bit less edgy and lacks some of the grit and sensationalism of
the original. This isn't to say the film is bad--it just doesn't pack quite as good
a punch as the first film. In other words, if you must see one of these films, see
the first--though this film is quite powerful and enjoyable as well. As for me, I
loved the story so much, I saw both films and enjoyed them both. TWO
AGAINST THE WORLD begins with the UBC radio owner complaining to his programming
head (Bogart) that all the "high brow" shows he's put on are getting low ratings.
The owner demands muck--lots of muck in order to get more listeners. One way they
discuss is to do a multi-part dramatization of a famous killing that occurred two
decades ago--even though the killer was acquitted and she killed only in self-
defense. However, they decide to play up the story as if she was guilty and they
even go so far as to both send a writer to the lady's home pretending to be a
minister(!) as well as broadcasting her current name and whereabouts. Needless to
say, this ruins the woman and leads to a horrible tragedy. Then, and only then,
does Bogart feel any real remorse for producing such garbage--leading to a dandy
finale about journalistic integrity and decency. Well-acted, a great
story idea and a message that is just as important today as it was back in the
1930s, this is one story you have to see. In particular, notice the wonderful and
very emotional confrontation scene where the daughter attacks the owner and
Bogart---it is one heck of a great example of acting and writing.
This cheapo remake of the terrific Five Star Final suffers from terrible acting.
Humphrey Bogart stars as the manager of a sleazoid radio station that is desperate
to boost sagging ratings. The owner decides to have a series of morality plays
written about a famous murder case from 20 years ago. So they hire the fake
preacher (Harry Hayden) to track down the murderess, who was acquitted and has been
living quietly under a fake name. The preacher arrive on the daughter's wedding
day, but the ruthless radio station refuses to back off exposing the mother and
ruining their lives. Bogart is always good. Hayden is good the the slimy
preacher, and Henry O'Neill is good as the father. Everyone else is just awful.
Helen McKeller wins no sympathy (crucial for the role), Linda Perry is a lousy
actress, Beverly Roberts is OK but always looks old, Claire Dodd and Hobart
Cavanagh have no parts, Carlyle Moore is a dud as the boy friend, Virginia Brissac
is miscast as the society mother, Robert Middlemas overacts as the station
owner. This one comes in under an hour but is a pale copy of the
original which boasted dynamic performances by Edward G. Robinson, Aline MacMahon,
Frances Starr, and Boris Karloff. But it's always worth watching Boagrt.
I saw this last night on Turner Classic Movies (TCM). I had never heard of it
before, and was quite surprised to find it so engrossing. Bogart does a
star turn as a city-wise cynical editor who reluctantly goes along with his greedy
radio-network boss in this incisive "B" programmer. About 12 years before he played
similar city-wise cynics to perfection in movies like Deadline USA, Knock On Any
Door, The Barefoot Contessa, and The Harder They Fall, Bogie already had the star
qualities down pat. In order to boost ratings, and bring their somewhat
high-brow programming to a more popular level, WUBC, "the Voice of America", pushes
a tell-all radio mini-series about a woman who was acquitted 20 years ago by a plea
of self-defense of killing her husband. Not willing to be discreet in order to save
the woman's and her husband's reputations, the station uses underhanded methods to
reveal all to all listeners, and as luridly as possible. As a time
capsule, I also found it very illuminating of male-female mores in the workplace in
the mid-1930's. Although beyond Henry O'Neill, I'm unfamiliar with the supporting
cast, the players were uniformly excellent, and the direction was taut. If you like this kind of movie at all (e.g., A Face In The Crowd, An Inspector
Calls, etc.), don't miss the opportunity to see this one. 
After a couple years of searching for the Humphrey Bogart film, "Two Against the
World", it unexpectedly showed up as a TCM offering under the title "One Fatal
Hour", a First National film from 1936. Bogey's character is Sherry Scott, the man
who runs WUBC, a radio station whose program lineup is losing listeners. The owner
Bertram Reynolds (Robert Middlemass), is a pathetic executive who calls the shots
at the station, but hides behind his decisions by pawning them off on Scott. In an effort to boost the audience base and revenues, Reynolds has the idea
of reviving a twenty year old murder case, and offering it as a fifteen chapter
radio play. Scott enlists the aid of Dr. Martin Leavenworth (Harry Hayden) to write
the play and present it on the air. The Pembroke Murder case involved a
woman who was acquitted of murdering her husband, the circumstances of which are
not made clear. However Gloria Pembroke has married, and is now living as Martha
Carstairs (Helen MacKellar), married to a successful banker (Henry O'Neill), and
their daughter Edith (Linda Perry) is about to be married (on the same day no less
as the radio play is to reveal the identity of Gloria Pembroke). About to be faced
with the devastating effects of this revelation, Martha and Jim Carstairs embark on
a crusade to have the program stopped. Simultaneously, Edith's future in-laws
respond by demanding that the marriage not take place. Without revealing
the final outcome, the film takes a devastating turn to jolt the viewer. Edith
Carstairs confronts the principals of the radio station, vigorously admonishing
Scott and the sniveling Reynolds. While accepting his share of the blame for the
outcome, Scott partially redeems himself by quitting his job, firing his secretary,
and hauling her out of the office, recognizing her for the conscience he once had.
With an entirely abrupt finish, the film leaves one as disoriented and unsettled as
any movie that doesn't have a happy ending. With about a dozen films
under his belt, Humphrey Bogart gets a chance to take center stage here with
intriguing results. With no name supporting players, Bogey rises to the occasion by
taking charge in the confines of the radio offices, and runs the show as if it was
his own. In an interesting bit of characterization, he expresses his exasperation
by crossing his hands over his bowed head, predating by a half dozen years a
similar effect we'll see him do in "Casablanca". For Bogart fans, it's a genuine
treat to catch an unexpected nuance like this.
This telecast of the classic musical "Sweeney Todd" does not do the production
justice, but is still quite enthralling. Firstly, the most enjoyable
aspect of this version is the production design, from the wheeling multi-set to the
startling trapdoor. Then, the staging is excellent, right down to the
slashing. The main failing here is in the performances people give. Oh,
they're believable, all right-- but it is quite frustrating when nobody seems to be
hitting their cues on time in a song as fast-paced as, say, "Kiss Me." In fact, the
actress playing Johanna is not only off-tempo to a dismal degree, but also slightly
off-key. And Angela Lansbury's slightly overdone cockney accent is a bit
irritating. One more thing, too-- what, exactly, is so bad about Judge Turpin's
performance of "Johanna" that it is banned from the American theatre, but not the
cannibal anthem "A Little Priest"? Otherwise, this is an excellent
production. It's a thrill to watch people do what they love-- and I'm not even
peripherally talking about "meat pies with a twist".
George Hearn really went all out and over the top which in this case was great.
I've heard the Len Cariou version but it was too tame. George was great in that
character - very expressive. Angela Lansbury was perfect for the part.
She gave a great performance. She gave the Mrs. Lovett a great devious and comical
personality which balanced out the dark story. I love the dark humor
when Angela Lansbury sings her songs as well as her physical expressions and the
angry emotions of George Hearn in his songs of rage, vengeance and distress. I've watched this play 20 times since 1985 when I saw it on PBS. I bought
it on video (after copying it in 1985 on my own)when it came out in 1990 and I
definitely bought a copy of the DVD when it came out in 2004.
I saw this play on Showtime some years back in the comfort of my home and when the
final note was struck, I wanted to jump off the sofa and give the production a
standing ovation. As it was, I shed a tear that it was such a bunch of fantastic
performances and songs. For my birthday, my kids bought me the VHS version as well
as the Cd of the play with Len Cariou in the Sweeny Todd Role. I've
shared the play with many...some finding the subject a bit sick, but none having
anything but praise for the songs. I've always loved the interplay in
songs with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn as well as Hearn and Edmund Lyndeck as
Judge Turpin. I must own the DVD.
Stephen Sondheim's SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET opened on
Broadway on 1 March 1979 with Len Cariou and Angela Lansbury in the leading roles.
Although it swept virtually every award imaginable, the box office fell short of
expectations and the original production ended its run at 557 performances.
Fortunately, however, the play then went on tour--and along the way was captured on
film. The result is a remarkable capture of the play featuring George Hern, who
replaced Cariou, and Lansbury in a close approximation of the original Broadway
staging. There is, however, a flaw. Simply stated: stage plays do not
film very well, for a performance that works well on the stage must fill the
theatre and is therefore very, very large--and when placed on film such
performances often seem slightly static, oppressively aggressive, or both. SWEENEY
TODD is no exception. Seen on film, it has a "stand and sing" quality, and while
both Hern and Lansbury seem to have modulated their performances for the sake of
the camera such is not the case with Betsy Joslyn as Joanna; her larger-than-life
performance reads on film as unpleasantly frantic and her extremely operatic voice
feels out of place when contrasted with the voices of the overall cast. Taking this stage-play-on-film effect into consideration, however, this really is
an exceptional performance of a unique and macabrely comic musical in the operetta
style. Lansbury is astonishing, a mixture of silliness, stupidity, and cunning
malice, while Hern truly owns the role of the psychotic barber whose clients "go to
their graves impeccably shaved." The overall cast is quite fine and although the
film does not let us see quite enough of the set, there is enough on display for it
to be impressive. And the music! Who can argue with what most consider Sondheim's
finest work? The story itself is extremely well-known, particularly in England. In
1846 Thomas Peckett Prest cobbled together several urban myths for a short story he
titled A STRING OF PEARLS; within a year or so it was adapted to the stage as
SWEENEY TODD, THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET--and, in an era that knew little of
copyright law, variations of the play were soon playing all over England. Each one,
however, was more or less the same: Sweeney Todd, a barber, kills the men who come
to him for a shave; Mrs. Lovett, his associate, bakes them up into pies and feeds
them to an unsuspecting public. The Sondheim version is specifically based on a
1973 version by Christopher Bond. The story is very Grand Guignol, with
a lot of blood, bodies dropping down chutes, and grotesque humor; at the same time,
however, the music, lyrics, and subplot of an innocent in the clutches of evil open
out the subject to numerous lyric charms one would not expect. Sondheim's lyrics
are often ironic, but never more so than here; he intertwines a great deal of
wicked satire re industry and capitalism along the way, and certainly one cannot
fault the strange yet Victorian-elegant of his complex music. Like the
"concert version" starring Hern and Patti LuPone, this particular film also
provides us with several selections that were cut from the 2007 Tim Burton film
version, most particularly the opening "Attend the Tale of Sweeney Todd," which
runs like a thread throughout the play. It is also, in my opinion, considerably
more comic than the film, which tends to underplay comedy in favor of a still
greater show of blood. Whatever the case, if you are a fan of the story, this is
the legendary Broadway show on tour, and it is a knock-out. Recommended. GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Televised in 1982, from a Los Angeles production, this is probably the finest
example of a filmed stage musical you are likely to encounter. Issued on DVD in
2004 in a remastered digital transfer, it is quite stunning. Hearn and Lansbury
give the performances of their lives and the rest of the cast are quite obviously
caught up in the electricity generated. Of course it is Sondheim's music and lyrics
that make this possible. If anyone doubts that he is one of the "greats" of the
American Musical form listen to this. The sets are stark, as befits the plot, and
clever in allowing the swift scene changes required and the cameras catch the
action without obliterating the fact that this is a stage production. A central,
move-able and revolving platform is Mrs. Lovett's pie shop, with the barber's shop
upstairs. Around it are various gantries and moving stairs to allow the rest of the
action to take place. The brutal tale of injustice leading to revenge, murder and
mayhem is liberally spiced with dark humour and comic moments. Sondheim does for
barber shops what Hitchcock did for showers ! An important work in American musical
theatre is here given an electrifying performance.
Well I'm not the world's biggest Sondheim fan, so although I have the cast album
and I've listened to it a few times I've never actually seen this show performed
and I haven't seen the Tim Burton movie version either. I felt like I wanted to see
something more faithful before I see the Burton one and give it a chance just as a
movie. This version isn't a movie at all, it's a filmed play with some of the
original members of the cast, including most importantly Angela Lansbury's
performance as Nellie Lovett. This is one of those performances that's just like a
conduit into the heart of the magic of Broadway and theater itself. She must have
had so much fun with this role. Sweeney Todd himself isn't played by Len Cariou,
who did it originally, but by George Hearn. Hearn does a fantastic job; his voice
isn't quite as good as Cariou's, but he seems to play it a bit broader. The only problem I had really was with the Johanna character as played by Betsy
Joslyn, and to some extent her lover Anthony as played by Cris Groenendaal.
Joslyn's voice can't sustain high notes, but I wasn't entirely sure if that was
maybe supposed to be the point since I'm not hugely familiar with this play. More
importantly, I'm not sure if the story of "Sweeney Todd" really holds up enough
weight to sustain some of the music, but thankfully the whole thing doesn't seem to
have been taken too seriously by its creators. As a lark, and a bit of comedy in
the vein of "Grand Guignol", it's quite enjoyable. I don't feel like it's as
significant a piece of work as "Company" and "Into the Woods" or some of his other
shows. Some of the music is quite spectacular, but at other points it seems to
exist in a world outside of the show. I won't say a whole lot about it
here because this is a film website and this is really not a film, but just a play
that has been shot on film. There were maybe 3 or 4 scenes where they moved the
camera around but that was it. People will want to see this, because it preserves
Lansbury's legendary performance which deserves its legendary status because it's a
hilarious and insightful performance. George Hearn can be proud of his version of
Sweeney as well. This would be a good film to show children over the age of 5 or so
to get them interested in musicals because the blood and cannibalism will really
surprise them. Seeing a performance filmed so expertly and so faithfully makes me
wish that more efforts like this had been made over the years with musical theater,
because I prefer shows from the 20s through the 50s to these later era affairs.
"Sweeney Todd" is an exceptional show from its era however, miles and miles above
the AL Webber madness.
I first remember bumping into this zaniness from the Zucker brothers and Jim
Abrahams, back in the early days at Comedy Central. Back in those days (the 90's)
their programming consisted of Benny Hill reruns and the original MST3k, complete
with bearded host. Capt. Frank Drebin (played by the stone-faced, dead-
pan filibuster, Leslie Nielson) is a process created first from the amalgamation of
various stereotypical police television show protagonists (think Dragnet meets
Starsky & Hutch the Show), boiled in a flask full of well-known police television
show plots and scenarios. This is distilled, 3 times to produce the most pure
policeman every made. Forget about Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz (for now. save it for
later). Frank Drebin is clueless at most times, a terrible driver, a terrible shot,
macho yet sensitive and vulnerable. He is a master of the police investigative
methodology (a.k.a - ask Johnny the Leathery Old Shoe-Shine Boy). This does not
make him a bad cop. Cops get lucky also. Capt Drebin (notice he's a Captain here)
has perfected it. Along with his partner, Nordberg, and the rest of force,
perfectly parody the police drama over the course of 6 golden episodes. The show is a treasure trove of hilarious dialog and quotable quote-ables. Most
of the sight gags are a bit dated and silly. The magic never came from the sight
gags,however. At its core was a nonsensical and straight-faced conversation and
activities in the foreground, with crazy things occurring in the background. The
movies can best be described as 90 minute compilations of the best gags from this
series. Think of Monty Python's And Now For Something Completely
Different..... If you liked Airplane 1 & 2, Naked Gun 1,2,3, or Top
Secret, then you will definitely enjoy this. I always liked the series
better than the movies, even though I saw the movies first. Why? 2 words : No O.J.
Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd...The strangest, most off-putting, but most
wonderful Broadway musical. It is chilling, funny, and moving all at once through
Sondheim's most memorable and incredible score and sharp performances. George Hearn
is incomparable in the title role, bringing a strong voice and dead on (no pun
intended) impersonation of the legendary demon barber, while Angela Lansbury
provides the comic relief as she cheerfully grinds up his victims into meat pies.
If you just allow yourself to enjoy it, "Sweeney Todd" is a real treat.
I saw this version about a decade ago, and have been looking for it ever since. I
just recently found an original VHS version, and purchased it for $125.00. Sounds
crazy, but if you, like me, consider it as one of the best the Broadway musical
stage has ever produced, you wouldn't even think twice. Why, it's just a
little over paying for a Broadway ticket today. I really hope they re-release this
in DVD form soon. It's a piece of musical theater that screams to be seen by all!
Not having seen the 1936 version of this story, I cannot offer any comparison
there. I can, however, state that Stephen Sondheim's musical treatment of this
story is absolutely genius. Only Sondheim could come up with music and lyrics that
are stellar in their own right, yet perfectly suited to the very bizarre subject
matter. If anyone needs an explanation of what a dark comedy is, they should see
this (and "Dr. Strangelove" as well). When Mrs. Lovett goes from having the "worst
pies in London" to a booming business with high acclaim, we aren't talking "Soylent
Green," - but the ingredients are similar. Particularly brilliant is the song where
Mrs. Lovett pitches her idea to Mr. Todd. Even in the introductory number, the line
"...they went to their Maker impeccably shaved..." gives a great indication of the
premise, the drama, AND the comedy to come. Outstanding!
I viewed my videotape last night, for the first time in at least ten years. I found
the work itself and the performances just as gripping as they were in my memory.
George Hearn, of course,was the master of the role of Sweeney; there is never a
touch of softness in his determination to wreak vengeance on those he believes
caused his wife's death and his daughter's disappearance; at least not until the
end, when he discovers that his thirst for revenge has led him to murder his wife.
Angela Lansbury, on the other hand, creates a more complex portrayal, as Mrs.
Lovett. She understood that Sondheim wanted that role to be something of a "comic"
counterpart to Sweeney; and even brings some tenderness into her courtship of
Sweeney and her nurture of the boy Tobias. For those with long memories, this
performance takes one back to her debut performances in The Picture of Dorian Grey
and Gaslight; long before Murder, She Wrote. Only a year ago I saw the musical at
Lyric Opera of Chicago. with current opera superstar Brynn Terfel as Sweeney.
Others have commented on the operatic quality of the score. My conclusion is that
"Sweeney" works better with actors who can at least handle the vocal lines, than
with opera performers who have limited acting skills. As a final note, I commend
the performer who portrayed Tobias. with his mixed loyalties and confusion about
what is going on around him. It seemed appropriate that he had virtually the last
word.
I can't get over the quality of the score, the book, and the performances. This is
the first production I've ever seen of Sweeney Todd so I have no others to compare
it to. But the impact is so strong, I just can't imagine anything better. First, there's the music -- take "Johanna" (Act II), during which Sweeney,
Anthony and Johanna sing an interwoven vocal line incorporating the melodies from
three songs. It's like a Bach chorale in that sense -- just a masterpiece of
composition. And the underlying chord structure and voicings are so perfect -- a
little bit of melancholy, a little bit of contentment, a little bit of yearning,
all expressing these three singers' points of view. Then -- the lyrics.
The rhymes are so clever. The rhyme schemes sometimes seem random but they always
add up at the end. (The DVD, which I watched, has Closed Captions, and these are
indispensable for appreciating the dialog and the lyrics.) Sondheim deserves a
literary award for his poetry alone. Finally, the performances. I can't
imagine anyone better than George Hearn. Why haven't I heard of him before? His
singing, alone, is masterful, but the range of his acting is simply amazing. Angela
Lansbury totally surprised me. The song about "you and me down by the seaside" --
who could do it any better? Her timing is flawless, pitch is perfect, every beat of
the score is accounted for; and overlaying this achievement in musicianship is her
utterly delightful comic delivery. It's a dark tale but I found it to be
sweet at times; and the tune to "Johanna" continues to play in my head.
The genius that is Stephen Sondheim was never more prominently displayed as it was
in his 1979 "Musical Thriller" SWEENEY TODD, a Gothic, gory, grisly, yet delicious
musical concoction about a demented barber who returns to London to exact revenge
on the evil Judge who not only had him permanently exiled from London, but who is
also raising his daughter as his own and plans to marry her to "shield her from all
the evils of the world." The barber finds love,sympathy, and assistance from a
lonely pie shop owner who has her own agenda where Todd is concerned. This musical
rocked Broadway and won nine Tony Awards, including Best Musical and Best Actress
in a Musical (Angela Lansbury). The production was filmed in its entirety in 1982
with Angela Lansbury recreating her Broadway role as Mrs. Lovett, the daffy pie
shop owner who finds a practical use for the heads that Todd makes mincemeat out
of. George Hearn, who replaced Len Cariou on Broadway, is electrifying in the title
role, so much so that you have to wonder why he wasn't originally cast in the role.
Lansbury and Hearn are riveting from start to finish and commit 100% to their
ghoulish characters aided, by a first rate Sondaheim score, probably the closest
thing Sondheim has written to an opera. Lansbury shines on "The Worst Pies in
London" and "By the Sea". George Hearn stops the show with "Epiphany" and is also
compelling during "Pretty Women", a duet he sings with Judge Turpin, the man he has
sworn revenge on. Cris Groendahl is vocally impressive as Antony, the young sailer
who rescues Todd and falls for his daughter Johanna. Betsy Joselyn is a little over
the top as Johanna and really pushes vocally to the point that during "Green Funch
and Linnet Bird" she actually drives her voice off-pitch during a couple of
moments. The rest of the cast is first rate, especially Edmund Lyndeck as Judge
Turpin who gets to perform "Johanna" in this production, which was cut from the
original production and Ken Jennings as Toby, whose gorgeous tenor fills the
auditorium on "Not While I'm Around." But it is breathtaking musical score by
Stephen Sondheim and the mesmerizing performance by Lansbury an especially George
Hearn that makes this night of Gothic musical theater an experience that stays with
you long after curtain call. Not for all tastes, but if you're game and have strong
heart, SWEENEY TODD is a joy for all music theater lovers and a must for fans of
Stephen Sondheim and Angela Lansbury.
Last year, I fell in love with the Tim Burton's version of Sweeney Todd so I wanted
to check out the other versions of this musical and I found this one at the
library. Though I think Burton's is best, probably because I like film a lot better
than theater, this is still a great production of the story. I haven't seen any of
the other versions but I am trying to get my hands on them. After seeing
Johnny Depp as Todd, it's hard for me to imagine anyone else in the role, but
George Hearn does a fantastic job. Angela Lansbury is great, as always and all of
the singing is fantastic. I found myself singing along. This is a play you won't
want to miss, but try and see it before you see the film version so you won't have
a biased view like me.
I own this video as well as the concert version of the musical with Patti Lupone
and George Hearn with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. George Hearn is
fantastic in my book as are Angela Lansbury and the composer, Stephen Sondheim.
This musical is operatic in scope and shows much ingenuity in composition. I
certainly hope that this VHS becomes available on DVD!! Hearn's performance is
spookily sympathetic. The one annoying performance is the young woman who sings the
role of Joanna. I believe this performance was at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in
Los Angeles, rather than on a Broadway stage and am not sure that the minimalist
set was utilized in New York, as it was in this production. But I found the
scaffolding being dragged across the stage to be quite effective to "portray" the
streets of London. I highly recommend this movie.
"Sweeney Todd" is in my opinion one of a few "perfect" musicals. Like "My Fair
Lady" and "West Side Story" it has a wonderful, intelligent score. It offers the
two leads and several supporting characters interesting roles. It has a timeless
theme, revenge. It has a good deal of humor, and is just as powerful when presented
simply or on a grand scale. "Sweeney Todd" tells the story of a simply
wronged man during the industrial period in England. It shows mans' inhumanity to
man, how in Sweeney's own words, "There are two kinds of men. There's the one
staying put in his proper place and the one with his foot in the other one's face."
In an effort to correct the wrong that was done to him, Mr. Todd devices a plan to
seek revenge. With the help of Mrs. Lovett, who owns a meat pie shop under
Mr.Todd's barbershop, they set out to have "those above, serve those down
below". I was fortunate enough to have seen the original Broadway
version eight times (six with Cariou and Lansbury, the other two with Hearn and
Loudon). I saw the revival with Bob Gunton and Beth Fowler, and several other
concert versions. While the technical aspects in this production are
lacking, to say the least, I believe that this filmed production version is the
best. Lansbury and Hearn were the two best in these roles, and they have a
wonderful time playing off of each other. Very good supporting work by
Ken Jennings and Edmund Lyndeck. Although Betsy Joslyn and Cris Groenendaal, as the
young lovers have absolutely no chemistry, and are basically unwatchable. 9 out of 10
The story of Sweeney Todd evokes memories of the work of classic writers like
Charles Dickens, and more contemporary writers like Edward Gory. As a musical, it
naturally becomes more like the musical Les Miserables. Both deal with the grim
effects of poverty in the Industrial Revolution, and the breakdown of organized
society. But this musical is different from Les Mis in one very important aspect:
Stephen Sondheim, the songwriter who can adapt to any style. To be sure, he's had
his successes and failures, but one thing about his shows you can always count on:
They will be something unique. Who would have thought someone would write a musical
about a barber who slits people's throats and makes them into meat pies? Sondheim
did, and he did it marvelously. The entire show is set in a factory, to suggest the
ever-present catastrophic effects of the misery of those at the bottom of society,
and this serves the needs of the show perfectly. The catwalks and railings are
moved throughout to suggest streets and walkways and bridges. Techniques are
borrowed from Kabuki and Noh, with the visual stagehands and set changes. Then, to
top it all off, cast the great Angela Lansbury as the gruesomely practical and
humorous Mrs. Lovett, and George Hearn, with his operatic baritone voice, as the
murderous Todd, and you've got yourself a stellar musical vehicle. The rest of the
cast moves smoothly through the clichés of the love story perfectly, except for
Johanna and Pirelli, who sound a bit too forced. If the Johanna and Pirelli from
the Broadway show could be here, it would be perfect. Hearn acts while he sings
more than Len Cariou on the OBC album, and the accents don't sound as forced here.
Through it all Sondheim's score never fails to underline the dark seriousness of
the story. As I said, he can adapt to any style. In Follies he imitates the '30s
'40s style of showtunes, in Pacific Overtures he captures the subtle art of Asian
music, Into the Woods knocks off the 32 bar Disney style songs, and Assassins
covers a history of American music. Here, however, he does wonders in making his
score distinctly English, from parlour songs to operatic duets and soliloquies to
society waltzes to Gilbert/Sullivan style patter. And yet still, the show remains
deadly serious, even though it provokes more laughs than any musical comedy. In it
still, is a grim warning on the evils of taking revenge. Here is where this movie
makes a mistake, in cutting the Judge's solo in which he flagellates himself out of
guilt for his crimes. Without it, the Judge is just a conventional villain, and
this movie's point is that there are no straight villains. Both Todd and the Judge
learn, too late, the horrors of having to accept responsibility for their actions,
and Todd loses everything in his obsession. This is well brought out by the
chilling reprise of the grim yet rollicking Ballad of Sweeney Todd, ending the show
with Todd and Lovett rising from the grave to tell us that the end is the same: in
a world full of Sweeneys, vengeance begets only vengeance. "Attend the tale of
Sweeney Todd. He served a dark and a vengeful God. To seek revenge may lead to
Hell, but everyone does it, and seldom as well as Sweeney, as Sweeney Todd, the
Demon Barber of Fleet Street."
The creative team of Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker had their roots in
improvisational theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, I believe it was. They had a group
called 'Kentucky Fried Theatre'(or something similar.) They put a bunch of their
set pieces onto celluloid as'KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE'(1977), which was long,
irreverent, sophomoric and really funny. They followed up with the very
popular, AIRPLANE! (1980), which really put them on the map. In it, they took some
rather well known veteran actors in Robert Stack and (especially) Leslie Nielsen,
and putting them in prominent roles, proceeded to parody every cliché of every
aviation film since the days of John Wayne's (Batjac)Production of THE HIGH AND THE
MIGHTY (1954).* Pockets stuffed with cash and now having been noticed, the trio
worked out a deal with Pramount Television and the American Broadcasting Company TV
Network to do a half hour comedy spoof of the nearly countless Police Crime Drama
show that have come and gone on our television screens over the years. Remembering
the fine job that Mr. Leslie Nielsen had turned in on AIRPLANE!, he was cast in the
lead. As Sgt/Lt./Captain Frank Drebbin (the rank designation switch
being one of their comic bits),he presided over a great series of successive puns,
sight gags, non sequitors, and overblown police/crime clichés.All of these strung
together by some,seemingly standard scripts. Added to this is overly dramatic
opening narration, voiced over information contradicting the visual printed info.
They always used this in giving the title of the episode titles, where voice and
printed titles never matched. They had a great musical score, which even
though being somewhat exaggerated, would have passed as theme and incidental music
in a straight drama.The musical score, the opening titles and format of having the
episodes divided into Act I, Act II, Epilogue, etc., were all part of obvious, but
affectionate, ribbing of Q.M. (Quinn Martin) Productions. (They even had the same
announcer as did the real Q.M.'s.) One thing that this all too short of
a series did not have was a technically augmented audience laughter. And, boy they
sure didn't need any phony tract. The nature of the spoof was such that it demanded
the viewer's close, almost undivided attention, and that proved to be the ultimate
reason behind POLICE SQUAD's downfall. In regards to the series
cancellation,an ABC Executive explained that the episodes "...called for too much
attention on the part of the viewer." So, isn't that what one would want? So, after only 6 wonderfully wacky, hilarious episodes,off to the afterlife
of series cancellation went POLICE SQUAD!, only to be reborn in THE NAKED GUN
trilogy, made for the big screen in movie houses. Once again, they did quite well
at the Box Office. Oh well, TV's loss is Cinema's gain, thanks to you Mr. Idiot TV
Exec! * THE HIGH AND MIGHTY was produced by the Duke's own Batjac
Productions and released by Warner Brothers. It was unavailable for quite a number
of years and finally, Mr. Wayne's family made arrangements to release it to
television and to video.
"The Dresser" is a small but absolutely wonderful film, brilliantly acted by Albert
Finney and Tom Courtenay. How in the world this tiny film attracted enough
attention to garner five major Academy Award nominations back in 1983 is a mystery
to me, but it's nice to know the Academy can be guilty of a display of good taste
every once in a while (of course, they gave the award that year to "Terms of
Endearment"-- after all, they don't want to be accused of showing TOO much
taste). Albert Finney is a drunken Shakespearean actor in a production
of "King Lear"; Tom Courtenay is the man who works double time behind the scenes to
keep this actor in front of the footlights. It's both hilarious and piteous to see
Courtenay's character showering Finney's with attention and affection, only to see
his efforts utterly unappreciated and dismissed, even up to the very bitter end.
Finney and Courtenay work wonders together, and though Finney gets the showiest
moments (he does get to recite Shakespeare after all), Courtenay is the heart and
soul of the film. Grade: A
I saw "Sweeney Todd" on Broadway in 1980. It starred George Hearn and featured most
of the other cast principals who appeared in the national touring company
production, which was videotaped for TV in Los Angeles in 1982. Last night I
watched the new DVD release of the Los Angeles production, although I have owned
the videotape for many years. The production and the performances could have hardly
been better but the original tape's age showed because both the audio and video
quality are below modern standards, even on a newly pressed DVD. Nevertheless I
still give it 10 out of 10 because of the greatness of the work and George Hearns's
and Angella Lansbury's startlingly wonderful performances. Even today, my most
memorable recollection from a live musical theater performance has to be Hearn's
rendition of "These are My Friends." "You'll drip rubies," brrr.
I own a copy of this film and have always loved it. I comment here, however,
because I saw the PBS presentation of a concert version of Sweeney Todd earlier
this week. That production was put on by the San Francisco Opera and starred George
Hearn and Patti LuPone. In the early '80s Hearn replaced Len Cariou as Sweeney
(Cariou had won the Tony for his performance). I saw Hearn and Angela Lansbury (who
also won the Tony for her performance as Mrs. Lovett) perform Sweeney on broadway.
They must have made the film at about the time I saw the show. To this day, the
most moving moment I can ever remember in the theatre occurred when Hearn sang
"These are my Friends." ("These are my friends, see how they glisten." "My arm is
complete again!") Hearn's performance in the San Francisco Opera
production convinced me that he has lost nothing in the nearly twenty years since I
first saw him perform the piece on Broadway and later in the film. What a talent!
He is sympathetic, funny, and scary -- all at once; and he can sing, boy can he
sing. All of this reminded me of how terrific the film is. Highly recommended. Ten
out of ten.
There are no flaws in this production. Perfectly entertaining, fun, and worthy of
respect. This is what theatre is all about. Definitely not for the very
young, but slightly older kids will get a great kick out of seeing it and can be
introduced to theatre this way. Astounding and amazing.
Though the video technology may be dated, this classic musical play, now on DVD, is
the best version of Sondheim's most important and polished work on Broadway. If
you've never seen SWEENEY TODD, then you must buy this DVD. I saw this production
in November 1980 at Kennedy Center in Washington--and fell in love with a
pre-"Murder She Wrote" Angela Lansbury. Subsequently, I tried to find any and all
of her work, among them: MOVIES: "The Harvey Girls," "The Picture of Dorian Gray,"
"Manchurian Candidate"; CDs: "Mame," "Dear World," and "Gypsy"; and many more. The
rest of the cast is flawless, too. All in all, this wonderful DVD gives us the
definitive version of Sondheim's opera!
Even if you're not a "theatre person," I highly recommend that you see this. Based
off of a play of the same name by Christopher Bond (which, in turn, had been based
off of an old London legend), Sondheim did a wonderful job bringing it to the
musical theatre stage. The score is just amazing-- by far Sondheim's best, and
probably one of the best scores written for a musical ever. The show was cast
extremely well, my only complaint being of Betsy Joscelyn's portrayal of Johanna.
It;s good, mind you, and she's a very versatile actress, but she just doesn't sing
"Greenfinch and Linnet Bird" too well. But other than that, it's all phenomenal--
Angela Lansbury *made* the role of Mrs. Lovette, and she just does it so well.
George Hearn was a good replacement for Len Cariou in the title role, and Ken
Jennings gives a great performance as Tobias. The ending will give you chills. Top
marks for a wonderful show.
I have only praise for this film. From start to finish it captured the brilliance
of Stephen Sondheim's musical. I am not a big fan of musicals most of them are very
overdone. This one however changed my mind. I am an actor myself and have actully
played Sweeney and I know how hard this role is. George Hearn gave a stunning,
masterful and rounded performance worthy of the highest awards that we can give him
(He won an Emmy and that's something.) Everything he does he turns to gold. He is
so good it will blow your mind why he's not in films winning oscars. Lansbury is
also very good and very funny. Sara Woods is creepy and wonderful as the Beggar
Woman. All in all a great video. Pick it up if you can.
First of all, I have watched this show since I was a little toddler, and I have
always loved it. Sure, maybe I didn't understand it when I was that young, but I
still enjoyed it! And now that I have been able to understand it for several years,
I love it even more. The score of this musical is the most wonderfully detailed
score I have ever heard! Every note is perfect, I don't even need to hear the
singing to enjoy it! Moving on to this particular production- This is
magnificent! Of course no one could play Mrs. Lovett besides Angela Lansbury, and
she does it perfectly. And she should, she has been playing this part for several
years. George Hearn is absolutely brilliant. The best Sweeney Todd I have ever
heard. He has a wonderful voice, yet he can throw his voice so well! His "epiphany"
is incredible, as you can tell by the audience's reaction to it. The Judge, Toby,
Antony, and Pirelli are also so wonderful in their roles. Everyone is perfect!
Well, I still have to fast forward through Johanna's Green finch and linnet bird.
She just doesn't sing that song well at all. This show CAN be
appreciated at all ages, but it is not always accepted. I am not your typical
middle-aged theater lover, I am only 15 years old, yet Sweeney Todd has given me a
greater appreciation for music than I have gotten from any other musical.
Dark and bleak sets, thrilling music that cuts through your spin like aknife (or
razor) a perfect cast lead by Broadway greats Hearn and Lansbury. This is exciting
theatre flawlessly transferred to the small screen. Sondheim is the most talented
songwriter of our age and Todd is his Masterpiece, from the Brechtian opening
ballad to the darkly humorous Act I finale- "A Little Priest" where Lovett and Todd
fantasize about the victims that will wind up in their meat pies , this play never
ceases to thrill,excite and satisfy. Betsy Joslyn also excels as Johanna, even she,
as the plays ingenue seems slightly mad.Edmund Lyndeck turns in a bravado
performance as the corrupt Judge who lusts after Joslyn and is the subject of
Todd's vendetta. Lansbury and Hearn command the show as only two great actor/stars
can do. Other musical highlights include Todd's "johanna" Lovett's "worst pies in
London" and the Act II opening 'GOD THATS GOOD", And that is a title to describe
this production !
There is a solid group of people that have lives like this girl going through the
admissions process at school. The parental absence at all important junctures in
Lauren Ambrose's school search provide admissions interviews only and draws the
interviews with them at below transcript quality review that in 30 minutes
sabotages four years of high school grading. The incident of anger in her mother
obviously block a mothers display of possible physical abuse of her or her disabled
sister at one time or another; thus masking her Mother's truer involvement in
family losses. The daughter, Lauren, really has done something big - trying to make
her mother fulfilled and then that plan itself, somewhat heroic in light of the age
she is - still giving when everyone around her taking, somersaults on her. A heart
not yet connected to her head - something that age has never had a genuine answer
to even to this day. Her replacement of a significant other, not necessarily
requiring a father image, however, a trusted authority nonetheless being imagined
if not real. A pure cup without a handler .......(see the movie). Everyone needs a
friend to see through understanding of a proportional world - she made hers up on
what she knew of life at the time. She has all the mental capacity for higher
learning though having no friends present for her time makes the ending a
developmental tragedy in progress ... given a bird in a cage... not a puppy... that
would a least get her walking two times a day. Ideas out of the roof she is under
would be the developing on her sidewalk life. Sad is the looming psychiatric
ending... how could she be committed at a time when she has proved an important
responsibility? (believe it or not taking of a dog is a better witness than taking
care of a bird at this time of her life) The symbolic cage of her in a cage is too
much mental and self fulfilling of some of her writings within the story. The
neighbor college freshman is developed just fine, he is as developed as the
training education will allow for the mental maturity that dwarfs her eternal
purpose compared to his fateful conditioning. I myself, eventually just went to the
Mensa magazine and got a $20.00 degree saying I was an (Hon)DDiv. It offered all
the education that buying the truth would and independence to skip fecal content.
"Run the world" or do not get your own home was the college offer. Who was freeing
anyone for superior time for the learning? The only sin is not having your pleasure
right. What fight figged on that? She has been denied an act for life commensurate
to her love for life. What is college, a reward for failing high school? Do you
graduate with your class or without it - what is the exchange? A lifetime of
correcting youth with only questions? Could lead occur w/o a question? The loss
followed as much for good as bad. When was she given a mind for sexual intimacy or
growth for her good self to be fulfilled? Why didn't good people treat her with
good things? If good people do not do good things for good people, what is good
for? She is young, pretty and walked on long before personal development is given a
winning game. Her act taken in life with a closed door. Perhaps the title would be
better as "Christmas Doors" not "Admissions".
At first I didn't think that the performance by Lauren Ambrose was anything but
flaky, but as her character developed the portrayal made more sense. Amy Madigan
seemed too terse for her role and didn't really tie her daughter's characters
together, even though it was apparent that her character was disengaged with the
character played by Lauren Ambrose. Christopher Lloyd is a hit as usual
and carried off his role to encourage the story line. His character development
left the audience wondering why he was chastised by the younger characters and
could have been accomplished more directly with The overwhelming glue
to this somewhat vague story line was play by Taylor Roberts. Her comprehensive
delivery of a simplistic character held the movie together. In this pivotal role,
Taylor was able to encourage a realistic family relationship between the characters
while acting as the antagonist for all of the other relationships in the film.
After reading over all these reviews I'm very surprised to see that no one has even
once noted that this show was based on the 1957 to 1960 NBC cop show "M Squad"
starring Lee Marvin, i read reviews comparing it to "Dragnet" and some of the Quinn
Martin police shows, but if you watch M Squad you'll see it was based on it. In the
late 1958 episodes of M Squad onwards, you'll see Lee Marvin who plays Lieutenant
Detective Frank Ballinger get out of his car and then hes shot at,and he shoots
back, the beginning of Police Squad is basically the same ( including the Jazz
music) and then Lee Marvin narrates what goes on, (Im Lieutenant Detective Frank
Ballinger,M Squad,a special department of the Chicago police) and in Police Squad
Leslie Neilsen does the same (Im Detective Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad, a
special division of the Police Department) and so on, in one of the M Squad
episodes there's even the Johnny the shoeshine guy character and in a M Squad
episode entitled " More Deadly" there's a Police Squad episode entitled "A
Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise)" which is the same story!
I was surprised to like this movie since I'm from the "check your brain at the door
and have fun" school of film viewing. However, this film touched my heart. I have
friends like mentally retarded Emily. I have friends like unsocialized Evie. And
I've been in Evie's shoes, chasing away opportunity out of fear and out of devotion
to others. Amy Madigan's disappointment in her daughters was almost
palpable on screen and the awkward moments where she tried to bridge the gap with
Evie were raw and painful to watch. And perhaps I am denser than most, but I never
saw the twist with Evie's father coming. Usually I cotton on to those things rather
quickly. My reservations are similar to others posted here. I thought
Christopher Lloyd's wonderful, sympathetic character (a very different role for
him, I thought) was underused. What happened to him once he realized what was going
on with the poetry? Would he, like James, try again??? Second, the ending, such as
it was, didn't seem to resolve or accomplish anything. I didn't expect the pieces
to be picked up and all the ends tied neatly, but I felt that I was left at odds
with the characters, that there was no real healing taking place here or any real
efforts at healing being made. Otherwise, exquisite and lyrical and
disturbing and, for some, very, very true.
We have a character named Evie. Evie just wants to be a good person. She's nice,
friendly, smiles often, but is strangely brutally honest. Evie also has a secret.
Her idiot-savant sister has been reciting original poetry, which is getting the
community excited about the sister writing. Unfortunately, it's Evie's poetry.
While their mother starts being happy again and the boy next door shows his
interest in Evie, Evie just tries to figure out what she really wants to do. What to keep in mind while watching this movie is who Evie really is. For
such a brutally honest person who doesn't mind telling Ivy-league types that she
doesn't respect them, it would seem odd that she would be able to pull off a lie.
For someone so happy and cheerful, she's quite emotionless when it comes to certain
issues. Those aren't character flaws, they're plot development, and they mean a lot
more than they at first seem. Mostly this is something of a melodrama: a
character lies, the other characters' personalities propel them through drama as
relationships are held at risk. But in terms of the writing it's very fresh and
bold. The acting helps the writing along very well (maybe the idiot-savant sister
could have been played better), and it is a real joy to watch. The
directing and the cinematography aren't quite as good. They're acceptable, and
Evie's world is wreathed in color and light, which makes for some very beautiful
images, but it's not very consistent. It's not really so much of a flaw as a result
of a low production value, but within that same value is some genuine storytelling
and a real care for the characters. So while it isn't a perfect movie, it's
certainly an enjoyable one. --PolarisDiB
I have had the opportunity to catch this independent film and was impressed with
it, despite the lack of excitement in the plot. The acting was very good by
everyone involved. Amy Madigan played the part of a guilt ridden mother who is
tired, yet well intentioned and determined to make up for her younger daughter's
condition. Yet, in the process, she has neglected her older sister, who is more
interested in playing with her savant-syndrome sibling and living in a world of
escapism. The men in the movie are very powerful in their secondary
roles. Christopher Lloyd, in a very understated role, shows us why he has such
versatility. He plays a teacher who is dedicated to his profession and literature
research, yet starved for a meaningful relationship. He and Madigan connect very
well in their scenes together, yet both know nothing more can come from their
friendship. Their wordless goodbye is nothing short of brilliant, an acting lesson
for aspiring performers. And in a small role, Fred Savage is fun to
watch. You can tell why this movie was based on a play, it's probably
very good on stage. On screen, it's not particularly exciting, but it's nonetheless
very thoughtful and powerful in its subtleties.
I very much enjoyed this movie and I think most fans of Lauren Ambrose will too.
Her character is much softer than her role in Six Feet Under and all of the
performances are strong. I especially enjoyed the way the role of Emily, a mentally
challenged savant, was handled. Despite some other misinformed user reviews the
role was performed accurately and without cliché by the actress, Taylor Roberts.
Also a standout was Fran Kranz, whose natural ease well complemented the more
season veteran actors. Although the direction hit a snag here or there it seemed
the only problems were with an underdeveloped script. What maybe worked well as a
stage-play didn't hold out quite so well on screen. However the lovely
cinematography by Paul Ryan definitely makes up for that, as well as the pace of
the film, which is surprisingly not slow. I recommend this movie to fans of six
feet under and also fans of plain good acting and cinematography.
The Brighton has a traumatic drama in the breast of their family: the twenty years
old Emily Brighton (Taylor Roberts) is retarded due to a fall when she was one, and
her overprotective mother Martha Brighton (Amy Madigan) blames her negligence for
the accident. The seventeen years old Evie Brighton (Lauren Ambrose) loves her
sister and reads poems and stories for Emily. Their father Harry Brighton (John
Savage), a bank investor, lives in the basement with his models of trains and
railroads. Evie mysteriously sabotages her interviews for different universities
being rejected, and teaches the poetries of her own to Emily. When Martha hears
Emily repeating the poems, she takes notes and shows them to the English teacher
Stewart Worthy (Christopher Lloyd), who believes that Emily has had a moment of
geniuses. When Evie's only friend James (Fran Kranz) reads the notes, he
immediately discloses the truth about the authority of the poetries. But when
Martha becomes aware, she finds the reality of Evie, triggering a series of
revelations. "Admissions" is a very powerful drama about needy of love
and guilty complex. The performances are stunning, and this is the first work of
Lauren Ambrose, from "Six Feet Under", that I see and she is amazing. This
independent movie is an excellent choice for the viewers that are looking for a
refreshing story based on the acting of the cast. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "Cumplicidade" ("Complicity")
"Admissions" is a fine drama even though they're are some problems with the ending.
Lauren Ambrose plays Evie who is trying to avoid college. To make her overworked
mother not notice, she makes up poems that everybody thinks her mentally challenged
sister wrote. All the acting is first-rate especially Lauren Ambrose and Amy
Madigan. They both put in great performances. The climax is also very powerful.
There are only two bad parts. First is the character of Stewart Worthy played by
Christopher Lloyd. His part is underdeveloped. The other weakness is the ending. It
goes around in circles, which I didn't expect with the 84 min run time. Besides
that, the movie is definitely worth watching.
This film was a huge surprise to me while i watched it at Cinequest in the big
California Theatre in San Jose. It's a musical, which normally I don't like, but I
have to say this one was different. Robert Peters, who directed the film and stared
in it, did such a wonderful job. During his Q & A he told the audience that he only
had two other people for his crew! Most of the dialouge was made up on the fly and
he actually made the film while attending another film festival in Germany! I can't
say enough great things about this movie, the only bad thing is that you really
tend to notice the camera work and it shakes a bit. If you happen to come across
this film- check it out!
"Half Empty" is a hilarious musical about the eternal optimist in this case, a
self-help book writer who goes to Germany mistakenly thinking he's popular there.
Instead of an adoring audience, he finds himself adrift in a world of jaded
misanthropes, including the woman who is supposed to be his publicist. His attempts
to make friendsin scenes that are largely improvisedlead to one great encounter
after another when he is verbally abused by nihilistic musicians, gruff gangsters,
etc. In time, he manages to win over his publicistboth her heart and her mind--but
his own world view is shaken when his hero, a much more popular self-help writer,
turns out to be not quite what he seems. The action is punctuated by several
musical numbers. We saw this at the DeadCenter film festival in Oklahoma
City and were blown away. This is a really funny, inspired small-scale indie
production. You could quibble about a few technical things (like the lighting,
which is a bit dark) but the piece is funny and inspired enough that you can't care
too much. If Voltaire were writing "Candide" today, the character would be a self-
help writer.
Had the fun pleasure of viewing a new independent film called "Half Empty." I
usually go out to the local cinema with my husband and feel as if we are held
captive to the latest Sequel, or Prequel that Hollywood throws at us. This was
DIFFERENT and surprisingly SO MUCH more entertaining than anything Hollywood
spends millions advertising. When my husband and I go the movies, we go to be
entertained and "Half Empty" did just that and the film did so in a smart manner
that made me feel as if my trip to the movie theater was worth it. It is a funny,
human, and surprising sometimes musical story that cleverly entertains in its
simplicity. I especially enjoyed the scene with the 4 men singing in harmony in the
bathroom. It is almost like an operetta. That particular scene reminded me of a
scene in "Phantom of the Opera" when 4 of the performers did not just, i.e., they
sang against one another in a friendly retort. I am not a film maven but this film
was more enjoyable than any other major studio film I have seen lately. It is
silly, funny, entertaining and amusing. Completely enjoyable which is what I
expect from movies but rarely do they deliver like "Half Empty."
this film explores if not creates a whole new genre with perfect imperfection ---
hilarity, truth, fun, talent and circumstance that make for MAGIC. from
creative musical numbers to off the cuff comedy that incorporates actors at their
very best, if i hadn't have known better, i would have thought there was an
elaborate script here. what you get: a mighty wind meets conversations
with god meets something so fresh and new and delightful that it becomes it's own
entity. peters and fell both give stellar performances and reel you in
immediately. the rest of the cast is also phenomenal. there are no small
parts....... only small actors, and everyone involved here should be patted on the
back, taken out to dinner and be considered for an Oscar. well done!
Police Squad! (1982) was a funny show that ended too soon. But I guess it had it's
run before it got too repetitive and unfunny like so many American television
shows. The geniuses behind this funny show were the team of Zucker, Abrahams and
Zucker. Every since his straight act in the comedy hit AIRPLANE!, Leslie Nielsen
has found a new career as a comedian. In this short lived t.v. series he had the
chance to play the straight man in a wacky comedy once more. The bizarre titles to
each episode gave away the ending. But Lt. Drebrin (Leslie Nielsen) got into so
many weird cases that they have to be seen to be believed. Tooo bad they
never released this on D.V.D. If a show needed to be re-released it would have to
be this one. A whole new generation is waiting to see this show! Highly
recommended!
For anyone who has ever sought happiness, "Half Empty" is a must-see. This original
cross- cultural musical comedy has hilarious numbers, which make "The Producers"
seem boringly staid. Writer Bob Patterson puts his soul into sharing his thoughts
on life, wisdom and happiness, even scribbling inspirational comments on index
cards as his girlfriend spills her heart out, ending their relationship. When his
book on happiness, "North Star" finds zero success in the States, his publishers
send him to Germany for a book signing tour. While explaining their decision to
Bob, the boardroom erupts into a rousing song which would make Monty Python proud.
From his arrival in Hamburg, Bob's complete ignorance of the German language leaves
him at a distinct disadvantage. However, he soldiers on, impervious of his hosts
true feelings towards him, until a wildly devoted fan arrives and changes
everyone's reaction toward him. The original songs propel the film,
often describing the subtext of the story in side-splitting precision. The cast,
led by Robert Peters, exhibit an immaculately dry sense of humor and inhabit their
characters as if they were not acting. See it for: A case study of how good
intentions are totally irrelevant; How merciless Americans abroad are viewed; How
little reason it takes to burst into song, and, above all, For a silly,
entertaining, unconventional laugh.
This is a great movie. Too bad it is not available on home video.
One of the funniest films I ever saw in the theater back in the early '70s, and
sadly, it's only been on TV a few times since. This movie should be released on
video. It's Sellers at his sleaziest, slimiest best as a crooked hospital
administrator. Great cast, great movie. If anyone has a good VHS copy, I'd love to
buy it.
Hilarious, Sellers at his funniest ... a shame you can't get this on video, or even
see it on TV anymore ... I'd love to get a good copy somewhere. Maybe it's tied up
in court on some legal issue, but a truly riotous hospital farce with Sellers as
crooked administrator.
This is one of Peter Sellers' best movies. Why is it never shown on TV or movie
theaters? Will it ever be released as a home movie? Is it too derogatory for the
medical field? I would love to see this movie again. I would like my son, who is a
doctor,to see it. Laughter is the best medicine and Peter Sellers is the best
doctor for this.
I'm having as much fun reading the user comments as I did watching the movie! It
seems that this is the classic either "Love it" or "Hate it" movie. And I have to
say that I not only am on the "Love it" side, I'm going on a limb to say it this my
FAVORITE movie, EVER! Thank heavens I found it in the first place. Almost
IMPOSSIBLE to find, I was lucky about ten years ago to record it off a late night
UHF channel. Of course my liking of Sellers may make me a bit biased, but I can't
see how anyone with a cornball, dry sense of humor (like me), can not be in love
with this flick. The plot is great (but perhaps as a previous poster said, maybe
the reason why it's not a widely known movie ... upset the medical field?) the
acting is great (I can see why some may say the acting was horrible ... but that's
what made this movie so great ... it's total tacky-ness) and the humor is gut
busting. I'm proud to say I have watched this film no less than about 20 times and
have pretty much every line memorized. This film is genius!!
I saw this movie in a theater while on vacation in Pablo CO. I had just quit my
biomedical engineering job at a hospital. I consider the script to be a
exaggeration of the real type of stuff that goes on in hospitals. The
idiots that put it down on production value don't get the point and probably have
never been hospitalized. And never worked in one for sure. Billy Jack (same era)
was very poorly produced but had a significant social comment and was a very good
movie with a real social message. I have ever since been looking for
this movie this is the first site I have found where it get mentioned.
It has been since 1972 that I saw this movie and I still remember it as one of my
favorite all time movies. I would buy a copy if it were on DVD and it is too bad it
isn't. You would think that anything starring Peter Sellers would be brought back.
Much better than "Being There" and as good as the Pink Panther series. Uschi Digard
had a small part for such a well endowed performer. She is bonus in this movie. I
think the medical field may not appreciate this film as it really makes fun of the
profession and it also makes one appreciate that Sellers was never available to
treat them as his bed side manner sucked as well did his analysis of urine samples.
I remember seeing this film in my late teens or early twenties on TV - probably
HBO. I watched it with my parents, a brother and a few friends. Since that was
about 30 years ago, I don't remember a lot of the story. I do remember that the
entire group of us watching agreed that this was the funniest movie we had ever
seen. When it was over, our bellies hurt from so much laughing. My dad worked at a
hospital, so that made it all the better. Every time I see The Party in
the TV listings, I look to see if this one is there, too. To my dismay, it never
is. Although I loved The Party, I feel this one is funnier. Peter Sellers was great
as a crooked hospital administrator. Why it's never been released on video is a
mystery to me. It's a classic, but it appears that nobody under 35 or 40 has been
allowed to see it. I'd buy it in a second if they ever release it to DVD.
Though often considered Peter Sellers' worst film, it is in fact an excellent send-
up of medical corporate corruption and abuses of power. Often misunderstood, the
film is actually a departure from the type of film Sellers was best known for;
satirical farce. This film had excellent performances by Jo Ann Pflug and Pat
Morita (of Happy Days and the Karate Kid movies), but was marked by its ribaldary,
irreverence, and total madcap demolition of the medical industry of the day. It was
ahead of its time (1972) in taking the outrageous path that the Monty Python crew
would take into the cinema some time later. As such, it was unacceptable to the
traditional Peter Sellers fan, who found the more pointed barbs in this humor to be
something to which they were unaccustomed. Presently, Peter Sellers movies are in
demand by fans, but this effort, Where Does It Hurt?, has by its nature become
almost impossible to find.
The funniest show ever on TV, albeit the humor is not for everyone. I realize it
would have been hard to keep the show fresh if it had ran longer, but it's a shame
only six episodes were filmed. The gags fly rapidly from the opening credits until
the very end, when you would see Drebin and his boss, Ed Hocken, pretending to be
in freeze frame as the closing credits rolled, during which the criminal (still
moving) would see everyone else motionless and try to escape. In another episode,
the building started collapsing around them as Drebin and Hocken remained in freeze
mode. Leslie Nielsen was comedic brilliance as Frank Drebin and the
perfect fit for this show how he managed to keep a straight face through some of
this is beyond me. Because the jokes and sight gags came so often and quick, you
can watch the episodes a 2nd and 3rd time and catch things you missed the first
time. If you're like me, you can watch them over and over and still find yourself
laughing. Even the jokes that made no sense nor seemingly had any reason to them,
such as the "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln" tag-line in the opening announcement,
somehow worked perhaps they were thrown in there precisely for that reason. Cleverly spoofing the old Quinn Martin detective/cop shows of the 1970s,
Police Squad would return from commercial break with the words "Act Two" appearing
on the screen, which was immediately followed by "Yankees One" or some other quip.
On the opening credits, the episode's title would appear on the screen, but the
announcer would utter a completely different title. My favorite jokes and lines
from this series are way too numerous to list, but one of my favorites is when
Drebin asks a down-on-his-luck boxer who has previously tanked fights, "Do you
think you can beat the Champ?" The boxer responds, "I can take him blindfolded!" To
which Drebin responds back, "But what if he's not blindfolded?" A minute later, in
reference to the boxer's small, dingy apartment, Drebin tells him, "I'm going to
help you get out of this sewer." The next thing you see, Drebin is popping up
through a manhole cover on the street! In another episode, Drebin and Hocken are
questioning a bombing suspect's flimsy alibi. Drebin, not believing him, says,
"Alright, let's say you did go the movies." After a slight pause, Drebin, Hocken,
and the suspect all look at the camera and in unison say, "You did go the movies."
A few moments later, when Drebin is forced to let the suspected bomber walk free
due to lack of evidence, he storms away and angrily yells, "Tell that bomber to
take off!" What's seen next is a cop giving the thumbs-up signal to a WWII-style
plane on a runway right outside the building! While there were many classic Drebin
quotes, one particularly memorable one was, "Sorry to bother you Mrs. Twice. We
would have come earlier, but your husband wasn't dead then." Another classic was,
"I'm a locksmith and, I'm a locksmith." When a visibly shaken kidnap victim's
father asks Drebin, "What I do I do?" Drebin, in classic deadpan fashion,
responds back, "Well, as I understand it, you're in the textile business." As I
said, the humor is not for everyone many people simply will not "get" it. During
the show's brief run, I remember the reaction being very mixed. Some people thought
it was absolutely hysterical and one of the funniest things around, while others
thought it was the stupid and unfunny. For me, Police Squad, even 20+ years later,
is the funniest thing I've ever seen on TV. For younger viewers who enjoy this type
of humor but who have never seen Police Squad because they were too young when the
series initially aired, I highly recommend. I found the six episodes to be even
funnier than the subsequent "Naked Gun" movies.
I cannot understand why this 1971 Hollywood production is currently only available
through an Australian video company,but such is the unfortunate obscurity of this
Peter Sellers classic(Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide continues to grant it the same
BOMB review they gave it in the 1970's).With so many scene stealers on
display,Sellers comes through with what may perhaps be his most hilarious role.It
all begins with his discovery of a patient who expired at 11:15AM,but Sellers
argues that the corpse is still living due to the fact that the new day doesn't
start until noon! The final straw for the beleaguered hospital commissioner comes
in that very room,the DO NOT DISTURB sign still on the door; once he exits the
room(handkerchief holding his nose),there is a brief conversation with the doctor
with him- DOCTOR:"We can't save them all! That man was at least 85! COMMISSIONER:
"How old was he when he died,63?" Harold Gould plays an inept surgeon who shuts his
eyes when the knife digs in,Richard Lenz(whose "pompous ass" reporter in "The
Shootist" was booted in the rear by John Wayne)plays the patient who exposes the
fraud(he only came in for a chest x-ray,until they discovered he owns a house).Also
in the cast on screen(and supplying some excellent country-flavored music)is Keith
Allison,former guitarist for Paul Revere and the Raiders,who also worked with
Michael Nesmith on a few Monkees recordings(and co-wrote "Auntie's Municipal Court"
with Nesmith on 1968's "The Birds,the Bees,and the Monkees").Alas,there is some
missing footage from this print,including a topless sequence with Uschi Digard near
the end,also a scene with actress Kathleen Freeman(who wants to use green stamps to
finance her operation),who gets locked by Sellers in his office,never to be seen
again(in the uncut version,he returns to his office to find that she has written in
large letters on the wall "UNFAIR PRICK" ; his response? "you misspelled price!").
There's a good running bit about the price tag of a silk negligee. The bimbo in the
office shows off the bargain she got for $22 (closeup of tag). Later, Mary Astor
finds the tag in the boss's bedroom (proof that bimbo slept with him). Still later,
Mary Astor is about to have an affair with Ricardo Cortez, looks at the price tag
of HER silk negligee ($14) and is reminded of how disgusted she was about the
bimbo, as well as the fact that she's spent $8 less than the "most obvious" woman
she's ever met. It sounds an obvious morality turn, but it was well done. The film
would be stronger if Robert Ames' character had been played by a more powerful
actor (he's too low-key for a self-made salesman and he spends most of the film
with his face turned away from the camera), and if Ricardo Cortez had been given
more to do than smile ironically. Both male leads are bland and forgettable, and
are hindered by the pancake male makeup so popular in this film's era. However, the
Mary Astor character is interesting, appealing and believable. Behind Closed Doors
is well worth seeing.
I tivo'd this on Turner Classic just because it was pre-code and sounded
interesting. When I got around to watching, I noticed that the "critique" gave it
one and a half stars on a four-star scale. I started watching with trepidation --
even old movies can be bad movies -- but I quickly got engaged in the story and
Mary Astor's performance as the business brains behind a simple salesman's rise to
success. Not a truly great movie -- too predictable -- but certainly better than
advertised. And I would have liked to have seen more of Ricardo Cortez as the man
who appreciates Mary but won't give up his wealthy wife. I'd recommend giving it a
look just to appreciate Astor and what a long way we've come, baby.
Terrific little film that stars Mary Astor as a go-getter who works her way up as a
struggling paper company, but when the owner has to sell for health reasons, she
comes up with a scheme for the employees to buy the company with a jerk salesman
(Robert Ames) as the "front" even though she is the brains. Of course he
becomes a big success and she becomes his executive secretary, basically still
running everything and teaching him class. She loves the dope, but he never catches
on as he fools around with a string of bimbos. She is chased by a married but
separated man, Ricardo Cortez, who isn't free. But when a society gal catches Ames,
everything goes to hell. Astor is just wonderful as the too-smart woman
who almost makes a huge mistake after she loses her man. Ames is good as the jerk
(but what does she see in him?), and Cortez is good but doesn't have much to do.
Kitty Kelly is good as the sidekick, Dolores. Charles Sellon is the original owner,
Cather Dale Owen is the society babe, and Edna Murphy is funny as Daisy. Worth a look.
This is a pretty clever, well-acted version of the "modern" 30s woman's fairytale
romance. In this case, she helps the man she loves become head of the company while
serving as his secretary and eventually wins his love from a scheming social
butterfly. Interestingly, her business sense is shown as subtly parallel to her
homemaking prowess, and the ladies of the office are depicted as the "powers behind
the throne." Lifted way above the average by Mrs. Astor's intelligent performance.
Is this a good movie? No, certainly not. But for Jolie lovers it's must-have. Her
non-polished acting and semi-nudity scene will please her fans for ages to come.
The current rating however (3.2) is too low. The movie might lack a good storyline,
and isn't a great sf-movie altogether but the acting is good enough (and like
mentioned before, Jolie's acting is nice and raw), the movie is shot very direct,
with a lot of close-ups. The scenery is bizarre. And last but not least, leaving
van Damme out was a very good choice. Presumably, non of the Jolie lovers would
like to see her having sex with him. This movie has all the potential of becoming a
cult movie.
This was a pretty good movie that was overall done quite well. The idea about Mercy
(won't spoil) was original also. I think Angelina did a good job as one of her
first movies. The only things I frowned upon were some of the corny fight scenes
(won't spoil either). I liked the first movie and I liked this one as well. 7/10
I caught this movie late night on TV, and was expecting a low-budget campy
"masterpiece", I was surprised with a pretty decent movie. Angelina Jolie's unique
acting capabilities (or should I say lack thereof?) make her perfect as an android,
and the other actors, while terribly average, are at least not terrible. There is a plot; a fairly intricate plot at that, involving conspiracies
and the lengths a couple (one human, one android) will go to pursue their illegal
romance, with a "big brother"-type figure and android assassin thrown in the mix.
The production and sets, also, were much better than I expected. I haven't seen the
original Cyborg, so I can't really compare it to much else; granted this film is no
Blade Runner, but as a late-night, futuristic guilty pleasure, its worth a watch.
This sci-fi great fortunately has little to do with the first one. Elias
Koteas,Jack Palance play good roles Angelina is hot and gets naked.Billy Drago
appears in this and is cool as usual + a cameo by Sven ole Thorsen helps make this
a very enjoyable movie with good acting and a decent budget.
I was just looking at the 100 bottom movies according to IMDb users seeing if there
was anything to review that I haven't yet and I found this little screen gem. One
of those occasions when you see a movie ranked as one of the worst and you just
have to be one of the few that actually likes it. Darn, well I guess I will get
ridiculed and spat upon here, but for me this was a pretty good flick when I saw
it. It has been awhile however, I remember it used to come on HBO late at night and
I watched it two or three times and I haven't seen it really since and I would love
to watch it again now knowing Jolie was in it. The story follows a cyborg and a guy
trying to escape the clutches of this corporation and some bounty hunters after
them. I think that is basically all there is to it, throw in a few scenes with Jack
Palance and we have our movie. Some good action here and there, and some blood and
violence as well. There is also a love story at play as well as the female cyborg
and the guy who trained her to fight kind of fall in love with each other. The
dialog sometimes becomes rather bad at times and it is by far not a top notch film,
but for a b-movie it is really good. I don't know if it was a theatrical release
though because it does not seem high quality enough for that, but it does make for
one of the better direct to videos if it was one of those.
Two years after 'Airplane!' took off, Jim Abrahams, Jerry and David Zucker cast one
of its stars - Leslie Nielsen - in this hilarious television series, a glorious
take-off of old U.S. detective shows such as 'Dragnet'. Nielsen played Frank
Drebin, America's answer to 'Inspector Clouseau'. It had the same style of humour
as 'Airplane!'; clever visual gags in the background, unnoticed absurdities, and
recurring characters such as Johnny the shoe-shine boy who seems to know everything
about everything. Guest-stars ( including William Shatner! ) were killed off in the
opening credits. 'Police Squad' was the first U.S. sitcom since 'Batman' to lack a
laugh track. Many have lamented the fact that only six episodes were made, but I
think it was about right. The concept could never have sustained a full 24-episode
run. Five years later, 'Police Squad' made a successful transfer to the big screen,
when the first of the 'Naked Gun' trilogy was released. Jim, Jerry, David, and
Leslie had the last laugh.
I'd like to point out these excellent points in favor of this movie: #1
Angelina Jolie sex scene #2 Foley artist outdid themselves #3 plot was quite thick #4 DVD does includes trailers and chapter
stops #5 no animals were harmed in the making of the movie #6 homages to blade runner through out the film #7 burning trash cans
 #8 funny guy with no legs #9 Voice overs by Jack Palance
added a real dynamic element to the film. #10 Sage advise, for example
"When you dine with the devil bring a long spoon". #11 Angelina Jolie
was only 18! To sum it up: an evening of entertainment was provided.
This is one of the best episodes of Doctor Who EVER. We have the Cybermen, The
Cyber conversion units (May scare young children) and of coarse the Doctor doing
one of his best acts. Bravo David Tennant. Good scenes as if it was a movie, with
thrilling scenes in some streets, an invasion on the Cyberman's base, and leaving
the world different to ours, basically a 45 minute movie. Being Part 2
of Rise of the Cybermen, this would never disappoint. With it having a great build
up to the final. The Doctor plus an evil enemy (Daleks, Cybermen,
Master, Sontarans, Davros, Autons, or even Macra) is a battle to the death, just be
careful with young children watching this.
Okay so there were the odd hole in the plot you could drive a zeppelin through, but
how well was the emotional stuff handled? It would have been so easy to descend
into cheesiness but the writer pulled it off. The image of the ex female cyberman
making crying noises as she/it saw her reflection after regaining her emotions is
one that will stay with me forever. That's twice now the monsters have shown a soft
side and been presented fleetingly sympathetically, the previous being the last
Dalek from series one, but by Jove it's worked. Add to that the other ex-female who
had been "upgraded" on the eve of her wedding, and Jackie Tyler recognising her
husband after she had become "cyber" and you have a permanent throat lump. Keep it
up!
Beginning where it left off, Doctor Who, Rose, her alternative dad, Mickey, his
alternative counterpart Ricky, and Mickey's small gang of rebels find themselves at
the mercy of this realities version of the Cybermen, this second part of the 2
episode Cybermen arc feels more like a Doctor Who episode, as opposed to the
previous part which honestly felt like more of an episode of the defunct show
"Sliders", which granted was a great show in it's own right. The arc as a whole was
enjoyable enough as I'm one to subscribe to the maxim that ANY Who is good Who, but
at the same time it's inevitable that this will be compared to the Dalek episode of
the previous series. And said comparisons would only make this seem like a lesser
work, as it is. I just feel that this story could've been done in one episode.
Remember in the first part of the review I said that these type of stories dealing
with alternative realities usually have no lasting repercussions, well that's not
the case here, but what changes overall feels tagged on and not really in keeping
with the character. My Grade: C+
Age of Steel follows up the previous episode, Rise of the Cybermen, which was
excellent in some respects, lacking in others. RotC had some positive elements, the
most important being Tennant's excellent portrayal of the Doctor. Indeed, his sort
of daft giddiness bears, to this writer, the shadow of Tom Baker's Doctor, with his
sort of subconscious asides (as when ticking off time periods when Mickey is
holding down the button in the Tardis), yet brings his own aloof superiority a la
McCoy's Doctor as he lets events coalesce around him. Some reviewers and fans whose
pieces I've read seem a bit dismayed at having such a young actor portray someone
who must by now be over a 1000 old, but I disagree. Tennant's Doctor does indeed
"bear the weight of the world on his shoulders" as he points out in this episode,
and one can see this in his almost smug characterization, as when he finally
confronts Lumic/The Cybercontroller in the climax. His world-weary, eyes-rolling
"anothermaniacherewegoagain" sort of attitude is refreshing, especially after
Eccleston's excellent pseudo-working class, bada** interpretation of the character,
more the man of action than Tennant's fresh-faced pseudo-doofus. Tennant's best
moment is perhaps after the end when he is restoring the Tardis with his big goofy
Baker-esquire grin as the Tardis re-starts. Here we begin to get a feeling for this
new Doctor, a character who is little more than the average person's different
personality facets split up into 13 different people; some contradictory, some more
likable than others, yet all forming part of a whole. This aside, these two
episodes were passable, but weak. The concept of reviving the Cybermen is much
welcomed, and they look fantastic, but the plot involving a parallel Earth where
this action takes place doesn't seem to work right. True, the allegory here of
humans' reliance on technology and their need to serve it, as the Doctor points
out, is outstanding, but this could easily have been placed on contemporary Earth
or thereabouts. Some other weak spots are, as others have pointed out, the ease
with which the Doctor and Co. get out of the tight spots, viz. the death ray from
the Tardis component, the seemingly endless array of uses of the Sonic Screwdriver
(my wife laughed when they were using it to burn through the rope ladder at the
end; she has barely watched Who, so I had to explain that it was used traditionally
as a plot device to extricate the characters from situations from which there is no
other escape! Used here sadly). Some of the acting was wanting, especially Mickey,
who really needs his due, and some of the supporting cast. Lumic was creepy, as he
needed to be, his voice even sounded Cyberman-esquire. The score was horrific,
though, with the music's volume often swamping out the scene. Overall, I found Rise
of the Cyberman more entertaining, though the second half was passable. The build-
up to what we knew was inevitable plays out well, however the resolution was
disappointing. Too many unlikely escapes, no development of the supporting cast,
and not enough Tennant in my opinion. This new show is outstanding, and Davies is
taking it in a good direction, but the dialogue (beyond the Doctor's) needs to be
tightened up, as Mickey's farewells illustrate, which were pure ham.
Once again, Doctor Who delivers the goods by the bucket load. It has humour
("You're just making it up as you go along!" "Yup, but I do it brilliantly"),
action, monsters (in this case still more kick-ass cybermen), tragedy and scare
tactics. In short, just what the doctor ordered (pun intended). The way that the
emotions move from one to the other is done so well that there is no feeling of
"get on with it". So, chalk up 3 out of the last 4 episodes that have made you
laugh, then made you cry, and made you go "eek". In terms of character
development, this is clearly the clincher for Noel Clarke's Mickey (and Ricky).
Being one of the Doctor's companions, you know that he will do the right thing, and
may even suspect the manner that he does it. However, it is still an emotional
wrench when he confirms his future path. While "The rise of the
Cybermen" had more of the sinister build up to terror, "The Age of Steel" is an all
out blast. Like "Alien" compared to "Aliens" - both true classics, but in different
ways. Can the series keep it up at this level? Let's hope so.
The slightly overlong set up episode of the previous week paid off in no uncertain
terms with an episode that hit the heights. There was a certain deus ex machina
flavour to the resolution of the cliffhanger, but it was a good start for all that.
As is now common with this Doctor the moral, ethical and emotional considerations
of his actions were centre stage. They were always there in the classic series, but
they were a side issue, to be glossed over when the Doctor was in the heat of
battle. This regeneration even says sorry to a cyberman during the battle! This
episode finally shows Mickey embracing the heroic side that had been hinted at in
previous episodes. His journey from zero to hero is complete, and it has been an
utterly convincing one. With scares, humour and scenes that brought a lump to your
throat this episode had everything. After much consideration I can finally say that
the new series betters the classic series in every single respect. Coming from a
die hard Whovian you can get no better recommendation than that.
When I first saw this movie, I had thought that it was going to be a terrible
upset, being directed by first-time director Liev Schrieber. What I saw in the next
130 minutes completely and utterly changed my mind. Based on the novel by Jonathan
Safran Foer, Everything is Illuminated tells the story of a young Jewish-American
collector(masterfully played by Elijah Wood)who is trying to find the woman who
saved his grandfather from the Nazis in WWII. He travels to Germany and enlists in
the help of a 20-something, club hitting translator and his grandfather. This
results in a rigid search across the country, and they are determined to find what
they are looking for. Shot in some of the most beautiful countryside in the world,
Everything Is Illuminated delivers tension between the translator and his
grandfather, and of the help that Jonathan needs to find his quarry. There is much
religious matter as well, as the grandfather refers to Jonathan as "The Jew." All
in all, This is a movie that deals with finding yourself and loving family. I give
this wonderful, if not illuminated movie, a 10 out of 10.-Arjun
Before you watch this movie - clean your ears, take away the make-up from your eyes
and tell your girlfriend to stop kissing you. She doesn't have to. This picture
will give you both warmth enough to keep your relationship life-long enough. If
you're Jew/Russian/Ukrainian/immigrant - yes, what popular-movie-minority so ever -
laugh within your memories. If you're something else or whatever your are anyway -
laugh for the bittersweet memory of importance of friendship and family. It this
movie, nothing will seem strange how ever strange it may seem. Still, I'm afraid
that few will see this movie, because it's not the type of picture people watch
when they go to movies. But please, do it for the humanity, and don't forget to get
the soundtrack, for pleasure.
Being an Israeli Jew of naturally sarcastic nature as well as a lover of different
and independent cinema, it always gives me pleasure to see a film that takes a view
on the holocaust that's sensitive and respectful while also being original and
unusual. While I haven't read the book or, for that matter, heard of its
existence prior to watching the film and therefore cannot, like some other
reviewers, comment on how they stack up in comparison, Everything Is Illuminated
gave me great pleasure, and I can certainly comment on that. To label
Everything Is Illuminated a holocaust film would be to do it great injustice, even
though it is undeniably about the holocaust. So would labeling it as a comedy or a
travel film, although it's about a journey and is as exceptionally funny as it is
moving. Everything Is Illuminated is about Jonathan Safran Foer played to
minimalist perfection by Elijah Wood, in the most impressive dramatic performance
I've seen him in yet, with a poker face that shows nothing and reveals all a
young American Jew, and an obsessive collector of family heirlooms and historical
artifacts, who travels to the Ukraine on a journey to find the woman who saved his
grandfather from the Nazis. It's also about Alex, his tour guide through the
Ukraine, and Alex's grandfather. What's fascinating about these characters is that
in the beginning of the film they look like comic relief to balance out the
melancholy nature of Wood's character; but both Alex and his grandfather go through
fascinating changes throughout the film, and turn out to be at least as important
as Jonathan. In fact, Boris Leskin's as the grumpy, self-declared blind grandfather
turns out to be the finest dramatic performance in the film. Aside from
the surreal nature of the film and the characters, the beautiful mix of original
acoustic music and Russian folk music, the sensitive cinematography and the
chilling contrast between the beauty of the landscapes and the horrors of history,
what made Everything Is Illuminated a powerful and moving experience for me was the
fact that from Alex and his grandfather we get a very different and original
viewpoint on this painful subject; several excellent films, such as The Grey Zone
and Downfall, have already given us the point of view of the lower-rank Nazis who
are presented as human beings who aren't necessarily fully aware of the moral
implications of their actions but are caught up in the reality of the war.
Everything Is Illuminated presents a point of view rarely treated before: Alex's
point of view is that of a young man who was born many years after the war, who
sees it as hardly more than cold historical fact, who finds himself having to face
up to the horrors his own people and maybe his own family as well were capable
of. The change in Alex's attitude and his grandfather's towards Jonathan,
towards the Holocaust, and towards the Jewish people in general, makes the film a
fascinating and original study in character development. Everything Is
Illuminated is a terrific directorial debut for actor Liev Schreiber, and one of
the most original and unique films of 2005. It's a highly recommended viewing
experience, especially or anyone interested in the holocaust and World War II.
I still count "Police Squad!" as the absolute funniest TV show of the 1980s.
Somewhere, on BetaMax no less, I have all six episodes. I knew that a show this
good wouldn't last and that I had to preserve it for myself. How stupid was ABC?
They were quoted as saying that viewers didn't know that "Police Squad!" was a
comedy because it had no laugh track! Right! When Drebin has a line like "You take
chances just getting up in the morning, driving to work, or sticking your face in a
fan.", how can THAT be comedy!?!? I've seen every episode at least ten times and
still see something new I missed before. Even the deep backgrounds always have gags
ongoing. Don't miss it if you have chance to see an episode, but if you're reading
this then you probably already have copies squirreled away someplace as I do.
Let me start by saying that Liev has gained a ton of respect from me after seeing
his directorial debut "Everything Is Illuminated". Anyone who has read the book
knows how saturated the story is with nonsensical and hilarious vocabulary by Alex
along with countless flashback scenes and crazy dreamlike sequences. Liev took all
of this and made it work. The movie itself is great - the soundtrack, the
performances, the cinematography - it all works. There is a lot of story missing
about the town and its inhabitants, but there's only so much you can do with an
indie, so this part of it didn't bother me too much. It's just disappointing that
not a lot of people will see this movie or even know that it exists because of the
lack of promotion that came with it. I didn't even know it was in theatres. I
didn't know when the DVD came out. You'd think that since Frodo Baggins was one of
the main characters, SOMEBODY wouldve at least released a commercial for it. I had
to see the trailer on my "Paradise Now" DVD (released on DVD in the Spring of '06)
to even know that it had a "Fall of 2005" theatrical release date. Haha - sad
really. Anyhow, if you stumble across this review somehow because one of
your friends read the book and loved it or saw the movie and are recommending that
you see it - take my advice and watch it. It's a very good experience. 8
out of 10.
Excellence seems to come rare in Hollwood today. Many consider just two out of the
year's best picture nominees to display sense to the movie industry. And in
'Everything is Illuminated,' the mark is hit directly. The film
initiates its brilliance with the beautiful setting-the-scene entry. From the
beginning, you receive a sense of warmth and true family connections and relations
between one and another. And also, the cast is introduced perfectly. For Elijah
Wood's character, Jonathon, his sensibility is expressed through holding his dying
grandmother's hand. And for the character entitled Alex, it is easy to see his life
in his perspective - the true Ukrainian rock star. With the cast illuminated at
first, the story slowly eases into our minds as Jonathon decides to venture to
Ukraine to meet the woman believed to save his grandfather, thus the entire family.
And from there, the story movies slowly, yet kept at a fast pace from the contrast
of tear-dripping drama and laugh-out-loud humor included in scene-by-scene, every
scene. Although the movie itself is rather awarding, there are several
complaints from other sources commenting about Liev Schrieber's inaccurate
adaptation of the Jonathon Safron Foer novel. Personally, I have never read the
novel. But any movie, especially this movie in particular should not be graded on
whether the storyboard of the film matches the storyline of the book, but rather
how the major concepts from the novel were expressed and exploited through the
film. Just because it may be far-fetched from the novel does not mean that this
film is no longer a must-see - it still is. Throughout the film, new
information inundates the audience's mind very slowly. Some of these thoughts are
never answered; and in fact, the second half of the movie refocuses its entire
topic and reason of travel through Ukraine onto something different, yet rather
similar to the original intentions of this film. The film does however leave you on
a satisfied note - yet to the weak-hearted souls, a tear may be dropped. And
throughout the film. to the saneful people with common sense of humor may just have
to laugh from Alex and John's fun and ongoing conversations. I would
recommend this film to several different types of people: to those whom enjoy
movies that share the genre drama-comedy, for those who have an interest in family
connections, and to those whom have an interest in Holocaustic subjects. And to
those insane people who find slapstick as hilarious comedy, this movie is not for
you. And for you whom think that this is a seriously funny and absolutely
ingeniously funny film, you are wrong; this film shares comedic moments and
dramatic sequences. And to those whom judge a movie based on their likeliness with
its corresponding novel, you may or may not enjoy this film, but this film should
be taken for much more than whether or not it was close to the book. All
in all, 'Everything is Illuminated' is an ingenious piece of work that will
enlighten anyones' hearts.
i went to see this because i have some friends in the ukraine. but the film moved
me beyond what i expected by turning out to be a perfect blend of belly holding
laughs (alex's strange use of English) situational comedy and heaviness bordering
on depressing. i loved the range. it made me want to jump in to an old car and hit
the road for the ukraine. alex (hutz) plays his guide part perfectly and provides a
great counterpoint to elijah woods' poker faced earnestness. the film shows the
positive side of humanity when ppl of differing cultures can bond and do the right
thing when they feel the sincerity of the situation, even when they went into it
with preconceived notions and prejudices, and how this can open up doorways into
deeply buried memories. there is a lot in this film.
"Everything is Illuminated" is like viewing a fine piece of museum quality artwork.
It absolutely inundates the emotions through a very broad spectrum. Jonathan Safran
Foer is played with candor by Elijah Wood. He is in search of his paternal heritage
in the Ukraine. His travels bring him in contact with Alex, played very well and
with extreme humor by Eugene Hutz. His grandfather is the most emotional tie to
this film and he is aptly portrayed by Boris Leskin. If one finds little humor in
the human characters in this cinema, then one has only to turn to Mikke, a real dog
who is called Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. by Alex and his grandfather. They also call him
the "seeing eye bitch". The cinematography is spectacular. The colors are a very
important part of the patchwork of the film. It is a film worth the time and
emotional investment.
The movie "Everything is Illuminated" comes from first-time writer-director Liev
Schreiber, adapting Jonathan Safran Foer's first novel. The book was ambitious and
sprawling, its magical-realist elements and vivid use of language seemingly
impossible to represent on screen. The movie, wisely, attempts less. While the end
result is not as wildly original as the novel, it's still an accomplished movie
about a strange Eastern European road trip, or, as one of the characters would have
it, "a very rigid search." That character is Alex (Eugene Hutz), a young
Ukrainian man who loves American pop culture but can't seem to get the English
language straight. Nevertheless, his grandfather (Russian actor Boris Leskin), who
runs a tour company catering to American Jews, convinces him to serve as a
translator for Jonathan (Elijah Wood). Jonathan is investigating his family
history, and specifically trying to find the woman who saved his grandfather from
the Nazis. More than one family secret gets revealed during their quest. The movie's Jonathan (not to be confused with the author of the novel) is a
semi- kleptomaniacal weirdo who steals his own grandmother's dentures to add to his
collection of "family things". Wood's quiet, wide-eyed, earnest manner works very
well in this role. Hutz makes an impressive debut as the loose-limbed, easygoing
Alex. His malapropisms are hilarious, but he is also able to pull off the
character's growing self-awareness. The dog Mikki is very funny as the demented
Sammy Davis Jr. Jr., and one of the few movie dogs I've ever seen that isn't
cloyingly cute and precocious. "Everything is Illuminated" eventually
puts the Holocaust on a human scale, asking us to remember it not as a general
event, but as millions of specific, small tragedies. Reminiscent of a European
movie, it also ponders the effect of past events on present-day young people like
Jonathan and Alex. With its original perspective, strong performances and some very
striking visuals, "Everything is Illuminated" is great work for a first-timer, and
hopefully Schreiber will continue to direct movies.
This movie reminds me of 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' and 'Garden State'
not because of content, but because it is one of those movies that you don't hear
about except through word of mouth, or you read the back of the DVD at the video
store and think "why not". Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised (like the
aforementioned films) at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it. Best
seen with little knowledge of the movie and with only intrigue guiding you to
actually watch it. Also best seen with someone else or if you know someone else
that has seen it - you will want to talk about it!! It's a beautiful film that
stays with you well after you watch it. It's also an intelligent watch that
requires little effort into figuring out parts for yourself. Just
enjoy :)
This is a beautiful, yet simple movie about one man, driven to find an answer, an
answer he doesn't necessarily need but has structured his whole life around. It is
heartrending, it is hilarious, it is glorious, it is tormenting, it is delicate and
dynamic, I say it's genius. I have read Jonathan Safran Foer's book
Everything is Illuminated (mainly because I heard Elijah Wood was starring in the
movie adaptation), and I was just enraptured by the characters. I laughed out loud
more than once. And every time someone talks about what it's about, I hear the same
hackneyed response, almost like it's one big long word:
"It'saboutaguylookingforthewomanwhosavedhisgrandpafromtheNazis." Yet, this story is
so philosophical; it goes deeper than that. That conversation about the ring and
"in case." It really gets one thinking. Suddenly, this story merges from a simple
quest to an inner metamorphosis, and I find myself looking at things a bit
differently now. I recommend renting this before, if ever, reading it,
because the book had many obscene, downright perverted stories that were not
included in the movie, mainly the history of Jonathan's family that was not
necessary for the film. A bit of trivia, I heard, is that Wood's
current girlfriend has a cameo in this flick as the drummer in the band that Alex
arranges to perform as Jonathan steps off the train into Ukraine. You
spend half of the movie trying to figure out what it's about, exactly, and what
Jonathan is about, because his character is so withdrawn, like a turtle in a
shell. It is magnificent, and in my opinion, one of Elijah Wood's best
movies.
I thought this movie was amazing. I was a bit skeptical since I really had no idea
what it was about, but it was beautiful story. I cried a lot and I also laughed out
loud. I think it is very important that there are movies being created
that are about the Holocaust and how it affects people (It only happened 60 years
ago!) I have been to Germany and Eastern Europe and I have studied the Holocaust,
so this film meant a lot to me. I think this film did an amazing job capturing this
story (I wont go into detail, I do not want to spoil it) But I definitely recommend
it for anyone looking for a movie that, I know this may sound cliché', but will
change your mindset on things.
This movie was one if not the best movie I've seen in the past year I highly
recommend it it starts off as a very funny movie but as the film progress's turns
into so much more. do yourself a favor and see this film. I saw a screener of this
movie but I am going to buy it not only for myself but for several true film fans i
have the unfortunate feeling this great film will be widely unrecognized as is the
case with so many other non commercial films this is a comedic yet heart wrenching
movie it will make you laugh it will make you cry it will make you think and yes
you will think about it when its over and isn't that what a good movie is!
I saw this last night and voted it an "8". Since then, it's grown on me and I'd
give it a "9". The film has (at first) a seemingly slightly disconnected
facade between the first and second halves. The first half is a comedy and there's
little hint of the ragged truths of eras, life, wars, religious intolerance that
will become revealed in the second half. While at first it may be a little
disconcerting because it's a slightly unfamiliar narrative sequence, on reflection
it works. The acting was good (Hultz in the role of Alex, the
interpreter, was especially great). I've scanned most other "User
Comments" and see that some who've read the book are pleased with the movie while
there are a few who are not. Both feelings, of course, are valid. For
me, a retired family therapist and one-world believer, the film was relevant on two
different levels. The first, as history, gave a powerful reminder of how
commonly polarizations happen -- with demonizing and trying to exterminate any of
those with a smidge different moral value system than our own. The
second was that in demonstrating the first, it also revealed something in common to
EACH of us, ALL our families -- that each of us must go back to our roots to more
fully understand ourselves. T.S. Eliot expressed this exquisitely in the
4th of his "Four Quartets" when he said: -- "We shall not cease from exploration//
And the end of all our exploring// Will be to arrive where we started// And know
the place for the first time." Jonathan goes on a fulfilling journey
that any of us would find fantastically illuminating -- to explore and discover our
roots; what were those people going through then, who were they -- really! --
before, when, and during the early years before and after we were born? Etc. So the film at first gives us the impression of a comedy, then shifts to
give us a lesson in history and human deficiencies, but through all that it also
gives us -- subliminally -- a message about each of ourselves. All of us would be
abundantly rewarded to go back and understand the place from which we first
started.
I watched this series after I had seen the Naked Gun films. I found it much better
than the films, and I thought the films were great! This series literally glues you
to the television set in anticipation of the next pun, sight gag, or funny
situation (the all night wicker place, club flamingo). I don't think I've ever
laughed as hard at a TV series in my life, even after seeing the movies first and
thus knowing some of the jokes. I think its a shame that only six episodes were
produced, but I agree that the writers would be very hard pressed to maintain this
level of comedy for any more episodes. Overall, the series is a must see for those
who like puns, bad jokes, and slapstick sight-gags.
Having not read the book, I was more open to the fresh interpretation that each
director gives to their medium (which is film, not "to the letter" reproductions of
literature)on this particular film. I was happy that the holocaust that occurred in
Russia (and it's neighboring countries) finally received some attention. The Nazis
were particularly cruel to Russians and Russian Jews. If you read the histories and
see the monuments built in Smolensk and nearby regions you will understand this
movie and why many kept silent when they should've spoken up. It was
certainly time for this to be chronicled and I hope that more stories will come out
of this. It's high time.
If you've ever been to Ukraine, this movie is absolutely hilarious. From teenagers
wearing gold chains, listening to hip hop and break dancing on the side to jokes
about air bags in cars and waitresses in total shock over meeting a vegetarian,
this movie really captures bits and pieces of Ukraine that you would never know
unless you went there. I spent most of the movie nodding my head and thinking,
"Yep. That's exactly right." It's a lot of fun if you understand Russian too
because the subtitles just don't always do it justice. The actors are so believable
and Elijah Wood does a great job playing a socially inept Jewish kid. My favorite
character is definitely Sammy Davis Jr. Jr., the grandfather's "seeing eye dog" who
is really a psychopathic border collie. The characters are so eclectic and likable
that you believe that they are real people.
Everything Is Illuminated A young Jewish American searches for the woman that
helped his grandfather escape Nazi persecution while embarking on a cross-European
tour with some unlikely associates. Liev Schreiber makes his directorial
debut with a playful angst usually associated with his acting ethos. When
successful actors decide to sit in the director's chair, we usually get a
biographical glimpse at the souls beneath the acting mask- Check. We usually get a
mishmash of genres- Check. But what we normally do not get is an insightful
original film which is credible, intelligent and moving. Elijah Wood
plays Jonathan, an inquisitive young boy who collects pieces of life as he goes. He
is on a mission to find a woman in a photograph. The sepia picture bears his
grandfather (an uncanny resemblance to him) and the woman. To aid his journey he
enlists the help of travel guides that comprise of a Hip-Hop loving break-dancer,
Alex (Eugene Hutz), his apathetic and perma-vexed grandfather (Boris Leskin) and
his dog- Sammy Davis Junior Jr! What ensues is essentially a comedy. There is an
un-patronisingly simple introduction with voice-overs. Alex's is especially funny
as he educates his younger brother on the year 1969, proving how popular he is with
the chicks and break-dancing thus setting him up as Jonathan's antithesis. Schreiber begins to break down the characters as they progress and the comedy
acts as an intentional veil to what is a story about three people linked to the
holocaust who do not really know themselves. All three hold the film with
tenderness and authenticity something Schreiber was unlikely to get wrong and as
enchanting and fantastical as the film is, the horrors that are allowed to crack
through, i.e. the past are presented in an almost palatable tone (incidental music,
cinematography) which make them all the more unsettling. As the unlikely
group finally find the town they seek they learn of the true atrocities that
occurred and find out a lot about who they really are. Elijah wood is as
authentic as usual, bringing his usual innocence and strength to the screen.
Formally a resident good in Lord of the Rings and a resident evil in Sin City he
plays Jonathan with aplomb as he is bombarded with culture shocks and a quest for
truth. Boris Leskin as the grandfather also delivers his angst and frustration at
the youths with great humour and conviction as his own past is unravelled. However,
it is Eugene Hutz as Alex that makes the show. The director using that old trade of
translation misunderstandings to create and maintain a humour that is actually
funny and not gimmicky. Schreiber has delivered an enchanting debut that
has both heart and soul. The continuous score and beautiful photography creates a
fairy tale haze around a story about identity, truth and family. If there was a
complaint, it would be the speed at which the film changes direction; though this
could have been intentional it may not sit well with all. Nevertheless this is a
sterling effort that delivers great comedy and bonding between an unlikely group
while dissecting another aspect of the horrors of World War 2 in a completely fresh
fashion. -Chi&Ojo
I first saw this movie on an Alaska Airlines flight, and have since seen it twice
more. It simply is -- and is simply -- one of the best films in years. I found
myself having enjoyed it after my first viewing, but a little cloudy on what had
happened. After seeing it again a few weeks later, things began to fall into place.
It wasn't confusing, just deep. In fact, the depth of the movie may not be
appreciated for a long time. For example, it occurred to me only after my third
viewing that Sammy Davis Jr Jr (Grandfather's dog) is more than just a pet --
perhaps she's the stand-in for his dead wife. Witness how fiercely he protects her.
There is symbolism galore, and none of it sappy or indulgent, just real. The
adventure of their trip keeps the story-line in perpetual motion, and even when
they arrive, you're not sure if it really was the destination. As the movie
continues, so does the adventure and I got the sense the destination was merely a
way-point. The sound-track is fun, the scenery compelling -- and both decidedly
eastern-block. I could go on and on about the deeper meanings within the film, but
I'm not entirely sure I've discovered all the nuances yet. Besides, it's more fun
to tease these out yourself. As much as any film can be, "Everything Is
Illuminated" has proved to be like a fine wine that sweetens with time. I highly
recommend seeing it -- twice.
In America, the Jewish Jonathan Safran Foer (Elijah Wood) collects personal
belongings of his family for recollection. A few moments before dying, his
grandmother gives an old photograph of his grandfather with a woman called
Augustine in Ukraine. Jonathan contacts the Odessa Heritage Tours, a family agency
in Ukraine, to guide him to the location where the picture had been taken to find
Augustine, and together with the interpreter Alex (Eugene Hutz), his grandfather
and a weird dog, they travel in an old car searching the missing past of Jonathan's
family. "Everything Is Illuminated" is a strange movie about a weird
young man with the compulsive behavior of collecting souvenirs from his family to
not forget them that seeks the past of his grandfather to understand how could be
his life if his grandfather had not moved to USA. This bizarre vegetarian character
meets a dysfunctional Ukrainian family that owns an amateurish travel agency
specialized in helping Jews to find missing relatives, and together they have an
almost surrealistic road-trip through the country of Ukraine. The movie begins like
a comedy, with a sarcastic black humor, and ends in a touching and tragic drama
recommended for specific audiences. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil):
"Uma Vida Iluminada" ("An Illuminated Life")
SPOILERS A Jewish Frodo? Yep, that'll be Elijah Wood again. Ever since
the concluding part of "Lord of the Rings", Elijah Wood as Frodo has found it
increasingly difficult to get away from that major role. Playing a football
hooligan, a psychopath and now a young Jewish American, Wood has tried any route he
can to escape this typecasting. Now, with "Everything Is Illuminated" he might
finally have achieved this. Playing a role which isn't as radical as other efforts,
he truly gets to the soul of his character. Still, it isn't like Wood does this
alone. Aided by a magnificent adaptation by first time directer Liev Schreiber and
a wonderful performance by newcomer Eugene Hutz, Wood has found a magnificent
production to spread his wings. "Everything is Illuminated" is a magnificent,
moving piece of cinema. Jonathan Safran Foer (Wood), a young American
Jew, sets out to the Ukraine to find the mysterious girl who rescued his
grandfather and helped him get to America. Arriving in the country, Jonathan meets
the all talking, all dancing Alex (Hutz) and his racist grandfather (Boris Leskin).
Travelling across the country, the three slowly learn more and more about the
history and relations that Alex and Jonathan never knew existed. It's a
strange feeling when the film progresses into it's second chapter (it is actually
divided into four overall). The first part, whilst occasionally a bit funny, is
mostly serious and intense. So when we are given a brief history of Alex and his
family in the second part, to switch from serious to hilarious is a weird step. It
doesn't quite work, but as the film progresses, it definitely learns it's lesson as
this mix of humour and sadness merges finer as time passes. To the
ultimate credit of everyone involved, as the story does continue, so do we begin to
fall for the characters more and more. Elijah Wood is magnificent, Boris Leskin is
so intense and strong that it raises questions why Hollywood has never properly
noticed him. Most notable of all however is newcomer Eugene Hutz. Playing an
intensely troubled character, Hutz is absolutely brilliant. He shows the split
between his relatives and the real world with almost perfect skill, and when his
character is communicating with Wood, you genuinely connect with him on a deeper
level. Without Hutz, the story is so strong that the film would still be
magnificent, but with him, it hits the next level. As a debut work for
actor turned director Liev Schreiber, the story is also a brilliant piece to start.
A work of passion (Schreiber's grandfather himself an immigrant to America), he
manages to truly embrace the emotion of the content, and by presenting us with some
truly beautiful scenery and some magnificent shots, he manages to really hit home.
The final half hour in particular is so beautifully created, that it's a challenge
for a tear not to form in any viewers eye. It is a moving story, and with
Schreiber's help, it becomes even more powerful. Constructed with love
from a passionate director, "Everything is Illuminated" is a beautiful piece. A
road story with a difference, it is magnificently acted and wonderfully written.
It's a film that everyone should see, and it is the perfect way for Elijah Wood to
finally lay Frodo to rest.
I really liked this movie ... but the ads I saw implied, and one published review
actually said, that this movie "benefits from a light touch." That to me is very
misleading. There is indeed plenty of humor: eccentric, un-subtle,
sometimes somewhat twisted humor: the kind of humor I generally find very appealing
indeed. But most of the humor is the kind that appears conscious at all times of
things deeply serious, deeply sensitive, even deeply painful. The movie weaves
together themes of Past and Present, Perception and Truth, Memory and Activity,
Life and Death. The entire movie is suffused by the history of European anti-
Semiticism in general, and of the Holocaust in particular. How can Humor
and Horror be combined in the same movie? The review I saw suggested that the humor
is Absurdist. I don't think this is the case at all; at least not in the common
sense. Instead, I think this movie stands in the tradition of much Jewish / Yiddish
literature and theatre. I don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area; but
from what I've seen, Humor is used, in this cultural context, both as a coping tool
for the horribly tragic experiences of this people; and also Humor is used as a
means of "recovering the Divine" for men and women who choose a path of Faith
rather than a path of either Despair or Absurdism. See "Fiddler on the Roof" for
Humor used in both ways in this rich tradition. Elijah Wood (Jonathon)
Wood wears horn rimmed glasses that really make him look, well, strange: compare
Sin City when he wore the same kinds of glasses with chilling effect. In this
movie, it's easy to see how the glasses become a metaphor for both his Search and
for his Struggle between Perception and Truth. Eugene Hutz (Young Alex) and Boris
Lesking (Old Alex) are both really just wonderful. Jonathon and Young Alex are from
the same generation, yet seem so very, very different; and then find that they are
not so different after all. And the way in which the Apparent Narrative Voice
changes gradually from that of Jonathon to that of Young Alex .. as a journey of
intended discovery for Jonathon becomes one of discovery for both Young Alex and
Old Alex ... is to me so very moving. There are some wonderful scenes
and panoramas from (I'm told) Prague and environs, standing in for the Ukraine of
the story line. All feels very authentic and seems to give a wonderful sense of
place; although I've never been myself to the Ukraine and can hardly testify to
this from first hand experience. All in all, if you're looking for light
comedy, I would not recommend this movie at all. On the other hand, if you are
interested in a wonderful, delightful, and deeply moving film, please, check out
this wonderful movie.
2005 was one of the best year for movies. We had so many wonderful movies, like
Batman Begins, Sin City, Corpse Bride, A History of Violence.....Coming up we also
got Brokeback Mountain, King Kong....But if this year the only great movie that
came out was Everything Is Illuminated, then we wouldn't miss all this year has
brought. The first movie as a director of the talented Liev Schreiber is a
delightful, heart-warming, touching drama that also brings one of Elijah Wood's
best roles. He is perfect as Jonathan, a curious man that heads for Ukraine to find
the woman who saved his Grandfather in World War II. Liev Schreiber, who also
writes the movie, conducts a masterpiece, with memorable scenes and (a lot of)
funny quotes. This here is a genuine mixture of Comedy with Drama, bringing a movie
that will be commented years from now. A serious Oscar contender, Everything is
Illuminated is a powerful, original, and, why not say, illuminated movie. But
there's one thing you should remember while entering the movie: leave normal
behind. This is special.------9/10
What an original piece of work. I've always enjoyed Liev Schreiber the "actor", but
now one must appreciate the man on a multi-dimensional level . How did he get that
field of sunflowers? Was it computerize, it sure looked real. And how do you
audition a dog knowing you are going to get that kind of performance? Does the
academy have a category for animals? I guess what I'm saying is that I really,
really enjoyed this quirky, offbeat, little indie film. From the excellent cast
(one would never know Eugene Hutz was not a pro actor) to the cinematographer (some
beautiful shots) the music (bought the CD when exiting the theater) and of course
the two "D's" (direction and the DOG). All in all a "10". /
"Everything is Illuminated" is a simplified interpretation of something more than
half of the Jonathan Safran Foer novel. This version is more about changes in
Eastern Europe from World War II through post-Cold War and how the younger
generation relates to that history as a family memory. Debut
director/adapter Liev Schreiber retains some of the humor and language clashes of
the novel, mostly through the marvelous Eugene Hutz as the U.S.-beguiled Ukrainian
tour guide. He is so eye-catching that the film becomes more his odyssey into his
country and his family as he goes from his comfortable milieu in sophisticated
Odessa to the heart of a cynical, isolated land that has been ravaged by conquerors
through the Communists and now capitalists, with both Jews and non-Jews as
detritus. As funny as his opening scenes are when he establishes his cheeky
bravura, we later feel his fish-out-of-waterness in his own country when he tries
to ask directions of local yokels. Shreiber uses Elijah Wood, as the
American tourist, as an up tight cog in a visual panoply, as his character is less
verbal than as one of the narrators in the book. He and Hutz play off each other
well until the conclusion that becomes more sentimental in this streamlined plot.
Once the grandfather's story takes over in the last quarter of the film,
marvelously and unpredictably enacted by Boris Leskin, the younger generation does
not seem to undergo any catharsis, as they just tidy up the closure. Schreiber does a wonderful job visualizing the human urge to document history.
One of his consultants in the credits is Professor Yaffa Eliach and her style of
remembering pre-Holocaust shtetl life through artifacts clearly inspired the look
and it is very powerful and effective. The Czech Republic stands in for
the Ukraine and the production design staff were able to find memorable symbols of
change in the cities, towns and countryside, as this is now primarily a road movie,
and the long driving scenes do drag a bit. Schreiber retains some of the symbolism
from the book, particularly of the moon and river, but having cut out the portions
of the book that explain those, they just look pretty or ominous for atmosphere and
no longer represent time and fate. As W.C. Fields would have predicted,
the dog steals most of his scenes for easy laughs. In general, Schreiber does go
for more poignancy than the book. It is irresistibly touching, especially for those
who haven't read the book, but less morally and emotionally messy. The
film is enormously uplifted by its marvelous soundtrack, which ranges from songs
and instrumentals from Hutz's gypsy band to traditional tunes to contemporary
tracks to Paul Cantelon's klezmer fusion score. This is not a Holocaust
film per se, being a kind of mirror image of "The Train of Life (Train de vie)" as
about memory of a time that is freighted with meaning now, but will resonate more
with those who have an emotional connection to that history.
The creative team that brought us Police Squad - and the Naked Gun derived from it
- said in interview that they were told by their network contact that the show
would be canceled, after their delivery of the first episode. Basically, the show
was never given any chance. Typical Hollywood. The contact apparently told the team
that the problem with the show was that, for the show to be funny, the viewer would
actually need to watch it; most shows are presented on TV with the understanding
that the viewer needed to get up and miss a few minutes while getting food, or
going to the toilet, etc. The humor of the show is extremely dry (it
uses no laugh-track), and the universe the characters inhabit is one in which
anything can happen, regardless of logic, as long as it was totally unbelievable;
so, for instance in one episode a surgeon has to bribe an informant on the street
in order to get a tip on heart surgery. Those familiar with the Naked
Gun films should be warned that there are a number of interesting disjunctions
between the show and the films. In the films, Nielsen developed a particular "take"
approach - that is, eyes widened when confronted with the unexpected. This doesn't
happen in the show, where Nielsen's Drebin is the center around which the rest of
the universe revolves - nothing is unexpected to him. Also, there are no romances
in the show, and no parodies of MTV. Finally, the show takes certain risks that the
films avoid; in the first episode, Drebin, to "re-enact the crime", has a squad of
homicide detectives shoot each other from a number of different angles - ballistics
the hard way. This is actually a risky bit of humor, since we need to accept that
it's perfectly normal for policemen to kill each other while investigating a crime,
for no other reason than experimentation. This sort of thing rarely happens in the
films. Taken individually, each of the episodes is actually funnier than
any one of the Naked Gun films, since they are both more compact (more happens in a
shorter time-frame), yet more leisurely paced (there's not the rush for a punch-
line as sometimes happens in the films). There are some inconsistencies that happen
in the films (primarily "2" and "3") that never occur in the show's shorter time-
frame. Of course, there's no doubt that Naked Gun (the first film) is
one of the great comedies of theatrical cinema. And if you watch the TV show
episode after episode in one sitting, the dry quality of the humor might wear away
one's tolerance. None the less, it would be useful to have a DVD of
this, and watch an episode a day for a few weeks - If laughter has, as some claim,
medicinal value, watching this show is good for one's health.
Actor turned director Liev Schreiber (The Sum of All Fears) does an above average
screen version of the novel, Everything Is Illuminated, by author Jonathan Safran
Foer. This tale of journey and self discovery is highlighted by strong ensemble
performances and sharp direction with a storyline that enriches and enlightens the
soul. Jonathan Foer (Elijah Wood) is a young man who has seen his
grandfather, Safran, pass away. Jonathan has a peculiar habit of taking small
objects and life's little memorabilia and sealing them in plastic ziplock bags to
display them on his wall. Safran gives Jonathan an old picture showing a young
Safran standing next to a beautiful girl who saved his life many years ago. Thus
Jonathan commences on a long journey to locate this mystery woman in the Ukraine
not knowing if she is still alive. He enlists the help of a brash, young tour guide
named Alex (Eugene Hutz) and his grandfather (Boris Leskin) to drive him to his
goal. At first the trip hits dead ends and false leads, but as the group nears its
target, the men find themselves amid the ruins of a dark chapter in history with
the memories of war and the past ghosts of a nonexistent town. There, they find
their own respective destinies and will be forever changed by what they
learn. This film feels like it was directed by someone who knew how to
get the most from his actors. At times, the film is spoken in Russian and seems
like a foreign film. The title itself is a play on self discovery. This is a
thoughtful trek of one man into his past, and his past ironically involves his
companions; Jonathan's obsessive journey becomes an emotional journey for Alex and
his grandfather as well. It's a tale of bonding over the long haul and the guilt
one must carry for a lifetime. By the end of the film, these characters have all
experienced life altering events that will permanently intertwine their lives. It
proves that memories can be powerful in traumatizing and also cleansing the soul.
It's also about one's legacy and how others view an event or a person in the past.
Alex eventually sees his grandfather in a completely different light. Even our
perception of these individuals will have changed by film's end which is a tribute
to a story that is well told. The story is deceptively simple. It
functions as a road trip movie (like The Straight Story) combined with an
interesting mystery story. It really involves a great many layers of emotions and
subplots that range from the past to the present. The ending is a bit surreal with
its déjà vu feeling. Elijah Wood (Sin City, The Eternal Sunshine of the
Spotless Mind)) has chosen a wide range of roles ever since his splash in The Lord
of the Rings trilogy. Here, he does a fine job with what is essentially a
minimalist role with not much to show. Eugene Hutz and Boris Leskin fare better as
Alex and his grandfather respectively. Even the grandfather's dog named Sammy Davis
Jr. Jr. (that's right) is funny as a fiercely loyal companion. The spare
music score by Paul Cantelon is a moody compliment to the thoughtful nature of the
film. The editing is effective as imagery from past and present are linked and
transitioned effortlessly. The cinematography by Matthew Libatique (Gothika,
Requiem for a Dream) is appropriately stark and lifeless with some impressive
images of war and its aftermath. The coincidences that emerge during the
last half of the film make for good drama but are a little too coincidental. We
never fully understand the whole background story of Alex's grandfather and what
his motivations are. Likewise, Jonathan's blank stares and lack of apparent
substance and depth do not give us much more than a sketch of a quirky man. At
times, the film feels a little downbeat and depressing as more horrific revelations
are exposed. But these are minor criticisms of what is a good, introspective story
with good performances and interesting themes of remembrance and closure. That
Schreiber not only directed but adapted the screenplay to this worthwhile slice of
history is a tribute to his talents and promising potential in the future.
If anyone has any doubts about the talent of Liev Schrieber, just a look at his new
film, "Everything is Illuminated", which clearly shows a man that is not only one
of America's finest actors, but a new director whose first effort is indeed an
inspiration and a harbinger of what is to follow. Mr. Schreiber has adapted the
novel by Jonathan Safran Foer into a film that will live forever because of the way
the director has adapted the material. The film clearly surpassed our expectations
since we had no preconceived ideas. For those who haven't watched the
film, perhaps you should stop reading here. Jonathan is a collector. His
love for his grandparents is boundless. He watches as his grandfather dies and as
his grandmother is on what appears to be her death bed. On a clear moment, this
dying woman gives Jonathan a picture and an amber ornament for his collection.
Watching the photograph, taken a long time ago, a young couple are seen together.
Watching makes Jonathan think it shows the grandfather and his girlfriend, taken on
happier times. Watching the snapshot seems to be the motivation for this intense
young man to go looking for his ancestors' past in the Ukraine. Jonathan
has made arrangements with a travel agency, Heritage Tours, of Odessa for his trip
to Trochenbrod, the mythical place where his grandfather came from. The agency is
handled by an older man, who claims to be blind, and his grandson, Alex, a man who
loves the pop American culture that has captured his imagination, as well as his
contemporaries in the country. Alex speaks a kind of English no one speaks and his
conversation and translation, for Jonathan's benefit are hilarious to our ear for
the use of sometimes unheard English terms. The old man insists in taking his dog,
Sammy Davis Jr., against the wishes of Jonathan, who doesn't want to sit next to
the snarling and barking animal during the trip. As they embark in
search of Trochenbrod, it's clearly that his companions, especially the old man has
no clue where he is going. At this point, the film becomes a road movie, as the
three characters riding the back roads of the country become more acquainted with
one another. As the trio arrive at the sunflower field with the house at the end,
it indicates they have indeed come to the right place. Some places are a clear
reminder of the conflicts of the past. The older woman, living in the
isolated place, is the missing link of the story. She is able to put things into
the right perspective. But here is where the story changes its emphasis from
Jonathan, who clearly has come to the land of his ancestors, to the old man. We
watch as this older man starts remembering things about himself. This, in turn,
changes the dynamic of the film as we discover how connected Jonathan and his
guides have been all the time. Some criticism in these pages have
expressed opinions about the accuracy of the story, which after all, it's a work of
fiction and liberties have been taken. It would have been impossible to make
another film including so much that is contained in the book. The great way the
film is divided into different chapters is a clever way to let the viewer know
what's about to be seen. Elijah Wood, a magnificent film actor, does an
excellent work by underplaying Jonathan. Mr. Wood makes one of his best appearances
in any film with his interpretation of the main character. The felicitous casting
of Eugene Hutz as Alex, the Ukranian tour assistant and translator, seems to be an
idea made in heaven. Mr. Hutz is about the best thing in the film. His arcane usage
of English gives the film a funny angle that delights the viewer. Boris Leskin as
Alex's grandfather and driver of the tour car makes a valuable contribution to the
film, as well as Laryssa Lauret, who is seen in the last part of the movie. The excellent cinematography of Matthew Libatique brings the splendor of
the Czech Republic's countryside in all its magnificence. The musical score by Paul
Cantelon is heard in the background adorning the film in ways that it adds a
richness to the movie. Above all, this is a triumph for Liev Schreiber,
the first time director that will surely go far in whatever he decides to do next.
This is precious. Everything Is Illuminated is sweetly and sublimely funny from the
first delicious line of dialogue. Oh, how I've been waiting for this to arrive in
Austin. While Elijah Wood is charming as ever as Jonathan Safran Foer (the real-
life author of the novel Everything Is Illuminated), it's Eugene Hutz (playing
Jonathan's Ukrainian tour-guide and translator, Alex) who truly steals this film.
Alex is a hip-hop-lovin' Ukrainian break-dancer who, along with his grandfather,
helps Jonathan find the woman who saved Jonathan's grandfather's life during World
War II. The Ukrainian countryside has never looked so breath taking. I'm thinking
of packing it all up and moving to the former Soviet state. The tone of
the film, however, shifts when Jonathan and Alex do finally meet the woman they're
looking for, and suddenly, this adorable comedy turns into a heart-breaking
historical drama about a Jewish village that was annihilated during the Nazi
occupation. Everything Is Illuminated is about history, heritage, and the wisdom
that can be gained from uncovering the past. It's perfect.
I just saw "Everything is Illuminated" at the Telluride Film Festival. This is a
truly remarkable film. Very emotional, funny at times and heart-warming. Bring your
handkerchiefs! For those of you who enjoy a movie that brings tears to your eyes,
I'm reminded of the endings of "Babette's Feast" and "The Notebook." The stories
were completely different but had that same emotional power to bring tears to my
eyes, just as this film did. No spoilers here. The summary is, as IMDb
describes, a young man's journey to the Ukraine to follow his roots and find the
village where his father grew up. The dialog is in English and Ukrainian
(and Russian too, I believe). This allows for some wonderfully linguistically-based
moments as one character interprets, more or less faithfully, for the English
speaker in the group, depending on the circumstances. The scenery is
wonderful and the musical score is a treat with wonderful Eastern European
influences. Be sure you stay through the credits for the final tune. This is Lieve Schreiber's directorial debut and is well done. I give this film a
9, one of the best films I've seen in a long time. I recommend it highly.
In Everything Is Illuminated, Elijah Wood plays Jonathan Foer, a Jewish American
who is looking for the woman who saved his grandfather during WWII. In a sense, the
woman that saved his entire family. This is a heart-felt tale about
someone who is on a seemingly hopeless journey. A stranger in a strange land so to
speak. Jonathan is not entirely prepared for this adventure, he sticks out like a
sore thumb in the Ukraine (he would probably stick out like a sore thumb anywhere).
But what he discovers is more, much more than he anticipated. This movie will make
you laugh and will make you cry. Elijah Wood is really good in this film, based on
the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer. From someone I talked to, this movie
is somewhat different from the book. A book I gather is really good. Nevertheless,
this is a good movie, it has something for everyone and I really enjoyed it. Can
someone say Oscar?
I walked into the movie theater, with no expectations for the film I was about to
witness, "Everything is Illuminated". I walked out with a joy I have barely come to
feel with American films. The directorial debut of actor, Leiv Schreiber, the film
follows a man on his journey through the past, accompanied by an eccentric group
including a brake-dancing barely English-speaking punk from the Eukraine, his
grandfather who believes he is blind, and their crazy dog. The first half of the
film is funny and smart with an extremely European flavor in the usage of small but
wonderful characters, while the second half of the film descends into a somber
story of discovery and the holocaust. This little movie brings out so many
emotions, and so many colors, with such a wonderful conclusion and is more than
just a story of illumination, but also of relationships and connections. The acting
is incredibly powerful, the story mysterious and interesting, and the artistic
appeal of the cinematography, to die for. With some brilliant and absolutely
touching scenes "Everything is Illuminated" managed to capture my heart.
I saw this movie at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Based
on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything Is Illuminated is the directorial
debut of actor Liev Schreiber. Schreiber also wrote the screenplay. In the movie,
Jonathan (Elijah Wood) obsessively collects items from his family, from
toothbrushes to retainers to scraps of paper which he then seals in ziploc bags and
pins to a wall in his house to record his family history. But the space for his
grandfather is conspicuously bare. All Jonathan really has of him is a piece of
jewelry and an old photo of him with a woman who hid him from the Nazis during the
Second World War. Jonathan decides to undertake a quest to Ukraine to find the
woman, thank her, and learn more about his grandfather. His quest is
aided there by a couple of characters who run a tourist company for Jewish people,
including a young man obsessed with western culture (Eugene Hutz), his grandfather
(Boris Leskin), who thinks he is blind and who may have memories and demons of his
own from the war, and his grandfather's temperamental seeing eye dog. The screenplay effectively combines both humour and drama as the three characters
travel through the countryside looking for Jonathan's grandfather's town, driving
deeper and deeper into the memories of the past. The best performance probably
comes from Eugene Hutz, playing Alex Jr., who starts the movie as a tracksuit-
wearing, break dancing slacker just out to have fun but evolves into something more
as not only Jonathan, but all the characters gain their own illumination. Liev Schreiber, Elijah Wood, and Eugene Hutz attended the screening and did
a very humorous Q&A after the film: - Schreiber was very close to his
grandfather, who was a Ukranian immigrant, and who died in 1993. This caused him to
start to write to get his memories down on paper. Meanwhile, he was asked to do a
reading of Foer's short story, The Very Rigid Search, which was an excerpt from the
still unpublished novel. Schreiber was blown away by the quality of the writing,
saying that Foer had done in 15 pages what Schreiber tried to do in 107. Schreiber
approached Foer and they talked about their grandfathers, culture, movies, and the
nature of short-term memory in America; in the end, Foer agreed to let Schreiber
adapt the book. - Schreiber's own project was intended to be a road
movie, but the book has parallel narrative that is an imagined chronological
history of the town of Trochenbrod that spans 500 years; given his budget and
limitations as a filmmaker, he said he'd leave that to Milos Forman and take the
road trip instead. This imagined chronology was what moved him to make the movie in
the first place, the idea that "a past lovingly imagined was as valuable as a past
accurately recalled". - Schreiber said the movie was a series of happy
accidents. After searching unsuccessfully in Ukraine for an actor, he was walking
through the Lower East Side in New York, when he saw a poster of a woman centaur,
topless from the waist up, with an insane cossack sitting astride her. Under the
poster said the name Gogol Bordello Ukranian Punk Gypsy Band. Eugene
Hutz then took over the story. He had never pursued acting as music was his first
passion. One day, a friend gave him the book, and he thought it was written in a
manner similar to how he writes music; screw sentences/syntax, language is my
own. Later, they got a call from a production company, looking for
eastern European music that was medieval but modern. Hutz met with Schreiber, and
he soon found the movie was based on the book he just happened to be reading. Not
long after that came up, Schreiber asked Hutz what he thought about Alex and
whether he could do the character by any chance. - Foer and Schreiber
talked about the film in the fall of 2001, shortly after the events of September
11. Both were in Europe at the time and they talked about the derogatory comments
they were hearing about Americans, which led Schreiber to want to try to find an
articulate American who would defy the stereotype that Europeans have of Americans.
Someone who was awkward, vulnerable, flawed, innocent, and looking for history
beyond the borders of his own country. Schreiber started thinking about who that
was, and Elijah came up. One of Schreiber's inspirations as a filmmaker
is Emir Kusturica (I think that's who he said, who also directed a segment in
another festival movie, All the Invisible Children) who said "you don't look for
the actors, you look for the people." Schreiber said there is something about who
Elijah is that he has a generosity of spirit and a sincere goodness as a human
being, that came across on film. Schreiber said that the eyes are important when
trying to articulate a character who is an observer, and that if "eyes are the
doors to the soul, Elijah's are garage doors." - Elijah Wood had fun
with a question about the similarities between his character Kevin in Sin City and
Jonathan in this movie as both are sort of a blank slate on which emotions are
projected. Wood replied that Jonathan may seem still and seemingly emotionless, but
it is all about his observations, about his experiences with other characters and
the environment he was in. - On the differences between directing and
writing: Schreiber said he likes writing a lot more and jokingly described
directing as "hell". After his grandfather died, Schreiber started to think about
how to preserve some sense of history and himself; is he content driven or not, or
just good at interpreting other people's work? He said he loved the exercise of
figuring out what is emotional to you, important to you.
"Japan takes the best from around the world and makes it their own", while that may
be true, it applies to all except for one thing, that being,.....Major league
baseball....but not to worry, "Mr Baseball" is there to try and change all that.
But just who will change whom, is the part of the movie that really makes it rock!
Tom Selleck is one of my favorite actors and really shines-on in his comedic roles.
The storyline may be true to life, however the subplot is dead-on. The Japanese
people are a gentle, respectful people with ways and traditions very different than
those of Western Society. All of these elements and obstacles combine to make for
one truly enjoyable, funny film. It's definitely worth the watch!
You have to like baseball, and you have to at least sort of like Tom Selleck, but
if you meet those criteria you should thoroughly enjoy this movie. Selleck plays
former major league star who finds himself traded (?) to Japan as his career winds
down. Really well thought out and fascinating look at Japanese customs and
behavior. Great supporting performances by Selleck's manager ("Japan's Clint
Eastwood"), his girl friend Takanashi, and his interpreter. The chemistry between
Selleck and Takanashi works very very well, this is really a very nice romantic
movie apart from the baseball. Look for Haysbert as fellow player well before he
became a persistent shill for Allstate. Movie wraps up very nicely. Easily in my
top fifty all time movies and maybe my favorite one on baseball.
This film got less attention than "League of Their Own," possibly because it has
only one "name" star. But whereas women's professional baseball had only an eight
year, Midwestern town existence, Japanese baseball is a vastly bigger entity, both
in financial underwriting and popular support. That alone would make it the better
movie. "Mr. Baseball" shows the facts of life of Japan-ball: the
regimented cheering, the deference to umpires, the pressure of corporate owners on
managers, the extreme conservatism of play - and no hot dog players welcome. It also touches upon the isolation that any gai-jin - but especially an
American jock, not the people most versed in foreign cultures - feels living in Dai
Nippon. And the Japanese, for their part, are not comfortable around foreigners and
let it show in various ways ("the gai-jin strike zone," one American player
complains, "bigger than a Buick.") The script may not have won any
awards, playing once again on the "redemption by improved play" theme, but I found
it considerably more enjoyable to watch than the pokey "League." Definitely
recommended for those who want to see another angle on this great sport.
Extremely funny. More gags in each one of these episodes than in ten years of
Friends. And with a good (ie. funny) Nordberg, not the fab-only-casted OJ Simpson
in the movies. When will these episodes emerge on DVD?...
Mr Baseball was a fun video rental with my Fiancé Susan Nauss. Susan said that she
had been looking forward to seeing the movie. Ken Takakura Oda as a tough yet
Honorable Manager makes sense. Ken Takakura has made so many wonderful Asian
movies, I correct the one reviewer and say Takakura is still a Cinematic Presence
with films like Hotari. Of course everyone likes Tom Selleck yet Ken Takakura is
the better dramatic actor of the two. Today someone accused me of being Yakuza,
well I say that My Great Uncle Shadow President Jack F Kennedy myself and others
are part of the legitimate Human leadership in our Universe and thanks to our
coCreators Humans are free people fighting all the parts of adversity that
President Kennedy talked about in his inaugural address. To be honest someone has
kept food prices very low in Canada on things like bread. In honor of our
CoCreators please stop eating amphibians reptiles and eggs. I hope that there will
one day be a sequel to Mr Baseball with Father Ken Takakura Oda still as Manager.
Thank you to IMDb for supporting freedom of speech like the kind President George W
Bush and I support. Support IMDb.
I am very impressed by the reviews I've read of this film - generally well-read,
thoughtful and informed - obviously by people who like and think hard about films.
I couldn't add a thing to the excellent reviewing job that IMDb members have
already done. If I may, I'd like to correct a small but widespread misunderstanding
that appears in many of the reviews: Mr Baseball was American and behaved in an
ugly fashion but he was NOT an Ugly American. The original Ugly American was Homer
Atkins, one of the heroes of the eponymous 1958 novel by Burdick and Lederer, and
the exact opposite of Mr Baseball. Homer was an archetypal American, and an
archetypal engineer - he went to Vietnam to work with people, he respected and
liked the people he met, he used appropriate, sustainable technology in cooperation
with his hosts, and he was liked and respected by them precisely because he
exemplified democratic values and American virtues. His ugliness was purely facial,
merely skin-deep; his personality and his humanity were deep and genuine. Mr Baseball exemplifies all the crass, ignorant, insecure boorishness that
we Europeans and Americans so often inflict on other cultures; Homer Atkins, the
Ugly American, was the other side of our coin, representing our humanity and
decency. I believe that the Ugly Americans still far outnumber the Mr Baseballs;
they are still our last, best hope.
An egotistic major league baseball player is forced to continue his career in
Japan, he contends with a culture that is alien to him, an apparently humorless
manager, an attractive Japanese woman and his own professional and social
insecurities. There is a certain subtle charm that flows through Tom Selleck's
performances. There is humor, sometimes softly understated, as in this film,
sometimes slapstick as in "Folks!", but always there seems to be some higher
purpose involved. Throw in an individual full of self doubts who struggles to solve
his personal difficulties while holding fast to "doing the right thing," and you
end up with a film both funny as well as thought-provoking. The cast fits together
like a championship team, and even if neither cast nor film win awards for their
efforts, they will leave the viewers feeling good (and maybe that's the best
results after all). You'll want to watch this film more than once, and each time,
Mr. Baseball hits a home run.
I really enjoyed this movie... In My DVD collection of baseball movies... Reminded
me how great the sport truly is... Whether it's here in America or Japan.
I am an Australian currently living in Japan. I saw this movie on TV here and was
very impressed by the accuracy and honesty in the portrayal of Western and Japanese
ideologies colliding. Whoever wrote the screenplay, and directed this film must
have a good knowledge of what it's like to be a foreigner living in Japan. The only
part I thought was too Hollywood-y was when Tom Selleck's character kisses the
woman in the middle of her office and she lets him. Public displays of affection
are not really acceptable here. Finally a movie that highlights the true 'gaijin'
experience! 9/10
Not too many people seem to know about this movie. Which is too bad because I think
it's pretty good. Sure it is a bit cheesy at times and may have a predictable
storyline. But the presentation of the movie is pretty well done. I think the
casting is good with likeable actors/characters. Tom Selleck does a good job at
playing a baseball player (go figure... not too much of a stretch I suppose) and
Ken Takakura (from Black Rain) plays the chief (the coach of the Japanese baseball
team). There isn't too much to complain about. It's just a light, easy-going, happy
comedy and I recommend it.
*Minor spoilers* I just wanted to say that for anyone who likes entertaining
baseball films, this is definitely in my top three. Only Little Big League and
Major League can compete with this one in my mind. I would also like to commend the
writers of this film for creating such enjoyable dialogue!! Without being too
specific, I would say that the lines are very fitting for each character. Tom
Selleck seemed to have no problem creating a realistic character as a ballplayer.
His animosity towards playing overseas in Japan sets the tone for comical, yet
meaningful interactions with his new team, the Dragons. He must adjust to life in
Japan ("First you wash, THEN you bathe!") He eventually sees eye to eye with his
coach and sets his goals to have that one final season of greatness, though in a
much different environment than he ever imagined! So for any baseball fan, or
anybody that wants to watch a good baseball movie, Mr. Baseball will not let you
down!
This is an excellent, little known movie. Tom Selleck does an outstanding job of
acting in this movie, with the Japanese 'Clint Eastwood'. I'd love to see if this
movie has come out on DVD yet, there are some spots that clearly have been cut.
Hiroku (Tom's love interest) has clearly had some parts chopped. It would be
interesting to see more of Japan in the film. The baseball sequences are far and
away the most realistic of any baseball movie, I'm quite sure most of the actors
were current or former baseball players. I love loading the tape of this movie at
least once a year. Best scenes involve the lack of hat tipping after Tom gets
beaned in the big game, and an intensely sensual scene of Tom having a hot bath
with Hiroku. Dennis Haysbert also does a great job, it's good to see he's finally
getting some recognition, not just in baseball movies(he was also in Major League).
This has always been a favorite movie of mine. I've owned a VHS copy, and a couple
of months ago I found a DVD release which is also part of my video collection. I
also happen to be a huge baseball fan, and as part of my off-season reading, I
picked up a copy of Robert Whiting's excellent book "You Gotta Have WA", that
profiles the ins and outs of Japanese baseball, and the challenges that foreign
players have encountered playing in Japan. As I began to read yesterday, it made me
think of this movie, because it appears the screenplay was based almost verbatim on
this book. The parallels are uncanny. The Jack Elliot character closely resembles
Bob Horner, an aging MLB slugger whose best days were behind him. Horner's teammate
Leon Lee is also depicted in the character Max "Hammer" Dubois, a veteran in the
Japanese league who has made his peace with the frustrations of the Japanese game,
and helps keeps his teammate sane. The Elliot character goes through the same
sequence of encounters as Horner, from big fanfare signing, early success that
fuels an already ravenous sports media, and the ensuing slump that spurs
frustration, alienation from teammates, fans and media, and the resulting
disillusionment that prompts a desire to go back home to the US. The only
difference is that the movie adds such Hollywood touches as a love interest and a
happy ending. Speaking of love interests, I'm sure many viewers have
come to this site (as I did) to look up the actress who played "Hiroko" (the
beautiful Aya Takanashi), and what other work she has done. It only lists this
movie. It turns out, based on an article I read, that the brief love scene she has
with Tom Selleck (a foreigner) in this movie (mild by our standards - basically
they kiss while he's in the bath and she's wearing a towel) caused such an outrage
on the part of the Japanese public (males in particular) that she has never been
offered another role of any kind, in Movies or television - essentially blackballed
by the Japanese movie industry. It's a real shame, as she is(was) quite a talented
actress in this movie. If you like this movie as much for the baseball
elements and cultural differences as I did -- go find a copy of "You Gotta Have WA"
by Robert Whiting. A good read and a great companion book to this movie.
Many believe this movie is a baseball movie. Such people are disappointed because
it's about a baseball player, but the movie isn't about baseball. Some
think this movie is a romantic comedy and are disappointed because the relationship
isn't really developed. This movie is not a romantic comedy. This movie
is about culture. An arrogant American Major Leaguer and a stern traditional
Japanese baseball manager cannot succeed because they can't, indeed, won't
understand one another. It's after they manage to break through the cultural
barrier that they have success. The ballplayer becomes more Japanese in his team
mentality and the manager more American in allowing individual achievement, and
they meet in the middle. Baseball and the romance is subordinate to this
critique of the two cultures. Many who have no understanding of the Japanese
mindset miss this and think it's a movie on baseball or romance and see the culture
clash as mild comedy relief. It's not---the culture clash is the gravamen of the
movie. Based on my own experience and understanding of the Japanese culture, I
think this movie did quite well in that it didn't overly romanticize the Japanese
culture nor overdo it in its portrayal. Overall, I believe this is an
enjoyable and relaxing movie if one understands what it is really about.
To say that this is a good show is not to say anything at all. After all, this show
is made by the same crew responsible for Airplane and other hilarious and brilliant
movies. Writing is superb. Even though the show is built on one-liners, they don't
become overbearing or annoying. Leslie Nielsen is flexing his comedy muscle to the
full extent as if saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. The format was definitely
polished to introduce Naked Gun. When watching these movies, notice how many
schticks are taken from the TV show. The brilliant part is that they don't have to
be changed too much. The show was truly a testing ground for bigger and better
versions to come later.
Redo the Oscars from 1992, and this film might get nominated, or even win. It was
SO good at capturing its era and dual cultures that it belongs in American and
Japanese time capsules. If you wanted to know what living here or there was like
back then, this film will show you. As an American, you'll feel like you tagged
along for an extended Japanese vacation, and by the end of the film, you'll be a
die-hard Dragons fan, as you accept the injection of Japanese tradition and culture
into their baseball, much as we have done with our culture in our own game. Jack Elliot (Tom Selleck) is a slumping, aging Detroit Tigers' slugger who
is traded to the Dragons, perennial runners-up to the dynastic Yomuri Giants,
Japan's answer to the Yankees. The Giants are admired for their success, yet that
success also has everyone wanting to surpass them, something which is rarely done.
The Dragons' manager recruits Jack as the final piece of the pennant-winning
puzzle, and we're left with what could have been Gung Ho on a baseball field, but
instead was much more. The casting was outstanding: Selleck proved that
with a good script and a character that suits him, he can carry a film as well as
he did his television show, and the Japanese cast was equally good, down to Mr.
Takagi from Die Hard back as the image-conscious owner. The other actors, including
the one who plays the love interest (also the manager's daughter), strong and
independent yet simultaneously a believer in Japanese traditions, beyond what was
forced on her. She is a proper and supportive girlfriend for Jack. Even her father
never tells her not to see him, almost sympathizing with Jack for what he endures
from her, and a bit relieved he at least knows the man she has chosen to
love. The baseball scenes are great, bolstered immensely by a pre-fame
Dennis Haysbert as another American ex-patriate and Jack's western mentor. The
usual fish-out-of-water elements are there, and you can almost feel yourself
stumbling right along with Jack to fit into a country that doesn't speak our
language, and doesn't practice our ways, yet copies everything we do, including our
national pastime. one of the funnier scenes occurs when Jack, clutching a magazine,
informs his manager that he has learned of the tradition in Japan where you can get
drunk and tell off your boss, and it can't be used against you, and exercises that
right very humorously. The plots and subplots are tied up neatly at the end, but
not too neatly, and nothing concludes unrealistically. To call this a
comedy is misguided: it's a pure comedy-drama, or even a drama with good humor. The
plot is too deep to dismiss it the way it was by critics as an actor out of his
league trying to carry a lightweight film. The situations were amusing, but in
their place against a far more serious, profound, and precisely detailed backdrop
that results in one of the best films I've ever seen. The baseball cinematography
rivals that of For Love Of The Game, for realism. Some say the film is
about baseball, or about Japan, but more than anything it seems to be about the
workplace, and how people arrive at work from totally different origins, with
different agendas, and somehow have to put their differences aside for the good of
the company, or the team. A truly great film that never should have had
to apologize for itself the way it did when it was in theaters.
I liked this movie, not because Tom Selleck was in it, but because it was a good
story about baseball and it also had a semi-over dramatized view of some of the
issues that a BASEBALL player coming to the end of their time in Major League
sports must face. I also greatly enjoyed the cultural differences in American and
Japanese baseball and the small facts on how the games are played
differently. Overall, it is a good movie to watch on Cable TV or rent on
a cold winter's night and watch about the "Dog Day's" of summer and know that
spring training is only a few months away. A good movie for a baseball fan as well
as a good "DATE" movie Trust me on that one! *Wink*
I agree with the guy above, It is so funny I understand it all, but my friends just
don't get it. Go to Japan and you will see a different movie after being there.
When I met my girlfriends dad, at his home in Kanagawa. I swear I felt the same as
Jack,. scared, but by the end of the day it was all good, so I give this movie a 10
out 10. I have watched it at least 30 times, taking it with me to watch
on the plane flying to Japan next month. One thing that is real good is the ball
game scenes. Makes me feel like I am there again. This is a must see if you have
any interest in Japan and Baseball. Too bad they don't make a sequel. Does anyone
know where the temple scenes were filmed and the argument with hirko in the walkway
with a roof on it???? need to know so I can win an argumrnt with me Japanese ex-
wife. thanks
You have to have lived in Japan for awhile to enjoy the beauty of this movie! I
lived on Okinawa for over 2 years, and northern Honshu for 4. Believe it or not,
what you see paints a very good and accurate picture of contrasting east/west
mentalities, both from a sports as well as personal relationships perspective. A
funny, funny, and heartwarming movie that deserves better than Americans viewing it
can ever judge. 8+ out of 10!
I agree with BigAlC - this movie actually prepared me for a lot of the cultural
differences and practices before I went to live in Japan for a year in 1993. Tom
Selleck does a fantastic job here, as always, and the movie is greatly humorous and
educational. I'm a big fan of Tom Selleck's, and he blesses this part with his
usual charm and charisma to this part, bringing the film to life in a way I can't
imagine any other actor being able to pull off. This film featured some
first-rate Japanese actors, and it was highly entertaining to watch them as they
interacted with Selleck - I can imagine the fun he had during the actual filming of
the movie - Japan's an awesome place to go, whether you want to party, sight-see or
just try to take everything in.
MR. BASEBALL is a film of paradoxes. Written and filmed as a "light, sports comedy"
it truly has a heartwarming core as human and universal as some of Capra's finest.
At the plot level, you have the paradox of baseball, a fine old American game, as
it is played in Japan - turned around, with American values cast off and Japanese
values imprinted upon the game. (Some of the superficial "sports comedy" results
from Jack's uncomprehending disbelief at how "basa-boru" is played in Japan.) You
also have a lead character who's presented as an over-the-hill, aging baseball
star, but who is actually quite immature - pro ball allowed him to postpone growing
up. And you have a lead character who is rudely resistant to the changes in his
life that are being forced upon him, refusing to accept the curveball that life has
given him, in the midst of a new country, a new manager, a new team, and a new
girlfriend, who have all welcomed him and try to accept him. Sound like heavy
stuff? Not really. It's a charming "clash of cultures" comedy that takes place on
the national, sports, romantic, and professional levels. But if you watch it
sensitively enough, you will also find a great story about a man who has to abandon
his immaturity and grow up way too late in life (causing some amount of personal
pain), and finds success in places he never expected it. I love the story, but I
also have great respect for Selleck's performance; he bares his tush (literally) to
portray an ugly American, insulting people and throwing tantrums in public, then
lets us inside this character to understand his dismay. It also doesn't hurt if
you're a big fan of Takakura Ken like I am. MR. BASEBALL is a surprising "loss of
innocence" tale.
A lot of the comments seem to treat this film as a baseball movie, but I feel this
is only secondary. It's really about living in Japan, and it really succeeds. I spent a few years living in Japan, and I suppose the reason that this
movie didn't do too well is that you sort of have to have experienced Japan to get
it. I was watching this with a well-travelled friend who's never been to Japan, and
he noted that many of the events in the movie were so ludicrous that they destroyed
the suspension of disbelief. My reply was that those events were the absolute
unvarnished truth about life in Japan! I think that this movie is
definitely worth watching, especially if you've lived in Japan or are interested in
it.
I really liked this one. (SPOILERS??) It had a really good plot, the main female in
this movie is really kewl. Despite the fact that she's the only one left
alive and her lover dead, it seemed to be much like Ninja Scroll. Another kick ass
movie. ;) Watch it in japanese with subtitles. I don't know where the
idiots who learned to speak english are, but for some reason all dubs get an F in
translation techniques. The subtitles are more correct. 9/10 Quality: 7/10 Entertainment: 10/10 Replayable: 9/10
After reading more than my fair share of reviews for a vast number of different
movies I have noticed a certain trend, people judge to harshly on what the expected
to see. I figure if you go into a movie open-minded not expecting anything certain
than you will have better feelings towards it then if you try and watch but have
pre-created standards you want it to reach. Since I try not to be
hypocritical I watched this movie with a very clean slate and open-mind, and was
very much pleased. Since it is not a mainstream title or award winning for that
matter I did not know quite what to expect, but in all truth I enjoyed it a good
deal more than Ninja Scroll. Lovely animation, deep story, and the always joyful
ninja hack-n-slashing combined extremely well to one of my personal favorite animes
ever made. I am not promising that you will enjoy it, but just give it a
chance and you may come out with a pleasant surprise. - "Before
speaking, be sure of what you will say will be more beautiful than the silence" -
Chinese proverb
After having spent a lot of my youth watching such movies, I found this one very
easy to follow in both the unedited and cut versions, (Although the story has much
more to hold it together in the unedited version. Unlike Ninja Scroll this movie
hit a much more serious note and i think that's where it hit me. The animation
while grainy is very original, and I just love the way artists in that year
stressed shadows to show different emotions. I think the story is perfect. The
beginning of the movie really hits hard and as the movie progresses you get the
feeling that you're going along in this adventure with the characters. As they
meet, become allies and find out the their greatest strengths, a lot of heart was
put into this.
One night I was listening to talk radio and they had Leslie Nielsen on the program.
He went on to explain why there were only 6 shows. ' With TV shows like
MASH you could go to the fridge to get a beer and as long as you heard what was
going on you didn't miss anything. But with Police Squad, you HAD to watch the
show, with the sight gags you missed a whole lot if you didn't see them. Who could
forget "... the part of town known as "Little Italy"..." with the coliseum in the
background. Even the movies relied heavily on the sight gags, but then
again being in the theater you were a captive audience. Leslie also said
the one reason the show, movies and other movies like Airplane were funny is
because they didn't attempt to tell what was funny. It was up to the viewer to get
the jokes. Well that's just my 2 cents.
What is worth mentioning that is omitted in the other reviews I have read here, is
the subtext of how the law shaped the lives and behaviour of gays in the era
portrayed in the film. While Courtenay's character is evidently gay, he is not the
only one: the often talked about Mr. Davenport-Scott is the other, and the reason
that he is never seen, the reason alluded to that he has disappeared seems to be
that he has been detained by the police for homosexual activity - a criminal
offense in England at the time. We can read under the surface that this
recent event has unsettled Norman, Courtenay's character: and we can also see in a
passing remark by Oxenby, the Edward Fox character, the quick renunciation of any
connection to such a person when the law is involved: the fear of association
affects many of the characters, and is part of the portrait the film paints of a
time and the people who inhabit it. The abandonment of Courtenay at the end by Sir
has been anticipated all the way through, if this subtext is included: it also
makes sense of both the otherwise inexplicable omission of his Dresser from the
list of those he gives thanks to. The flamboyance combined with the fear of
exposure produces the combination of yearning and fear that Courtenay has to 'step
into the footlights', as he does when he makes the announcement about the imminent
air raids, a scene that would otherwise be gratuitous, but that is both a symbolic
and literal depiction of the man's inner torment. So while the drama is
of the decline of Finney's Sir, a great deal of the tragedy of the film and play
comes from the 'fatal flaw' of Courtenay's gayness, and makes this a film about
him, as the title suggests. The art direction, pacing and cinematic
style of this film seem to come from another time, more distant than the eighties
and, in some ways, even than the second world war. The implicit portrait of a
society still clinging to an older moral order, and the sympathy of the character
racked and ruined by the cruelties of that order, of necessity trapped in the
enclosed world of the theatre; and the knowledge we have of how much of it all
would be swept away after the war makes this film all the more poignant, for all
its flaws.
this particular title is very interesting. the whole movie was like watching a
ninja RPG, which is really cool. three magical swords, three clans, a horrible
demon, a political power, yotoden has it all. the animation is decent, but a little
grainy, the story is top notch, and the fight scenes are real cool. one thing that
really looks good in this movie are the monsters. they are pretty freaky. if you
liked blood reign and ninja scroll, yotoden is the one to see.
In the Realm of the Senses is a beautifully filmed, well-written, and splendidly
acted film. It tells the haunting story of a woman who kills her husband after
falling in love with another man. The ghost of her husband continues to haunt her
lond after his murder. This film is really good, anyone interested should
definitely check it out.
This is a film by Oshima, the director of the notorious "In The Realm Of The
Senses", a film so sexually brazed and unabashedly controversial it was banned for
a while. This film takes place initially in 1895 in Japan and stars the very pretty
Keziko Yoshiyuki as Seki, the wife of a rickshaw driver who falls for a much
younger man who woos her in kind. That man, Toyoji, comes to her as she was
sleeping and seduces her, though she soon is rather willing to be seduced. Soon
they are having an affair and plot to kill Seki's husband, to be together forever.
They do, and throw him down a well. However, they didn't count on the ghost of the
dead husband haunting Seki and others in the village! This film is visually very
stunning, the use of shadows highlighting this tale of murder for passion. Ms.
Yoshiyuki (who is still active as an actress) is especially very good in her role.
Its sexual at times, but not like "In The Realm Of The Senses". Some of what ensues
is up to our imagination. I found this film to have a consistency of mood that
makes it very watchable. A little creepy but that goes with the territory. I'd
recommend this.
Empire of Passion starts out deceptively - that is, if you're immediately expecting
it to be a horror movie. It's like a riff on James M. Cain's The Postman Always
Rings Twice, at first: Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki) is a mother of two and a dutiful,
hard-working wife to rickshaw driver Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura). But when he's not
around, and she's at home with the baby, the feisty and aimless young man Toyoji
(Tatsuya Fuji) comes around to bring some goodies for Seki... and a little extra.
They're soon sleeping together, but after he does something to her (let's just say
a "shave"), he knows that he'll find out, and immediately proposes that they kill
Gisaburo. They drink him up, strangle him, and then toss him down a well.
Naturally, this will come back to haunt them - but that it's literally, at least to
them (at first super-terrified Seki and then only later on skeptical Toyoji),
changes gears into the 'Kaidan', a Japanese ghost story. This is a film
where the horror comes not simply out of "oh, ghost, ah", but out of the total
dread that builds for the characters. In a way there's the mechanics of a film-noir
at work throughout, if only loosely translated by way of a 19th century Japanese
village as opposed to an American city or small town (i.e. the snooping cop, the
"evidence" found possibly by another, word getting around, suspicions aroused,
etc). It's compelling because Seiko actually was against the plan from the start,
manipulated by the lustful but ill-prepared Toyoji, and her reactions to Gisaburo's
re-appearances are staggering to her. Take the one that comes closest to poetry:
Gisaburo's ghost, pale-blue face and mostly silent, chilling stare, motions for
Seiko to get on the rickshaw. She does, reluctantly, and he pushes her around on a
road she doesn't know, in the wee hours before dawn, surrounded by smoke. Most
Japanese ghost stories wish to heavens they could get this harrowingly
atmospheric. While it starts to veer into hysterics towards the end,
there's so much here that director Oshima gets right in making this a distinctive
work. After hitting it huge in the international cinema world with In the Realm of
the Senses (which, ironically, got banned in his own country), he made something
that, he claimed, was even *more* daring that 'Senses'. Maybe he was right; Empire
of Passion has less graphic sexual content by far than its predecessor (also
starring Tatsuya Fuji, a magnificently physical actor with an immense lot of
range), but its daring lies in crafting a world of dread. You can believe in ghosts
in this story, but you also have to believe how far down to their own personal
hells these two would-be lovebirds will go. The snooping detective or the gossiping
townspeople are the least of their worries: the fate of their very souls is at
stake. And Oshima takes what in other hands could be merely juicy pulp
(sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if an American remake was already in the works) and
crafts shot after gorgeous shot, with repetition working its way into the mis-en-
scene (i.e. the shots of Seiko and Toyoji walking on that road, the camera at a
dutch angle, the world tilted and surrounding them in a grim blue hue) as well as
some affecting movements that will stay with me long after I finish typing this
(i.e. Toyoji throwing the leaves by one hand into the well in slow motion, or how
Seiko's nude body is revealed after she becomes blind). It's daring lies in
connecting on a level of the spirit- not to be confused with the spiritual, though
there may be something with that as well- about life and death's connections to one
another, inextricably. It's a classic waiting to be discovered.
A genuinely creepy ghost story, full of chills and sensuality, this movie just
falls short of what it promises. It is apparently based on an old ghost story, and
perhaps relies a little too much on a simple premise. For most of the way, its
imaginative and genuinely gripping, but at the end its almost like Oshima just lost
interest in it, and brought it to a rapid ending. The story is simple -
a woman and her younger lover kill her husband so that they can be together. But
their failure of nerve and his returning ghost condemn them to madness. Its
beautifully handled, with imaginative set scenes, and the lovers passion is
portrayed beautifully. But too often the movie fails to really deliver on its
promise, almost as if Oshima loses his nerve in the same way the lovers do. Its a worthwhile movie to watch just to see how Oshima combines his great
skill as a film maker with some exploitation movie tricks to pull the audience
along, but sadly its not a true classic in the mold of movies like Onibaba or Woman
of the Dunes.
In 1895, in a small village in Japan, the wife of the litter carrier Gisaburo
(Takahiro Tamura), Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki), has an affair with a man twenty-six
years younger, Toyiji (Tatsuya Fuji). Toyiji becomes jealous of Gisaburo and plots
with Seki to kill him. They strangle Gisaburo and dump his body inside a well in
the woods, and Seki tells the locals that Gisaburo moved to Tokyo to work. Three
years later, the locals gossip about the fate of Gisaburo, and Seki is haunted by
his ghost. The situation becomes unbearable to Seki and Toyiji when a police
authority comes to the village to investigate the disappearance of Gisaburo. "Ai no Borei" is a surreal and supernatural love story. The remorse and the
guilty complex of Seki make her see the ghost of her murdered husband, spoiling the
perfect plot of her lover. The cinematography is jeopardized by the quality of the
VHS released in Brazil, but there are very beautiful scenes, inclusive "Ringu" and
the American remake "The Ring" use the view of the well from inside in the same
angle. The performances and direction are excellent making "Ai no Borei" a great
movie. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "O Império da Paixão" ("The
Empire of Passion")
Eros and Thanatos, Love and Death command the dialectics of Life. By the end of
19th century in a remote Japanese village a young man and a married woman, older
than he, fall in love with each other and decide to kill her husband to be free to
enjoy their love. But they never enjoy that freedom since Remorse begins to haunt
them beginning as usual at the time by the weakest member of the couple, the woman
of course. Henceforth in an atmosphere where dream (nightmare) mixes up with
reality the ghost of the murdered husband appears first to the woman but then also
to the man. It also haunts the dreams of the other villagers creating a climate of
suspicion and gossip around the couple which is aggravated by the arrival of a
police officer that comes to investigate the disappearance of the murdered husband.
But which makes this movie more interesting besides this almost common story of
adultery is the evolution of the couple's feelings in a Shakespearean deep
psychological and dramatic development of remorse, anguish and fear which turns
their love relationship into a nightmare until their final doom. The expressionism
so dear to Japanese theatre or movie acting is also present in the players'
performances but not in an exaggerated form. Just only in the necessary measure to
show more effectively the most deep feelings of the depicted characters. This is
indeed a solid good movie.
If you like the excitement of a good submarine drama and the fun of a good comedy,
then this film comes highly recommended. Kelsey Grammer gives an excellent
performance here. The film also gives you something to think about the
next time a serious sub movie asks for 'silent running'.... 
My wife and I find this movie to be a wonderful pick-me-up when we need to have a
good laugh - the conflict between some characters and the repore between others
make this a sure fire comedy relief. I am so looking forward to this movie coming
on DVD so I can replace my well watched VHS.
especially when looking at the amount of crap that has made it to DVD. I found this
movie very funny. Rip Torn is classic with his barbs; Rob Schneider if hilariously
annoying as the over-compensating Ensign; Bruce Dern makes a great "villain". The
entire cast seems to be having a blast, and it's not at the expense of the
audience. If you like just plain fun comedy, and aren't looking too deeply into
meaning, you just might fall in love with this one.
To be brief, the story is paper thin and you can see the ending coming from a mile
away, but Gene Kelly, Rita Hayworth, and an impossibly young Phil Silvers keep the
movie afloat throughout and at times lift it right up into the air. A few of the
songs are terrible clunkers ("Poor John" is a train wreck) but most of them are
great fun, and the scene of Hayworth performing on the absurdly huge set for
Kelly's rival has to be seen to be believed. Another treat is the perfect faux-NYC
sets in the best Hollywood tradition. Another attraction, if you
consider such things attractions, is the howlingly awful male "chivalry" toward
women. The oily leering and transparent obsequiousness that passed for male charm
back then (in the movies, at least) is presented in its most lurid form here. Some
of the men are about like a cartoon wolf. One minor disappointment is
Eve Arden trapped in a role so minor that she barely has a chance to do anything. I
can imagine a lot of potential comic interplay between her and Silvers--a missed
opportunity.
I found this movie to be a simple yet wonderful comedy. This movie is purely
entertaining. I can watch it time and time again and still enjoy the dialog and
chemistry between the characters. I truly hope for a DVD release!
This is one of my 3 favorite movies. I've been out on the water since I was 13, so
I got a lot of the humor as well as recognizing a lot of the near-land scenery (the
movie, although taking place in and around Virginia, was filmed around the San
Francisco Bay), most notably the mothball fleet just east of the Benicia Bridge
where Kelsey Grammar's character was first introduced to the USS Stingray, and the
piers of San Francisco at the very end of the movie (including a boat that I've
worked on). As other people have said, the actors appeared to have fun making this
movie as well as making it entertaining. The line "We're approaching the bottom,
sir! I can hear a couple of lobsters duking it out" is, at least to me,
priceless. I am one of numerous people who is anxiously awaiting a
letterboxed DVD of Down Periscope to be introduced.
I've lost count of the times I have seen this movie, but I love it and find it very
funny each time I see it. The facial expressions, slapstick humor and the timing on
the jokes makes it great. The characters, especially "Nitro", "Sonar" and
"Stepanik" are hilarious. I thought Kelsey Grammar, Rip Torn and Bruce Dern did a
great job. In fact, I think this movie was perfectly cast. I think it does need to
be released in DVD before I wear my VHS version out.
I can't explain it, but I find this movie not only funny, but so enjoyable I feel
compelled to watch it over and over, or at least I did when I had cable TV. I
always felt it was a really poorly made movie, but perhaps that is because I
watched it on cable. I plan to get a DVD of this movie to really take an honest
look at at, but more importantly to just have a good time watching it. I liked the
plot and the idea of the movie and I especially liked the cast. I always wonder if
the cast enjoyed making the movies they are in and this is no exception. This film
deserved a better fate than it received and Kelsey Grammar deserved at least one
love scene with Ms. Holly. Who wouldn't? The characters in this movie were the kind
of guys I could identify with when I was in the military and the zaniness was
exact. Nice going troops.
As an ex (nuclear) submarine officer I must admit this is my favorite submarine
movie (even exceeding Hunt for Red October). Someone knew something about
submarines when they wrote the movie. OK - not realistic - but it is a comedy - and
has all of the "inside jokes" from the submarine force. A great cast with the
stereotypical uptight submarine guys on the "Orlando" and our heroes on the diesel
boat. Definitely "DBF" by the way = that means diesel boats forever. But they want
ten lines in order to post this - jees is the Admiral in charge here? Line 10.
I've seen this movie at least 8 times, and I still laugh every time. The movie is
about how an intelligent and motivated man, against all odds, can cheat the entire
over-self-confident system. This movie is for all people, who like a
funny movie. The action and comedy is well mixed into a brilliant film,
that I hope to see on DVD soon. 
You know sometimes you just gotta have it? That's how this movie is with me. I am
almost embarrassed to admit that I like it, it is so goofy in some parts, but I
find myself reaching for it when I'm down and just need a good laugh...and trust
me, I am just not a "goofy movie" kinda guy. You can read the synopsis
so I don't have to bore you with that, just rest assured, if you like Kelsey
Grammer you will probably like this movie. One more thing, be SURE to
watch the end credits. You don't need to read them, just watch them and catch the
performance of "In the Navy" by the Village People...and friends.
This film is about a bunch of misfits who are supposed to be assigned to a task
that is expected to fail miserably. The misfits pull together to successfully
complete their mission. Hilarity ensues. Like the "Police
Academy" films, the humor comes from the kooky characters on the boat. I thought it
was an engaging film and I will stop to watch it anytime it is on TV. No, it won't
cause you to ponder your relative role in the cosmos or inspire you to do great
things for the service of mankind, but it is fun enough entertainment for 90-some-
odd minutes. Plus, Lauren Holly looks hot in a naval uniform.
I really enjoyed this movie. I have probably watched it 2 dozen times or more and
still enjoy it. Being an old Navy guy, Im still stirred by the rousing rendition of
Anchors Away! I also love the "McHales Navy" pirate atmosphere. I could have done
without the female dive officer but Im just old fashioned I guess. She was still
good to look at, lol, espesially after the crew got done with her laundry. The
cook, sonarman, and electrician made the movie. Loved the salty old engineer and
his first class PO too. And Grammer actually did a very commendable job of being a
misfit Officer. I loved the "driving scene" as they passed the golf course on the
way into port, lol. Pure Navy! And I swear I had an XO that was just like that
little weasel... Im am so glad this is out on DVD, about bloody time. :0)
The first few minutes of this movie don't do it justice!For me, its not funny until
they board the sub and those hilarious characters begin to gel. I was born and
raised in Norfolk Virginia and met my share of "different" sailors- I even married
one! Most of my favorite movies are just funny, not topical, not dependent on sex
or violence and funny every time I see them. Groundhog Day, Bruce Almighty and Down
Periscope are still funny even after I know the dialog by heart. Kelsey Grammar
with his "God I LOVE this job!"was sincere, genuine and lovable. Rob Schneider is
hysterical as the crew gets back at him for being annoying. I am still amazed at
the size of that fishing boat next to a sub! I can see why folks who live this life
would notice the uh-oh's but its not a documentary after all its a comedy and I
just love it!
The most notable feature of this film is the chemistry between the actors, the
sense of camaraderie in their dialogue and dances. This typical rising-star musical
has an overworked plot, even for 1944, but because of the actors it's still fun to
watch. Hayworth isn't even that much of a dancer, but she has a lot of
'inexperienced' charm that fits her character. Kelly plays his usual caring
authoritarian role while Silvers provides plenty of self-deprecation and laughs.
The movie can also be very serious at times. Not a must-see, but recommended if you
like the actors.
Look, we rated this a 10 on entertainment value. It's a comedy sure, not an epic
like Lord of the Rings, or Gone with the Wind. Still for comedy, particularly these
days, it's a 10. Not a long movie, moves quickly and easily. Kelsey
Grammar right at home is this role as a loose but brilliant captain of a diesel
sub, pitted against the US Nuclear Navy in a war game, designed to see if
Terrorists could get a nuclear bomb through our defenses. (kinda ironic this
plot...pre 911) Don't take this topic seriously cause it's mostly laughs from start
to finish. Rob Schneider is 2nd in command (like "Frank Burns") and
pulls many laughs. All the others are perfect for their parts as well. Rip Torn and
Bruce Dern. Look plain and simple, you got 90 minutes and need a laugh
or pick me up and you're not a prude (their is some language and innuendo) then
rent it, or buy it (we did) and enjoy! I wish they would make a part 2!
Down Periscope is not a "Great Movie". But then again very few flicks are. So if
your looking for entertainment instead of great wisdom this is a "great movie",
without the capitals. No sharp sexism or graphic violence spoil this light comedy
about a bunch of misfits who are assigned to a antique submarine. They are set to
fail their tasks so that a general can get his extra star. They must take on the
entire US-navy with it's nuclear submarines. But they are underdogs and this is a
comedy so you can guess the outcome. But you root for those underdogs and this
makes it a very entertaining movie. Watch and enjoy ******** (eight stars that is)
It starts a little slow but give it a chance. In the spirit of the "Wackiest Ship
in the Arm" and the "Pink Sub" this movie is about a not so orthodox group engaged
in not so orthodox methods to outwit everyone. Rob Schneider is priceless as a LT
that takes himself way too seriously which results in a failed mutiny attempt and
"pirate" crew makes him walk the plank. In contrast Kelsey Grammar(similar to Cary
Grant)does not take anything to serious except the job. This movie is more about
lines than plot. From the "beered up" fisherman in Charleston harbor to the "whale"
decoy, their antics took me by surprise and I laughed out loud.
I saw the movie in the theater at its release, then watched the VHS tape over the
years, and while strolling through Target saw this DVD bundled with "Pushing Tin"
for the exorbitant sum of $5.50. There is something about this comedy
that has really clicked with me - how Kelsey Grammar, "with a tattoo on his thing",
is an unorthodox commander who inherits a rusty diesel sub and a crew of screwballs
and misfits. He's up against the Navy's best - a Los Angeles Class nuclear attack
sub - and his old captain (Wm Macy). Bruce Dern plays the bad guy, Rip
Torn the admiral running the exercise - If you don't laugh hysterically during the
"run silent" segment with the cook, well, you have a different kind of humor from
me. Towards the end the machinist says "D.B.F." with no explanation - it
is apparently some inside knowledge gotten from an old submariner consultant -
thanks to Google I learned that with the advent of the nuclear subs the old salts
would wear "DBF" pins - Diesel Boats Forever. A Navy friend said that
many of the technical aspects aren't correct but who cares - it is one of the
funniest movies I've seen. I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to know
who will win in this exercise!
I just discovered this film and love it. Just the right mix of fast moving story,
entertaining characters, hilarious moments (but not overloaded with stupid jokes),
and fun performances by Kelsey Grammar, Harry Dean Stanton, Ron Schneider, Rip Torn
and more. Buckman is especially good, and I really enjoyed watching the guy who
played Stapanick. I also find it interesting that they used a real
submarine, the Pampanito, for the running on top scenes and emulated it almost
exactly for their sets. The set decoration is really impressive if you do a digital
tour of the Pampanito online and then compare it to scenes in the movie. They did
an excellent job on this film. What a light entertaining and truly
enjoyable movie!
This is a VERY underrated movie to say the least. As has been pointed out in
previous posts, this movie has a somewhat loose and highly implausible script but
you find yourself saying "Who cares?" while shooting milk (or insert beverage of
your choice here) through your nose. It was indeed due to a rare mix of actors in
sync. While Kelsey Grammar is obviously a gifted actor (reference 'Frasier', this
movie) the supporting actors/actress play their roles quite well. I found in
interesting how they threw in the part about Duane Martin blowing the shot in the
'big game' for Navy's basketball team; if any of you is a basketball fan you'll
remember Martin from 'White Men Can't Jump' and 'Above the Rim' and you'll know
that Martin had a short stint in the NBA with the Knicks. Nice how they threw in
believable character attributes such as this. Rob Schneider's anal-retentive
character was the perfect offset to Grammar's calm demeanor. Lauren Holly played
the gutsy-sexpot-with-a-brain well enough to make you want her to succeed. This is
a movie that will make you laugh even if you've seen it many times before...the
comic bits in this movie definitely last. I still find myself laughing 12 years
later. "Is that one of my chickens?" "Uhhh...no. This a parrot....from
the Caribbean." "Well don't let it fly away...that's supper." "Arrrrr.....arr."
"Down Periscope" has been in our library since it first arrived in VHS. Since then,
we have acquired the DVD and a digital from Cinema Now. It is a quirky
flick that does not go militarily overboard as either pro or con. It is first and
foremost a comedy and as a vehicle for the main characters, I am quite surprised
that a sequel has never been offered. The movie has gained a following
that borders on a cult obsession, even among the very young. I became aware of this
while visiting the USS Drum in Mobile, Alabama in 2002. A group of Cub Scouts, my
grandson among them, had all taken up the roles from the movie and planned to
relive it during their overnighter on board. It is a fun romp that makes
you proud both of our Navy and Hollywood... which is rare company. Thanks to Kelsey Grammar, Lauren Holly and Rob Schneider for making what could
have been an otherwise unremarkable movie, such great entertainment!
The scripting of the subtle comedy is unmatched by any movie in recent years. The
characters are interesting, even if a bit predictable. The comedic timing written
into the script is more than enough to make up for a well-worn underdog plot. When
you're sure you know the ending....SURPRISE! Highly recommended for all ages,
although the younger set will probably not appreciate some of the more subtle
references, they will certainly appreciate one galley scene in particular! Great
movie!
Not the best plot in the world, but the comedy in this movie rules. Kelsey Grammar
is wonderful in this movie. Another funny guy is Rob Schneider who will make you
crack up with his segments with Ken Hudson Campbell who plays Buckman. Lauren Holly
plays probably the more serious character in the cast as Lt. Lake. Bruce Dern is a
great actor in this movie, playing probably the most serious character in the
movie. The actor i liked the most was Toby Huss as Nitro, all the electric shots
his character takes in the movie is hilarious. Plot is a little uneven,
about Lt. Commander Tom Dodge, who for years has wanted to Command his own sub.
When he finally gets the chance, instead of a brand new sub, he gets a rusty WWII
Diesel Sub, the Stingray. His crew isn't any better, misfits of the U.S. Navy. He
is then put in a series of War Games, that shows how an old Diesel Engine can
handle itself against the current Nuclear Navy. Things still don't get any better
when he finds out his dive officer is actually a female officer, to see how Women
do on actual Subs. To get the commander position he wants, he has to win the War
Games, and blow up a Dummy Ship. The movie fairs quite well, in fact i
laughed non-stop when i saw this movie in theaters. I loved when they were in
silence and Buckman farts, and everyones reaction to the smell is hilarious. Overall, 9 out of 10, this movie is just plain fun to watch, it nice to
have a movie like this, i hate movies that try to be 100% serious.
I love military comedies (Sgt. Bilko, Stripes, In The Army Now, Major Payne) and
Down Periscope is hilarious, but it has a heart as well. The Stingray
SS-161 (The USS Pampanito) was gorgeous. Absolutely beautiful, a piece of art come
alive. So it was a diesel engine sub, so what? I learned that the Aircraft Carrier
USS Ranger (which stood in for The Enterprise in Star Trek IV), a huge ship, was
'conventionally powered', which might mean that Ranger was a diesel too. My favorite scene: Pascal: Jesus, Buckman, this can's been on the stingray
since Korea! This can expired in 1966! Buckman: (Takes finger full and tastes it)
What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like creamed corn. Pascal:
(Yelling) Except, it's DEVILED HAM!! Buckman: That would be a problem. It's story, perhaps a wee strained, seemed plausible. Winslow respected Dodge,
and seemed to care about him, so he wanted to give Dodge a chance. He gave him a
battered but still seaworthy Balao-class sub, and assigns him the task of using the
diesel sub to evade the nuclear Navy and 'attack' Charlston Harbor, and Norfolk. 2-
star Admiral Graham (with his eye on his third star, and a grudge against Dodge)
assigned him the ragtag crew, hoping that they would screw up so Dodge would lose.
Can Tom Dodge get the crew up to speed and working as a team, and can he take an
old, out of date sub, and beat the Navy's best?
Although the plot of Cover Girl is very flimsy and tired, it does serve well enough
as an anchor for the Kern and Gershwin musical numbers. Following her signature
role in Gilda, Hayworth opted to star in this musical that seems tailor made for
her. Besides looking as gorgeous as ever, she impresses with her dancing as well.
Gene Kelly, who was on loan to Columbia from MGM, matches her in dancing and the
sequence where he cavorts with his own shadow was nicely done. The supporting
characters were also competently acted. Personally, I didn't enjoy Cover Girl as
much as the musicals Hayworth made with Fred Astaire. However, Cover Girl is still
very entertaining and easy to recommend. My score: 7/10.
LCDR Tom Dodge, despite having a reputation among submariners as a renegade and
maverick (*note to reader: Maverick does not mean "Tom Cruise". Maverick means
"non-conformist".), is actually an intelligence operative for the Vice Admiral of
his submarine fleet. The Vice-Admiral is concerned about our old friends the
Russians hosting yard sales with their old diesel fleets. Countries like Lybia,
North Korea or Iraq would love to get their hands on this baby and slip a nuclear
warhead into Norfolk Harbour or Mayport, Florida. And this was 6-7 years before
9/11. The Admiral assigns Dodge to assume command of a moth-balled WWII
diesel sub and mount an exercise against the surface fleet and the USS ORLANDO, a
top of the line fast attack sub. Dodge takes command and in no time whips up the
bad news bears.. err I mean his lovable group of oddball submariners into warriors.
Despite having "welcome aboard" tattooed on his penis, he is a competent and fair
commander, he does not choose favorites and he delegates authority in a responsible
manner. The US NAVY could not have come up with a finer piece of recruitment
propaganda than this handsomely made under-appreciated gem from the creator of
"Police Academy".
Surprisingly good and quick-witted adventure that features Kelsey Grammer
(supposedly in his first lead role in a feature) as an unconventional Navy sub
commander who wants to run a nuclear sub of his own, however; he has earn it by
competing against the U.S. Navy in a series of war-games with a crew of untested,
questionable, and lovable men (and a woman, too). Director David S. Ward
("Major League") and his writers have put together a hysterically clever and upbeat
comedy that tries to make the film easy to understand, which they do quite well.
Second, besides the Grammer character, most of the crew provide some or plenty of
the movie's humor, which is treated like a double-edged sword. Three members of the
supporting cast - Harland Williams, Toby Huss, and Rob Schneider provide the
funniest scenes, which includes weird gestures, impersonations, and, well, their
personalities. "Down Periscope" is more than a Navy version of "Police
Academy" or "The Dirty Dozen". What the film does is get the job done the right way
and I liked it.
Starring: Kelsey Grammar, Rob Schneider, Lauren Holly, Rip Torn This movie is a
classic family favorite. At least for most members of my family that is. One of us
rolls our eyes at the mention of this movie and thinks, "What a stupid movie." I'm
not that person though. I still find this movie highly amusing. I just watched it
again last night with someone who had never seen it, and I laughed just as hard as
the first time I watched it. It's still very funny to me. Naval Captain
Tom Dodge (Grammar) is a bit of a black sheep in the navy. He's the kind of guy who
will play golf while on a sub, cracking a ball onto a golf course while they sail
past it. He's the kind of guy who will get drunk, pass out, and wake up with a
hangover and a tattoo on his dongle. He's not the kind of guy that everybody wants
to be commanding a sub. But Dodge is at the end of the line. He's put in
applications to get command of his own sub several times, and if he doesn't get a
sub this time, he's headed for a desk job, meaning that's it for naval life. The
Admiralty decide to give him his own boat, but they don't give him a new nuclear
sub. They give him a diesel sub, an ancient relic from World War II. His mission is
to clean her up and take her out on the Atlantic for a war game. Dodge
is obviously a little bit frustrated to have such a crappy boat given to him when
he's worked so hard to get to the point that he's at, so he goes and talks to
Admiral Winslow (Torn) about it. Winslow explains the purpose of the war game.
Diesel subs are still being sold out there in the real world, to countries like
Iran, Iraq, and Libya, to name a few. Winslow wants to know what would happen if
some renegade captain in a diesel sub came to the States and tried to smuggle a
nuclear warhead into one of the bases. Would they make it? Dodge and most of the
Admiralty don't think so, but Winslow wants to know for sure, hence why he has
devised this war game. Dodge's mission is to take the Stingray out to sea, then try
to evade the U.S. nuclear navy and blow up the American naval bases. In simulated
battle, of course. So, that's about as deep as the plot gets. This is
not a plot driven movie. It's a stupid movie that is just a big gag. It makes fun
of itself, and you are not expected to take it seriously. If you're looking for
good dumb laughs on a Friday night, I'd urge you to check it out. Bottom
Line: 3 out of 4 (worth a look)
There was a recent documentary on making movies, that featured a long list of
actors and directors talking about what its like to make movies. One common theme
was you can have a great script, great cast, the best director and lots of money
and still create a bad movie. Down Periscope is proof of the corollary
to that theory. Not an original or terribly well written screenplay. A few solid
actors, but mostly unknowns, and this movie just makes you laugh out loud! It would
be easy to just say that Kelsey Grammar carried this movie, but that isn't truly
the case. Other character actors, like Rob Schneider, and the hilarious Harland
Williams, added significantly to the enjoyability of the film. Cast
dynamics, or that mysterious "movie magic" are really what happened here, creating
a film that flows smoothly, has incredibly well executed transitions and line after
line of well written and well performed dialog. A preposterous premise,
lots and lots of technical inaccuracies and just plan silly things that could not
happen in the real world, or the real navy, but you just don't care. As a merchant
marine myself, I found that the overall feel of the movie, while not plausible, was
also not too far off the mark as far as life at sea goes. This is a VERY
funny movie, a good family film, and, particularly if your a fan, lots of Kelsey
Grammar wit, sarcasm and just damn funniness.
I'm glad they finally released it on DVD. I bought the video tape years ago and
watch it at least once or twice a year. Grammer has a wry wit about him
that really makes this movie a success. Its formula is certainly not original, but
it's very funny nonetheless. I am very surprised that it didn't receive higher in
the ratings. It ranks as one of my all-time favorite comedies. It's just
a fun little flick that makes you feel good. And sometimes, that's all a movie is
meant to be.
This is one of those movies the critics really missed the mark on. This movie is
practically McHale's Navy for the 90s or Police Academy at sea. Grammer proves he
can play roles other than Frasier as he outwits and outfoxes the Navy in order to
get his own sub. Rob Schneider is as wormy as usual, the same in every role he
plays, and Lauren Holly is the local sexpot albeit with a brain. Ken Hudson
Campbell is as funny as usual with almost every line a catch phrase. The movie has
a wonderful intelligent plot and a non-predictable script that still surprises me
every time I watch it. Many of the Navy phrases and terms go over my head, though,
but it's a small obstacle for the sheer accuracy and realism of the movie and its
characters.
I've enjoyed this movie ever since I first saw it in the theatre. Some movies have
a cast of characters and a script that come together in perfect synergy, and this
is one of them. The characters illustrate some truths about getting the best out of
people, working together harmoniously, building a team and achieving goals, without
ever preaching morality. The situations are crafted well and are consistent with
the movie's opening premise. The tension builds nicely and the humor is clean and
consistent throughout. The movie manages to pull me right in to root for the
characters, and to laugh pretty well all the way through. This is a feel good movie
as good as they come. What amazes me is that a movie which appears so
simple can be so long term entertaining. The music is a perfect copy of music in
the typical serious post war navy movies, which helps to create the humor and point
out that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. The scenes in the credits are a
great music video of "In the Navy", which deserve their own full screen special
feature. The scenes and cuts are crafted well, and the casting and acting is right
on. This movie is a classic as great as any ever made, without any
pretensions. In fact, the lack of pretension is what makes it so much fun to watch.
I love these guys and gal. The other day I thought of the film, and
wondered whether it was available on DVD. Good fortune has come to us, and the DVD
came out in May 2004. I headed to the store, and snapped up a copy. Then my wife
and I enjoyed another hilarious night in front of the big screen. I've rated this
movie as a 10 because it comes together on all levels, far better than many high
budget films and Oscar winners. This is entertainment. Listen up Fox
home video: you have a great movie in your vaults, and it's a shame to find a cheap
shot DVD with badly degraded off tint colors only 8 years since release. So why not
restore the colors and present the film as it was meant to be seen? I'd gladly pay
a few bucks more to get the picture right. I'm grateful to have my own copy. Now
give us the eye candy that the film deserves, and how about recreating the credit
sequence as a full screen music video special feature.
I would like to thank you for giving me a chance to be one of the first to actually
view the film. It really does grip you. John Paul does eventually get to see the
light and make a life for himself away from being tied to his mothers apron
strings. I imagine there must be so many families these days in the same
position (especially with children leaving home older but I wouldn't say wiser)
with very sad parents who haven't really got lives of their own and who make their
lives a misery. I think this film should definitely have a wider
audience. I would also say that the other actors played brilliant parts as well. It
is such a deep film and very moving.
I just watched the DVD of this award winning film. One Life Stand is a stark drama
that through it's pace, black and white shots and atmospheric music, paints a very
compelling and honest picture. It's a story about life's dilemma's around power,
sex and control highlighted by a few sad lonely lives. The mother (very well acted
by Maureen Carr) is uptight and drawn in on herself. The father only appears on the
side-lines, and yet is a powerful and pivotal part of the drama. Money is hidden in
boxes and shoes. The writing was superb, and I liked the sensual close-
up shots of details such as nails, red lips, a candle, mirrors etc. The way the
camera was used made it very intimate. It's a harrowing tale, with sexual
undertones, while the Glasgow drizzle on the dark streets adds to the despair of
the sad characters. There are some highly memorable shots conveyed
simply by a walk, or a dropped shoulder - such as Trise walking away under the
bridge. And the stunned and hurt look on Trise's face in the call centre, which
hopes to helps people through using tarot cards, as she listens to a caller talk of
her own abuse. At the start we see John Paul, wide-eyed and innocent,
having photos shot as he wants to try modelling. Trise, his mother, is deluded and
making poor choices for him, in a way pushing him away while she tries to keep him.
John Paul's modelling turns into escort work and Trise's boss offers her money, and
eventually they go on a date. There are also moments of humour and subtle irony.
One excellent scene is when they are having a fairly normal meal, and starting to
open up a bit, when the father appears with his dark presence and clouds everything
over. But this, and other things offer moments of hope. I felt at times
the pacing of the film was a shade too intense, but this is a small detail in
another wise challenging and memorable film, and something a bit different. It
stands in start contrast to most American films which are either total fantasy, or
the real' world' as seen through tainted glasses. This film depicts life with all
its rough edges and displays unforgettable images. This isn't 'light
entertainment' but a thought provoking and real life drama. One Life
Stand is a truly involving and emotionally honest film.
All budding filmmakers should watch this movie - it is like a masterclass in
digital film- making in itself. Some of the scenes look like they have been shot on
much higher production values than what they really have been. It is very
encouraging that such a well crafted piece of work can be made on a low budget. The
acting is very good, and the characters are very interesting, particularly that of
the lead boy (John Kielty), who manages to play a teenager experiencing
difficulties whilst remaining really likable. His beautiful but fading mother was
also very well portrayed, and the relationship between her and her boss was very
intriguing. This is a very quirky, interesting piece and I will be looking for
anything else made by the same team. The director is certainly one to watch.
I'm not a big fan of musicals, but I was always enamored of Ms. Hayworth's looks,
so I thought I'd give it a try. This may be the best showcase for the
multi-talented Ms. Hayworth. She's never looked lovelier in a film (with the
possible exception of 'Gilda', where she is sex symbol par excellence). Rita is more than ably assisted by Gene Kelly and Phil Silvers. The comedy may be
dated, but it is still quite amusing. Kelly does one of his tour-de-force dances,
dancing with the image of himself from a window. But Rita drives this
whole movie. An excellent cast, featuring Otto Kruger and the always- wonderful,
wise-cracking Eve Arden doesn't hurt. Rita sings, Rita dances, all the
while looking impossibly beautiful! The music may be short of classic, but the
lyrics to most of the tunes are quite clever. I find this movie works
better than 'Gilda', which I regard as a flawed film. To Ms. Hayworth's credit, she
also drives 'Gilda', and Gilda drives any red-blooded male insane. The
film holds up well after all these years. Much leg candy for the male audience is a
nice bonus!
Seriously engaging, intelligent and thought provoking drama at its very best. Mean,
gripping, moody and captivating. Every home should have a copy! Don't take my word
for it see it yourself. One Life Stand makes you consider your own lifestyle and
how you treat your family and friends. Beautiful photography and impressive acting
makes for one of the best cinema-graphic experiences of the year. John Kielty's
debut is a delight and adds a real touch of truth and realism to this deep and
gritty film. This is a film that cares and has an honesty that is unequalled in
recent years. No car chases, but a film packed with hum our and emotion. I first
saw this film screened at the Edinburgh film festival in 2000 and am now delighted
to be able to own a copy on DVD.
A truly accurate and unglamourous look into modern day life. It could be set in any
town in the UK. I live in a housing estate in Glasgow and can relate to
this film very well. Sadly the situations and characters are all too
realistic but not predictable. The actors are scarily believable, I felt
as if I was spying on my neighbours. It was an intimate dip into the lives of
fragile and hopeless people. I was very moved by a few scenes. I loved
the way this film was shot. Overall this film IS a must see.
I saw One Life Stand when it premiered at the 2000 Edinburgh International Film
Festival and was blown away by it. Made on a micro budget, this black and white
digital movie is very much a European film and succeeds brilliantly in spite of the
limitations of DV. The film works because it's in the indie tradition - dealing
with complex issues, yet moving and relieved by touches of understated humour. One
Life Stand avoids falling into the trap of other UK realist films, with ordinary
working people portrayed as either hopeless victims or comedic stereotypes. The
performances are strong, particularly Maureen Carr as the mother, Trise. I
understand the film has recently been released on DVD and I would definitely
recommend it. The rating on this site is misleading, which is why I gave it a high
score because the filmmaker, May Miles Thomas obviously put her heart and soul into
it and deserves better than 2.8 for her amazing achievement.
Have to agree that this movie and it's talented director do not receive the
plaudits they deserve. Here's hoping that the DVD will do very well and bring both
to the attention of a wider audience. The actors gave excellent performances and
the plot is excellent. Perhaps overall the movie is a little long but May Miles
Thomas seems to enjoy her actors when they are giving strong performances and
therefore sometimes holds them in longer close ups than necessary. Good for the
actors I am sure but sometimes as the audience you are ready to move on so to speak
with the plot. May Miles Thomas deserves more recognition from the Film business as
one of our foremost digital movie directors,
I was lucky enough to see this film at a festival last year and had half expected
it to get a release. The fact that it was shot on a digital camcorder has surely
inhibited its success, but as i understand it was never the intention of the film
maker to make it LOOK LIKE FILM in the first place, it was more about the story the
characters and their relationships. Is that not what films are supposed to be
about!? But it did have a quality in the texture of its visual appearance that
suggests May Thomas is onto something we should pay attention to. For independent
film makers and producers alike who have a the talent and lacking the money and
drive, a lot can be learned from watching this film, technically it has everything
going for it, the use of light, music etc by far outweigh that of any other digital
feature film i have ever seen and therefore it is worthy of much praise. The actors
performances are believable to a point, if not slightly under played, i felt there
was much more in there, more depth, in particular from the male lead John Paul
Clarke. But one thing that really does bother me, as a film maker myself, is the
film being in black and white a need to cover up a multitude of sins than if it was
colour? Do we have more to learn in the progression of digital technology? Or is
this the future of wonderful, affordable film making?
One Life Stand is an accomplished piece of film making which hasn't been given the
credit it deserves. Its IMDB rating of 1.7 doesn't do it justice and is, perhaps,
due to the very few screenings it has had rather than the quality of the film
itself. Shot on digital in black and white, the film is well directed with
production values that belie its shoestring budget. The performances are excellent,
particularly that of Gary Lewis who gets better with every role. My only criticisms
are that it is a bit on the long side and could have done with a touch more humour
to offset the darker moments. Overall, though, it is a fine piece of work.
I have to say this is one of the best movie i have seen so far for naruto. the
action was a lot better then the first movie because it had a lot more fight scene
and it came to u at a faster pace. it was amazing, the choreograph was excellent as
well as most of the visual effects. the story line is something new to
naruto. but it is basically the same as the first movie. in the series u see them
fight against other ninjas,but in the movies (1+2) u see them fighting against
machine of mass destruction. it is nice to see them fighting something other then
ninja, and that it was great to see some other power other then chakra. and how
other people from other land across the ocean fight. also sakura finally killed
someone that is more stronger then her. (she have truly become strong) it was a lot
better then the fillers on the series that i'm watching now. when u watch this
movie the fast action scene will surely make your heart pound. With new jutsus and
garra in the movie, u know it is good. and the music was good as well, but i find
it to be lacking something. But the ending theme song was a plus. (dind dong dang)
i think was a really good song. I totally recommend it. all in all i
give this movie a 10, because i just love it. if u do decide to watch it, enjoy it.
lol
I'm a big fan of Naruto, even though I haven't watched every episode or read every
manga. I really liked the first Naruto movie, and to tell you the truth
I was a little nervous that this one wouldn't be as good (or action packed) as the
first (mainly because this one in Australia only had a PG instead of an M, which is
a PG-13 US or 12 UK). But I was wrong (thankfully)! The animation was more improved
(although some drawings of the characters at points looked rushed) and was very
good especially in the fight scenes. Speaking of that, let's talk about
the fight scenes! The animation and action in the fight scenes was spectacular and
very entertaining! I especially enjoyed the genjutsu battle with kankuro and the
fight with Gaara fighting the shape shifting female warriors! All the characters
you want are here! Naruto, Sakura, Gaara, Kankuro and Shikamaru! If only Temari was
in the movie, Shikamaru could save her from the female warriors in dramatic
fashion! And maybe they could have a PASSIONATE KISS! In my summary at the top I
say that this qualify's more as a piece of Cinema than just an extended episode.
And it does! The action is very cinematic and the animation quality looks very
fancy especially during the fighting! Overall, this is a excellent anime Film that
is a must-see for any Naruto fan! 5/5! 10/10! 50/50! 100/100! Alright I'll stop!
I liked this movie, the second Naruto feature film. I enjoyed the one in the snow a
tad better though as I found the story here a bit disjointed as I was not sure
where certain things were supposed to be happening or when. Still, like the first
film this one too has a nice run time to it of a hour and a half, plenty of time
for a nice well developed movie with some really cool fights. The story starts off
with ninja from the village hidden in the sand in combat with unknown assailants.
It then shits to Naruto, Sakura, and Shikumaru hunting down a ferret for what they
think is going to be an easy assignment. They soon find out otherwise as they are
also attacked and Naruto is separated from his friends after he has a fight with a
strange young warrior clad in armor. They both are injured and taken in by a
caravan and soon after Naruto is invited to join this strange organization that
wishes to create a utopia. Of course, all is not as it seems and there are plenty
of fights to go around. My favorite was the one involving Garaa fighting this
strange woman who takes him very lightly which is a very big mistake. The
concluding fight is rather good too involving Naruto and this strange man who is a
better villain than any of those in the previous movie.
Naruto the Anime TV Series has so far spawned 2 feature length theatre movies, and
a third one is coming our way this summer. The first one, which was
released in the summer '04 was a fun adventure featuring the main characters of
Naruto in an exciting adventure. However, one must be a blind, deaf and one legged
chicken to deny that film's faults. Whilst the first was most definitely enjoyable,
there were a lot of things that could be improved on. Naruto Movie 2, however,
takes all of these aspects and excels upon them. The action first of
all, was incredibly cinematic. The lighting, setting and style was three fold as
effective as in the first movie. In the first we were given basic action, well
animated and choreographed animation, but nothing eye popping, however this movie's
cinematography was exceptional, the use of shadows and lighting combining together
to make the action all that more intense was very effective and added to the force
of the fighting. The animation was very good. It rivalled Disney,
however since this is a movie about TV characters, there was nothing exceptionable
about the character design or detail to the actual characters, however, the
animation was incredibly fluid and realistic. I think they even used twice the
amount of cels for each second because there was absolutely nothing jittery about
the animation at all, it was incredibly fluid. The music... I think
that's where this movie fails. The original composer/conductor for the TV show was
used for the film, and I don't really feel that he did that good of a job. The
music mostly reminded me of a lot of pieces used in old SNES games. The composer is
very good, but the synthesisers used for the film couldn't convey the tune very
well. However they didn't fail the film at all, adding as a good accompaniment to
the action. But, except for a few violin/string pieces towards the end and some
choral work, the music didn't excel any boundaries or act as anything
special. The story was fun. It was a reasonably typical storyline for
Naruto and was very similar to the first movies, except, again, it took everything
that had been wrong with the first film's story and improved upon them. The
characters were a lot more interesting and the way the story progressed was what
kept me watching throughout the entire film. It kept making you think the film
would be ending any second now, but then it would move on, but instead of feeling
dragged out, the action and characters made everything still feel fresh and
exciting. Overall, this film is a goodun, but however good it might be,
it is most definitely one for the fans. I enjoyed the film, but thats because...
I'm a fan! But I can see, just like with Final Fantasy's Advent Children, it
doesn't excel as a movie, but merely acts as a fantastic serve of fan service for a
good hour and a half. Though I think this film does act as a good introduction to
the series for current non-watchers, it won't give a full effect for anyone other
than those glued to Naruto screens. However, despite all this, it was a fun movie
to enjoy during this depressing period of upsetting fillers.
Although I'm not crazy about musicals, COVER GIRL is a delight for classic movie
buffs and especially for fans of Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly. The film may be
dated by today's standards and the story and songs may be nothing special, but the
musical numbers are magnificently staged and there's a terrific cast to go with the
film. Plus, the film is a worthy introduction for fans of Rita Hayworth...she's
simply breathtaking in glorious Technicolor. Despite Jerome Kern's
collaboration with the film, his music here is nowhere near as special or memorable
as his songs in SWING TIME (1936), yet the songs serve the film well. The dancing
is nothing short of excellent, especially coming from Gene Kelly's solo number and
my favorite musical number, "Alter-Ego Dance." The amusing Phil Silvers nearly
steals the film as Kelly's partner. Otto Kruger, Eve Arden, and Edward Brophy give
good performances in their dramatic supporting roles. And Rita plays a sweet,
charming girl here; a role that's a far cry from her femme fatale babes in films
like BLOOD AND SAND (1941). All in all, this is a delightful film that's
worth watching even if you're not big on musicals. Yet the film's music could have
been more memorable if only my favorite period songwriters, Irving Berlin or Cole
Porter, wrote the songs for this film. However, it's the glorious Technicolor
cinematography and the imaginative dancing that are the real treats of the film's
production. While I was watching Rita Hayworth do her stuff, I don't
think I've ever seen a more beautiful or graceful redhead dance on the screen since
I saw Moira Shearer in Michael Powell's masterpiece, THE RED SHOES (1948). Just
watch Rita in COVER GIRL and fall in love with her.
The plot: Michael Linnett Connors has done everything in films but direct, and is
looking for his 1st big chance. He discovers Molly in a play and at once knows she
will be a big film star. He signs her to a contract with the stipulation that he
must direct. The producer agrees and their big time careers are under way. What
follows is a recreation of the silent film era and early sound movies with great
emphasis on comedy. And, oh yes, there's romance, and a little sadness too. The
performances by Don Ameche and Alice Fay are top notch. The music is a real plus
too with some old familiar tunes heard. Lots of DVD extras as well in this restored
version released in 2008. It must be emphasized that this movie is a story 1st, not
just a tribute to silent films. Later years would bring similar films such as,
Singin' in the Rain(1952) & Dick Van Dyke-Carl Reiner's, The Comic(1969). What is
special about this film, though, is recreating silent movies in 1939. We see
portions of them as the cinema audience would in that bygone era(although some
sound effects are included)in glorious b&w, while the rest of the movie is in
pristine color. One of the greatest in the silent era, Buster Keaton, who at this
point was on an uphill climb, is used superbly in 2 silent film recreated scenes
and he is on the top of his game! It is said that he had some input on his scenes
as well. But the real reason to watch the movie, if your a motion picture history
fan, is that beyond everything else, Hollywood Cavalcade is Mack Sennett's film
legacy. It doesn't take a genius to realize this movie is a "positive" reworking of
Mack Sennett's and Mabel Normand's life. The character Michael "Linnett" Connors is
Mack Sennett, whose real name was Michael Sinnott. And Molly, of course is Mabel.
Sennett had the pie throwings, the bathing beauties and Keystone Cops. He worked
with Buster Keaton, Ben Turpin(cameo), Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle(body double) and
fell in love with his leading lady. Not only all that, but Sennett was technical
adviser for this film and appears in it as well. As most film viewers today prefer
sound features, those who were associated with short subjects and silents are left
out to pasture. As Mack Sennett fell into that category, it is fortunate that there
is Hollywood Cavalcade! Sennett was of course very instrumental in the evolution of
comedy in movies. His career started in 1908 as an actor, then writer, director &
producer. He semi retired in 1935 with about 500 films to his credit. He had worked
with the best, such as Charlie Chaplin, Gloria Swanson, Bing Crosby, W.C. Fields,
Keaton, Harry Langdon, Arbuckle, and even Roy Rogers(in Way Up Thar).As film comedy
is an extremely difficult path to continue for an entire career, Mack played it
wise & did only selective work for the next 25 years. In 1931 he had receive an
academy award in the short subject category, and another in 1937 for a lifetime of
work. In the 1940's his presence was still felt, e.g. Here Come the Co-
Eds(1945)where a recreation of the oyster soup scene used in Mack's Wandering
Willies(1926)is done. In 1947, The Road to Hollywood, used some of Sennett's Crosby
films. 2 years later brought some nostalgia with the film Down Memory Lane in which
he participated. With his knack of always associating with the right people, a
guest role with the eternally popular Lawrence Welk & his radio show came about
later in the year. 1950 brought a re-release of his greatest triumph, Tillie's
Punctured Romance(1914) with sound. In 1952 he was honored on TV's, This Is Your
Life, then his autobiography, The King of Comedy(1954), which is a great companion
piece to Hollywood Cavalcade, was published. 1955 brought a more concrete
association with Abbott & Costello, as he had a cameo in A&C Meet the Keystone
Kops. Finally in 1957, another tribute with the compilation film, The Golden Age of
Comedy. So when you watch Hollywood Cavalcade it is the legacy of a motion picture
pioneer. In the film at the banquet scene the camera pans over the guests at a long
table. As we get to the silver haired Mack, he alone turns his head to the camera
as if to say, "here I am!". When he rises to give a speech a short while later, he
is at his most subdued, underplaying the words given him as if to mentally convey,
"I know my influence on comedy will never end, but will people forget Mack Sennett
the individual. Maybe this movie will help."
"Hollywood Cavalcade" is a mildly entertaining 1939 film starring two staples of
the 20th Century Fox roster, Don Ameche and Alice Faye, and containing a couple of
in jokes. The film concerns a Max Sennett type, Michael Connors (Ameche)
who brings an actress to Hollywood, Molly Adair (Faye) and makes her a big silent
comedienne, eventually moving her into more dramatic roles. He becomes extremely
successful with her as his star. Obsessed with his work, he's absolutely shocked
when she and her leading man (Alan Curtis) run off and get married. He's so
shocked, he dumps her. She and her husband go off and continue to be more and more
popular while Connors' studio starts losing money at an alarming rate. Before you
know it, he's through. Molly wants to help and asks that Connors direct her next
film. There's lots of Keystone Kop type footage, which is quite funny,
and some fantastic slapstick by Buster Keaton, who is wonderful. The film also has
a scene from "The Jazz Singer" when the talkies take over. The in-joke, of course,
has to do with Rin Tin-Tin, for whom Zanuck used to write. In one scene, Rinny's
trainer brings him in as a potential contract player for Connors' studio. Connors
throws both of them out of his office. A few scenes later, Rin-Tin-Tin is shown to
be #1 box office. The role of the famous German shepherd in this film is played by
Rin Tin-Tin, Jr., daddy having passed away in Jean Harlow's arms in 1932, one month
shy of his 14th birthday. Fortune smiled on him even at the end. Alice
Faye is very pretty and does a fine job, as does Ameche, who turns in an energetic
performance. J. Edward Bromberg and Stuart Erwin provide very good support. Unfortunately, this film isn't quite sure what it is - history, comedy,
romance, or drama. However, "Hollywood Cavalcade" is still quite watchable.
It's 1913. A studio prop boy spies the actress who is going to become Hollywood's
next great movie star and he's the director that's going to make it happen. After
inventing pie throwing and the keystone cops, his dream comes true. Being
completely absorbed in his film-making, however, he fails to notice that he is
losing his leading lady to another man. Several over-budget flops later, he is
known as nothing more than the director who turned down Rin-tin-tin. Fortunately
for him, the loyal and compassionate residents of Hollywood are untainted by
ambition and ego. He'll be okay as long as he still has his friends. This movie starts out as a mad-cap comedy typical of the time period, and in the
opening scenes it holds its own with the best of them. It has a playful lack of
self-consciousness which is sorely missing in most of today's comedies. Shortly
into the film, however, it moves away from this mode of comedy and instead attempts
to entertain us using the films within the film. These are silent slapstick
comedies, well done but nothing out of the ordinary, and they go on for much longer
than is necessary for any audience which has seen the originals. Upon returning,
the film takes a dramatic turn. It's well written and the cast does an excellent
job of making the transition, but the movie really should have decided from the
beginning what it was going to be. By the end of the film, it has
transformed once again - this time into a paean to the glitter of Hollywood. The
small town of Los Angeles has grown up into the city which makes the movies that
entertain the whole world. In spite of its promising beginnings, this
film has not aged particularly well. Nevertheless, it does have some strong scenes,
a certain nostalgic appeal, and an entertaining sub-text about the people who made
it and the audiences it was made for.
What makes this one better than most "movie movies" is that it doesn't feel phony.
The film the story of the hot-headed director and his rise and fall and rise, by
using real recognizable names and events during the silent and early sound eras.
Instead of the generic "sound will put us out of business" business, they actually
SHOW Jolson and "The Jazz Singer". The acting is really quite good, with
believeable performances from Don Ameche, Alice Faye and J. Edward Bromberg in
particular.
I can remember seeing this movie when I was very young and several times on TV
since then. I have always liked it. I have noticed on the print shown on local TV
that one scene has reversed film. It is the one where they are hiding behind the
rock outcrop(it looks like Vasquez Rocks near Los Angeles) watching the Indians
ride by. If you look carefully, you will notice that suddenly all the soldiers are
left-handed! It is only a short segment and I have to admit that it took me years
to notice it. As far as history goes, there were often expeditions to
rescue white captives from the Indians. The direct connection for the final battle
scene is the Battle of Beecher's Island. In that action, a group of volunteer
scouts equipped with repeating carbines (Spencer carbines not Winchesters) were
surprised by the Indians and retreated to an island and held off several charges.
In the last charge, they killed Roman Nose, one of the more famous Indian Chiefs. I
have no idea if the writer of the script had this in mind but it does fit fairly
well. There are several Guy Madison movies that I hope come out on DVD
someday and this is one of them.
Saw this film the first time in 1953 with my older brother. It was one of the great
3 Demension films released in that era. We saw it at least thirteen times and were
proud of it. Scott does a typical western shoot em up job while surrounded by the
Indian arrows rather than surround sound. Oh, for those polaroid lenses again.
Warner Brothers produced this 3D extravaganza that was the biggest commercial
success for westerns in 1953. Guy Madison leads a band of guardhouse soldiers and
misfits to rescue two white women being held by Indians, which essentially all
there is to this film. The 3D format was in its early stages as a Hollywood gimmick
to compete with the growing popularity of home television, and the effects work
very well here. The rescuers make off with the ladies and are pursued by the
Indians until the white men make their stand at an island in a creek bed. The
Indian weaponry comes at the audience non-stop throughout, and a spray of tobacco
juice aimed at a rattler is thrown in for good measure. Madison was quite popular
as television's Wild Bill Hickock and is good as a displaced cattle rancher who is
given his thankless task by the army. For all the film's polish and presentation,
the movie was made in just three days.
"The Charge at Feather River" is a routine Western about the U. S. Cavalry against
the Cheyenne Indians... The film carried a constantly mounting tension with some
pleasant diversion... Guy Madison and Frank Lovejoy play the officers
who rescue Helen Westcott and Vera Miles from the Indians... The outdoor
scenes are well photographed, specially the exciting Indian charge at Feather River
at the climax of the movie with the rain of spears, the fight to-the-death between
Madison and Thunderhawk, the sketches of the Guardhouse Brigade, even a mouthful of
tobacco juice used against a rattlesnake, and the romantic interludes between our
hero and Helen Westcott... All are here, pictorially entertaining in 3-D and
Technicolor...
This neo-film noir is one of a genre of late twentieth century American films that
all seem to involve corrupt characters, fast cars, a ribbon of highway and, of
course, plenty of guns wielded by people who appear never to have taken a gun
safety course. The actors are the best reason to see "Black Day, Blue Night." There
is the late, great J.T. Walsh ("Swing Blade," "Pleasantville," "Red Rock West,"
"The Last Seduction," and many more), who did many neo-films noirs (See also
"Breakdown"). Then there is Michele Forbes of the TV series "Star Trek: The Next
Generation" and "Homicide." (In a supporting role, there is even the late Bejamin
Lum who also appeared on a Star Trek episode titled "The Naked Now.") A spoiler of
sorts--a clue really: Only the most innocent survive, but innocence is a very
relative term in a movie like this, and you probably won't guess who is innocent
before the final reel.
It looks b grade and you will probably think there is no reason to rent this film!
But do! I expected nothing from this movie, just something to pass the time, but I
was hooked from the start! Two interesting premises - A bank robbery gone wrong, a
million dollars missing and two girls on the road to start a new life - How will
these two stories collide? Just when you think you know what direction the movie is
headed, it does a 180 and you are left blown away by the great twists in the plot!
It has a great but unexpected ending, and you are left wanting more - always a good
sign - rent it or even buy it, you will not be disappointed!
Though I strongly feel that SITR is the best Gene Kelly movie, but this a pretty
good one. I liked the music and the dancing and the ending on how Gene got the
girl. My favorite part though without a doubt is Gene's dance with his alter ego. I
love watching two Gene Kelly's for the price of one. It shows what talent Mr. Kelly
really was. It is a movie that I think that everyone should watch at least once in
their life time. So you have not seen it go out and find to watch it today! I'm
sure that everyone out there has a Gene Kelly friend that has this movie in their
collection. So go over to their house and pop some popcorn and enjoy!
Black Day Blue Night was actually good modern noir. Three young nomads on the run
from their own lives team up on something of a road trip through a desert in the
middle of nowhere (as most modern noir does). One woman finds that her husband is
cheating on her, and after finding him in a hotel room, decides to head off and
start anew. Strangely enough, she travels with her husband's mistress, who is
forgiveable given that the sleazebag never told her he was married. And together,
while driving in the pouring rain, they meet a third, very mysterious young man
with a suitcase full of secrets. While they're giddy and free and all suspicious of
one another, the cops back at town have them marked as suspects in the death of a
policeman. Black Day Blue Night starts out with immediate confrontation,
and throws in a pretty good story with all it's twists meant to mislead your
suspicions of one character after another, leading to a very unusual ending. That
is, the movie starts with immediate action confrontation, and once you think the
story is solved, you are immediately thrust into yet another turn in the plot,
revealing just a little more than you expected before the movie is over. But, as some viewers have written, the ending is slightly confusing and a
bit of a let down. The killer is not who you would immediately expect and, once
revealed, becomes somewhat confusing due to a rather thinly explained flashback
which reveals all of the necessary motive to solve the mystery. But actually, there
is a finale beyond that, which I would think is the most interesting of the film.
Because modern noir always involves a circle of criminal suspects, almost always
all of them guilty of something, it is also a genre that always involves money. And
thus the question in these movies always becomes --how far are the characters
willing to go for money? If you like this rendition of modern film noir,
I would suggest watching Red Rock West (it's also got J.T. Walsh and some going-ons
in the blasted desert)!
Blondell & Farrell are excellent. Blondell was edible. This was very funny and I
laughed often throughout it. Great dialogue and its loaded with wisecracks. I
could've watched it for hours. Tremendous fun to watch.
Two hard-luck but crafty ladies decide to act like HAVANA WIDOWS by sailing to Cuba
to meet & blackmail rich gentlemen... This was the sort of ephemeral
comic frippery which the studios produced quite effortlessly during the 1930's.
Well made & highly enjoyable, Depression audiences couldn't seem to get enough of
these popular, funny photo dramas. Joan Blondell & Glenda Farrell are
perfectly cast as the frantic, fast-talking females who will go to great lengths to
make a little dishonest dough. Although Joan gets both top billing and the romantic
scenes, both gals are as talented & watchable as they are gorgeous. Handsome Lyle Talbot plays Joan's persistent suitor, but he's given relatively
little to do. Chubby, cherubic Guy Kibbee appears as the girls' intended target.
Whether awakening to find himself in the wrong bed or being chased across the roof
of a Cuban hacienda in his long johns, he is equally hilarious. Behind him comes a
rank of character actors - Allen Jenkins, Frank McHugh, Ruth Donnelly, Hobart
Cavanaugh, Maude Eburne, Dewey Robinson - all equally adept at pleasing the
toughest crowd. Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited James Murray
as the suspicious bank teller with the forged check. This very talented actor was
pulled out of complete obscurity to star in King Vidor's THE CROWD (1928), one of
the silent era's most prestigious films. Hopes were high for a great career, but
his celebrity faded quickly with sound pictures. After a long string of tiny roles
& bit parts, broke & destitute, his life ended in the waters of a New York river in
1936. He was only 35 years old. While never stars of the first rank,
Joan Blondell (1906-1979) & Glenda Farrell (1904-1971) enlivened scores of films at
Warner Bros. throughout the 1930's, especially the eight in which they appeared
together. Whether playing gold diggers or working girls, reporters or secretaries,
these blonde & brassy ladies were very nearly always a match for whatever leading
man was lucky enough to share equal billing alongside them. With a wisecrack or a
glance, their characters showed they were ready to take on the world - and any man
in it. Never as wickedly brazen as Paramount's Mae West, you always had the feeling
that, tough as they were, Blondell & Farrell used their toughness to defend
vulnerable hearts ready to break over the right guy. While many performances from
seven decades ago can look campy or contrived today, these two lovely ladies are
still spirited & sassy.
I just finished watching this (last weekend) and found it absolutely hillarious,
some of the scenes I just couldn't stop laughing at! Dennis is soooo amazingly
thick sometimes, and just says the stoopidest things...but at the same time he's
just being cool to impress his girlfriend (who gets arrested anyway!) The beach
scenery is very tranquil...until along comes Robbie Coltrane...! Not the greatest
movie ever made but certainly something to think about renting on a Saturday night
when you haven't got much else to do (like I did). You might need to hunt around
for it though - I was lucky, as my local video store stocks it.
The funniest movie from Britain I have ever seen, "The Supergrass" is a tale of
sex, drugs, cream teas, and murder by the seaside. Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmonson),
average moron, is out to impress his so-called girlfriend, Andrea (Dawn French),
because she thinks he is too law-abiding. So, to get her to come along with him on
a romantic getaway, he comes up with a scheme that perhaps will impress her and
entice her to spend some time with him. Trouble is, Dennis' lie is that he's
somehow gotten involved in an international drugs ring, and while telling her, a
couple of policemen overhear his boasting and nick him. And so begins this witty
movie, full of slick comedy and crude jokes. Dennis is banged up in the local nick,
and, much to the arresting officers' delight, there seems to be no way out
(Andrea's earlier attempts to explain it was all a lie were dismissed by a
hilarious melody of "Stand by Your Man" by the two officers'). Then comes along
Commander Robertson (Ronald Allen), Chief Intelligence, Scotland Yard. He makes a
deal with Dennis, that if he helps him catch the drug smugglers, then he will be
set free and allowed whatever he pleases. Dennis agrees, and is teamed up with
Harvey Duncan (Peter Richardson), and Lesley Reynolds (Jennifer Saunders). The rest
is an unforgettable rib-tickling experience, with Robbie Coltrane as Sergeant Troy
adding humourous colour to the film. His walk along the dry-dock against "Frankie
Goes To Hollywood's Two Tribes" is superb, and probably the best scene in motion
picture history. The two officers' who nick Dennis are wonderfully played by
Michael Elphick and Patrick Durkin, and Alexei Sayle as the motorcycle cop is a
laugh! If you want something good to watch on a Saturday night, then I suggest you
rent this. You won't forget it!
Great 1980s Comic Strip comedy set in the South West of England. It is a tale of
sex, drugs, cream teas and murder by the seaside. Adrian Edmondson, French and
Saunders, Nigel Planer (hilarious in drag) and Robbie Coltrane play a part. Dennis
(Edmondson) tries to impress girlfriend by boasting he is involved in a multi-
million pounds drug deal. This leads to complications with hilarious results. I am
trying to find out the original picture ratio for this film but it does not appear
under 'Technical Aspects' of the IMDb site. I spotted the DVD in the shop and it
appears to be in 1.33:1 (full screen) format. Was the film shot in this ratio or
was it originally a widescreen film with a pan and scan DVD? It would be useful to
know as I hate pan and scan films. So come on IMDb. Could you find out for us?
This film is great! Being a fan of "The Comic Strip Presents..." I just knew I
would love this film. And love it I do. I finally got round to buying a copy of
this film early this year. However I was annoyed to find that it had been cut! So
I'll keep looking at car boot sales for the original version. Anyway,
the film is about Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmondson), who tries to impress his
girlfriend (Dawn French) by claiming to be a drug dealer. However, Dennis is
overheard bragging one night in the pub and nicked! So Dennis turns supergrass but
the trouble is he doesn't know anything and starts to make up lies and dig himself
into an even deeper hole! The irony of all this is that there is drug smuggling
going on down in Devon. This film is not as funny as I expected but it
is still a really good film with some good laughs and a great soundtrack. It also
has the best scene ever in a British film (Robbie Coltrane's walk across the pier
set to "Two Tribes" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood. So if you are a fan of
"The Comic Strip Presents...", of any of the cast members, or a fan of British
comedy see it A.S.A.P!!!
A lot of 'alternative' comedy in Britain in the 1980s was insular, misguided,
overly-political, and unfunny, and the worst of the Comic Strip Presents... stuff
fell into this category. But this is at the other end - a remarkable
film that works on different intellectual levels. Is Dennis a criminal
mastermind or is he lying? Is he telling the truth, bluffing, double-
bluffing, counter-doubly-bubbly-bluffingwhatever? I've probably watched
Supergrass 20 or 30 times, and I still can't decide 100%. That's the wonderful
thing. As well as Ade Edmonson, there are big roles for other early
Comic Strip mainstays - French & Saunders, Pete Richardson, Alexei Sayle, Keith
Allen, Nigel Planer and Robbie Coltrane, though curiously enough not Rik Mayall. All of the Comic Strip cast - however much I disliked the hidden agenda of
some of their members - are convincing actors, and turn in superb performances in
this big-screen outing, while the Richardson-Richens writing team's work is so
often pure genius, with nice little touches of detail throughout. 
Ultimately this is a study of crime, criminology and human nature, in all it's
wondrous complexity. And very funny with it. You will not be disappointed.
This film makes several nods to various science fiction films. The prologue reminds
me of the one for the original theatrical version of THX-1138 (the trailer for BUCK
ROGERS, here it was clips from some early Japanese SF TV show). Then the opening
shot of the city in 2345 has the dragon blip flying overhead with a billboard,
reminding one immediately of BLADERUNNER. The BLADERUNNER aspect comes even more pronounced when we meet the hero, who is called a Replicant (He is
blond haired and is called Ryo, a homage to Roy Batty, Rutger Hauer's character in
BLADERUNNER?). A battle scene soon ensues which reminds one immediately of THE
MATRIX. The government forcing the population to take drugs is like THX-1138 and
the chief enforcer, while looks like a cross between Elvis and Dan Ackroyd, turns
out to be a robot, very much like the TERMINATOR. The end battle reminds one of
TERMINATOR 2 and the end result is hilarious. Probably not one of the best SF films
out there, but is enjoyable, certainly a lot more enjoyable than tripe like
BATTLEFIELD EARTH.
I taped this on Sundance and had no idea that it was a Miike film. I thought it was
just another kung fu movie. Then I saw things like the dancing sax
player who sounded like an Oriental Gato Barbieri, and I knew this had
to be Miike. I missed the beginning opening credits and had to wait till
the very end of the closing credits to see Miike's credits. So far he
hasn't disappointed me yet. Audition, City of Lost Souls, Ichi the Killer and The
Happiness of the Katakuries were all good flicks, and now I've found out that this
was the third in a trilogy. Other than Miike and Todd Solendz there's
nobody making interesting films nowadays.
This was Gene Kelly's breakthrough, and that alone makes it memorable. Throw in
Rita Hayworth as his love interest and comedian Phil Silvers of all people as his
sidekick and you have the ingredients for a real crowd pleaser, which is exactly
how it turned out. Kelly plays Danny McGuire, a nightclub owner in
Brooklyn (Brooklyn is always the "wrong side of the tracks" in '40s films) whose
star attraction and love interest is Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth). Rita is lovely,
and even plays a dual role as Rusty and Rusty's grandmother. Rusty has a chance at
the big time through the machinations of John Coudair (Otto Kruger), who romanced
and lost Rusty's grandmother. The plot revolves around Danny cutting
Rusty loose, to the detriment of his club, because she has a chance at success that
he can't give her. But, naturally, that's not what Rusty ultimately wants, because,
as usual in films of that time, the right guy is the only thing on the girl's mind.
There are no surprises, but everybody does their thing well. Kelly does
the first of his amazing trick dances, this time with himself as a reflection from
a glass window. He was the master at that sort of dance, and one still has to
wonder how they timed everything so precisely so that he really does seem to be in
two places at once. The melodrama gets a bit thick, and there are some gratuitous
war references thrown in that do little but provide the opportunity for a song or
two, but Kelly takes this film to the next level. This was before he became a mega-
star and too smooth perhaps for his own good. An underlying edge of rawness to his
character lends it a believable and almost wistful air. Kelly's
character in the 1980 "Xanadu" also was named Danny McGuire. This film was the
beginning, that film the end, of a terrific run for a dancing genius. Clearly, this
film meant a lot to him. Highly recommended.
This is a film that has to be taken in context. It shouldn't be seen unless you've
seen the first two films, but the sort of people seeing this film will probably own
the box set, or at least know someone who does. And you shouldn't go in expecting
Blade Runner; the films budget doesn't stretch quite that far, and it's a far more
zany ride. Essentially the film is a science fiction set in future
Yokohama (shot in Hong Kong as is obvious) about a society where it's illegal to
procreate. Sho Aikawa reprises a similar role from Dead or Alive 2 and Riki
Takeuchi is a detective for the birth control cops. Takashi Miike isn't one to give
all of his reasons to you on a platter, but one can assume that the law on
procreation (enforced by giving people the pill) is there because of over
population, increased life spans and so forth. Interestingly the dialogue in the
film is mainly Cantonese, whilst Sho and Riki (who play their parts, as always,
brilliantly) speak Japanese, and a few speak English. People have criticised the
English as being wooden, but I found no problems with it. Also, another person
found the homosexuality themes throughout the film to be offensive; said that
Takashi Miike was anti-homosexual. He may very well be (and not all artists have to
be left-wing), but I can't see this film as an insult to homosexuals. He merely
calls back philosophies of ancient Greece when homo or bisexuality was more common.
The film contains similar proportions of action-packed and poignant moments to DoA
2, although in this film the action is more martial-arts based, and are done in a
very good Hong Kong style. The cinematography in the film is very nice on the eyes,
with symmetrical shots, a good control on colours to give the air a polluted look,
and

Full Test

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Test

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I went and saw this movie last night after being coaxed to by a few friends of

You might also like